Save yourself the time

[deleted]

This honestly was bad, i was Bored tears, I can barely even remember this. It was just tedious, with long takes that lead no where, if they were even trying to take us to a place.

Some of the dialogue was interesting, and it was a film that didn't give many answers and left you wondering what was next, but it was also just pretentious and bill Murray was obviously just trying to nab another nomination. NEXT!

I don't get the love of this movie either. It was Bill Murray driving around the countryside endlessly, listening to music, to some people that's pure genius, I guess. It was actually worse than Lost In Translation, as if that were possible.

I agree it's not a good movie. But I disagree that Murray was forced to do it. This is the sort of movie that Murray likes to do.....walking around, looking sullen, not saying much. Like Lost in Translation.

I agree! Murray never showed even nuanced emotion, as George Clooney did so well in Michael Clayton. Hey, now that I think about it, this would be so much more plausible with Clooney. What was it about Don Johnston that drove the ladies wild? I've read other reviews where it is asserted that it is up do the audience to draw their own conclusions. No! If I want a movie, I at least want a hint at how things turned out. Inception is a good example of a movie that was somewhat ambiguous, but it was done so in a provocative manner. Not enough meat on the bone in this movie. Complete waste of time, and I'm a massive Bill Murray fan. I even named my dog Murray. Seriously, I did!

[deleted]

