I saw it tonight with my wife. I’m a big fan of Jim Jarmusch’s films, and like anyone else I love the hell out of Bill Murray.
I thought the movie was fantastic - Murray continues his newfound tradition of playing the permanently tired, sour-but-affable middle-aged man that he first brought out with Bloom in “Rushmore” and took to the bank with Bob Harris in “Lost in Translation.” I don’t recall Murray smiling once in the film, but this isn’t just sour-faced misery; Murray’s simply taking his classic deadpan into the next stage of life (and his career).
The film’s pace is glacial, even for Jarmusch - it’s a subtle and slow experience that reminded me of Wong Kar Wai’s recent 2046, pacing-wise; there are many shots of Murray sitting, staring, while listening to a record or staring out of the window while driving or flying in a plane. I think that for a movie with Murray as the central character it’s a ballsy move, and one that may polarize and alienate many viewers in the same way that Lost in Translation did.
Which brings me to my next point - this is not a comedy. Sure, there are moments of pure hilarity, like when the aptly-named Lolita walks out of her bedroom buck-naked, but these moments are few and far between, and are juxtaposed with such long stretches of awkardness, boredom, and flat-out sadness, like the beautiful, subtly heartbreaking scene where Murray visits the grave of one of his former paramours that the audience’s laughter always seemed a little too forced, a little too “man, did I need SOMETHING to keep from killing myself, here!”
Complaints - I felt like the character of Winston was a little too “goofied up” to provide cheap comic relief and to set up Murray as the “straight man,” and I think everyone’s going to bitch about the ending - I kind of feel like it was a cop-out, though others seem to see some sort of denounment in that final 360-degree pan around Murray’s face, but those are essentially minor quibbles.
I didn’t have a problem with the ending. I thought it was fine.
But as much as I enjoy Murray’s world-weary face, I could have done with more dialogue and less staring at deadpan Murray. And yeah, whenever something happened that gave me a bit of a chuckle, it was indeed welcome relief.
Favorite part of the movie: when Murray dines with his redhaired ex who is now a realtor living with realtor-hubby in a McMansion. (Kudos to whoever did their location scouting, every setting was well-chosen, especially that one.)
Anyway, when they have that dinner, the regret and the what-might-have-been is tangible.
I agree, though I do think that it really fit the Don Johnston character - Jarmusch seemed to want to drive home just how broken down he was.
Though it does seem that lately, directors just seem to want that Murray deadpan and nothing else. This is like the fourth or fifth movie in a row where Murray’s character exists solely to frown.
And what’s with putting Murray in “kooky” or inappropriate clothing, as though that automatically equals ironic hilarity? It’s kind of starting to piss me off…Murray in retro adidas tracksuit, Murray in speedo, Murray in this and that…I’m half-convinced that the next Wes Anderson or Spike Jonze film is just going to be two hours of Bill Murray in a Kangol Hat, frowning at the camera.
I just saw it last night, and I didn’t think the ending was a cop out at all. I liked the fact that we never see him meet his (alleged) son, and that he wil always have that uncertainty. Because of this uncertainty, the “philosophical advice” he gave to the sandwich-kid would be good advice for himself.
I think it’s quite likely that the sandwich-kid was the alleged son; the movie never rules that out. The thing is, even if the kid was Johnston’s son, he had absolutely no reason to believe that Johnston was his father before Johnston busted out with, “I know you probably think I’m your father or something.” Even if I was a quest to find my dad, I’d freak too if some random guy bought me a sandwich and then said that out of the blue. Much more likely (in the kid’s mind) that Johnston is creepy and crazy.
The kid in the car that drives by at the end was actually played by Homer Murray, Bill Murray’s real-life son. I guess the implication is that that’s the real son.
I got the idea that from now on, every time Don sees a boy around the right age - he will wonder if it is his son, or he will wish it were. Definitely got the idea with the kids/happy family next door that Don would kind of like that for himself. For the record, I don’t believe sandwich kid was his son, I saw it as Don’s longing/hoping for the letter to be true
That’s what bugged me too. I won’t spoiler this because it concerns the premise and I’m not giving away anything that isn’t in the trailers and reviews, but why did he have to go around the country playing detective? Why couldn’t he just call each woman up and ask each one if they sent the letter? He could have at least asked them in person. It just didn’t seem to make any sense that he wouldn’t tell any of them what he wanted or simply come right out about the letter. The whole road trip seemed poinless and contrived.
This was also yet another movie where it’s supposed to be fascinating to watch Bill Murray sit around observing expressionlessly while around him absolutely nothing is happening. I felt the same way about Lost in Translation. I seem to be missing what other people are getting.
Another minor thing that didn’t make sense about Broken Flowers:
[spoiler]The scene where one of the women’s husbands shows him a picture of the woman as a “hippie chick” from the 60’s. Murray says, “I took that picture, didn’t i?” and the woman nods.
But Murray is looking for the mother of a son who was supposed to be 19 and would have been conceived in the mid 80’s. So why would he have taken a picture of her in the 60’s if he knew her in the 80’s. Could no one on this film figure out what year it was 20 years ago?
Here’s what’s right with the film:
Naked Alexis Dziena…a highly spankable scene, I must say.
I loved the ending, almost as much as I loved the murmurs of surprise from fellow moviegoers who apparently had no idea what to expect from Jim Jarmusch.
For myself the ending
represented a true epiphany for the Murray character. I don’t want to give everything away, even in a spoiler, but the keys to me were not the pan shot but the action that occured right before (contrast to Murrays actions/demeanor during the “road trip” portion of his quest. In essence, I thought the main act of the movie represented an exploration of the question his girlfriend asks him when she leaves, and the final scene is his realization that he knows the answer.
Diogenes
As someone who went to college in the 80’s, I can promise you that some young women dressed like that throughout the Reagan era (bless them all).
After “The Life Aquatic,” I was willing to believe that Bill Murray had become Sean Connery in “Zardoz.” If it will make me a buck, roll cameras.
This just blew me away. Yeah, the clothing thing got me. But the rest, showing that so much of life has no pat answer that I can forgive a lot.
[spoiler]Were we to believe that the animal communicator and her receptionist were in a relationship? I don’t get the returning the flowers otherwise. [\spoiler]