This was a great film, about the failure to find resolution in life, and the refusal of both life and in this case cinema to offer us the resolution we so desperately seek. It was a bold move on Jarmusch's part to deny us that resolution, knowing full well that so many would react to it as most the viewers on this thread have. I respect it very much. I don't share any of the complaints here. No nuanced emotions? It's a Jim Jarmusch film. He's known as the master of deadpan, so yeah, I wouldn't expect a great deal of emotion. And for anyone who's had to sit through the typical Hollywood tripe that comes out, with its overwrought emotions, its histrionics and gesticulations, Jarmusch's film should be a welcome change of tone. There's a word for it. "Subtlety". It's actually generally considered a virtue in filmmaking circles. But most viewers don't see it that way. They want explosions, car chases, clumsy drama, conventional action, and everything else that you would think would have started boring audiences about five decades ago. As for the film being boring, I guess that all depends on your perspective. If you instinctively refuse to look beneath the surface for meaning, for texture, for substance, then sure, Jarmusch's flatline style of filmmaking will be boring. It all depends on how much work you want to do. I've heard the argument that a good film shouldn't require work, and I can't imagine any sillier idea than that. Cinema is no different from life -- you get out what you put in. Like it or not, the most rewarding films require work. Of course, once you've done the work a few times, and your mind learns to see beneath the surface instinctively, it ceases to be work, and you begin to experience those layers of the text naturally, without effort. Anyone making a point look at anything more than the surface of this film would see instantly the rich depth of material that lies beneath it, and the fact that "nuanced" is actually the perfect word to describe "Broken Flowers". Subtle, nuanced, and paced to please those who aren't opposed to a meditative, contemplative mood anchoring a film. On the other hand, if you need criminals breaking into a bipolar man's house and murdering him through intravenous injection of drugs, if you need a crazed man screaming raging insanities, if you need guns and intrigue and the threat of death around every corner, then you should probably stick to "Michael Clayton". It's not a bad film by any means. It just has no concept of subtlety. Jarmusch does. But if any film that doesn't have some element of conventional action pervading every single moment of the picture is going to leave you bored, then you're probably best off leaving filmmakers like Jarmusch to the rest of us. Or, better yet, you could try learning to see things a different way, and acquiring new perspectives. You could begin searching for subtextual layers in films -- a practice that will inevitably lead to the appreciation of a film like "Broken Flowers" -- and learning to be entertained by something more than what's happening on the surface of a film. I promise you, it's worth it once you get there. For the record, I don't think Jarmusch is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and I don't think "Broken Flowers" is a masterpiece. But I do think Jarmusch is a very strong filmmaker, and I do think "Broken Flowers" is a very strong film. At the beginning of the film, Jeffrey Wright gives us a little speech about the structure of narratives, and this was Jarmusch's warning to the viewer as to exactly what kind of film this was going to be (or, rather, exactly what type of film it was not going to be). "Broken Flowers" experiments with narrative structure by offering an episodic, almost anthological (like so many of Jarmusch's other films -- "Mystery Train", "Night on Earth", "Coffee and Cigarettes") approach to a narrative that is almost as fractured as Billy Murray's character's spirit. Jarmusch is playing with the audience's inevitable expectation that, eventually, the pieces will be put together and the mystery will be solved. After all, we have been taught to see cinema this way -- as a process of resolution. The essence of "Broken Flowers", as is evident in the title and the aforementioned dialogue early in the film, is to play with the filmic medium by refusing the audience this resolution. He presents us with a mystery, knowing we'll spend an hour and a half waiting for that mystery to be solved, and then he cleverly, subtlety, and effectively shuts us down in the middle of our search for meaning. This is real life! Why should cinema be any different? We don't get conventional cinematic resolution in life. We are almost always denied it. Kudos to Jarmusch for having the audacity to deny it in his film. Very few filmmakers are willing to do something like that, for the simple reason that, commercially speaking, it is counterproductive. There are so many viewers out there like the ones all over these discussion boards who have been brainwashed by a lifetime of cinema that offers resolution like candy to a baby, so much so that their mind instantly rejects any film that forces them to find their own resolution. Add to this the slow, deliberate pace of a film that has absolutely no regard for conventional action or traditional entertainment value, and it's completely inevitable that so many people are going to dislike it. That, however, does not change the fact that it is a very well-done, high quality work of cinema, whether the plot and action addicts of the world can see it or not. I highly recommend, to anyone who found themselves unable to appreciate Jarmusch's film, reading Robert Bresson's "Notes on the Cinematographer". Bresson, of course, completely disregarded performance and almost every conventional aspect of cinema as we know it. He was also a master, and a genuine filmic artist. In his book, Bresson talks about things that are very relevant to Jarmusch's film, and any other film that disregards conventional aspects of the cinematic medium. The complaints about the protagonist (Murray's character) being emotionally flat and unexpressive are way off base. He was emotionally flat and unexpressive, absolutely, but this is one of the film's greatest strengths, not a weakness. Bresson knew better than anyone else the power of minimalism. By doing less, you give the viewer's imagination room to do more. I don't know how anyone can be entertained by the usual tripe that Hollywood releases, simply because everything is already done for you. All the work is already done. There's no room left for your imagination to do its thing, for your mind to find its own resolution, to make its own meaning. The most profound cinematic experiences come from that journey. I have no interest in a film that denies the viewer such a journey -- the journey to find his own meaning -- and I will always have immense interest in any film that encourages such a journey, which "Broken Flowers" certainly does. Anyone who knows cinema at all knows that Jim Jarmusch is an experienced filmmaker who clearly knows what he's doing, so if you find yourself bored during a film of his, maybe it's time to dig a little deeper. The idea that "Broken Flowers" is boring, because, as so many have said of the film, "nothing happens", could not possibly be more false. There is so much happening in "Broken Flowers". The only catch is, it's happening beneath the surface. If you're not accustomed to looking there, then yes, you're going to be bored by Jarmusch's film. So start looking there. The rewards of what you find there are much richer than anything you'll find in a film that satisfies on a superficial level. The emotional inexpressiveness of Murray's character leaves us to contemplate what he is thinking, what he is feeling, what he is experiencing. We have to make our own meaning, because Jarmusch doesn't throw one in our faces the way so many other movies like to do. He leaves the movie completely open-ended when the credits roll, and as a result -- because we have been provided with no resolution -- we are forced to find our own resolution. This experience is infinitely more valuable than the shallow entertainment you find elsewhere in American cinema. But if you instantly turn yourself to a film because of a perceived lack of superficial action, then you're denying yourself that experience, which is a shame. There is a reason so many people like this film. Believe it or not, they're not all crazy. They're simply seeing something that you don't see. And that's okay. It's only natural for us all to have different perspectives on different films. It shouldn't be any other way. But when you find yourself having a negative response to a film than many others have responded positively to, you should always make the effort to see what they've seen. Something is obviously there, or the film wouldn't be so highly regarded. Clearly something is there. You just have to make an effort to see it. And the overwhelming vibe that one gets reading the posts about this film is that most people who didn't like it never even made that effort. They saw the lack of superficial action, and they wrote off the film instantly. End of story. That's a shame. But then to hop online and start talking about how terrible the film is and suggesting that those who liked it must somehow be completely off their rocker, et cetera -- that's just ignorant. "Broken Flowers" is a very good film, as many have seen. If you didn't feel that way, then that's an opinion you're obviously completely entitled to, but I have to say, so far the criticism I've read about this film is, almost without exception, entirely invalid. Criticizing "Broken Flowers" for the fact that "nothing happens" or that Bill Murray's character is completely emotionally flat, et cetera, would be like criticizing Fellini's work for being overly oneiric, or criticizing Buñuel's films for being too surreal. That's what it sounds like to an experienced filmgoer when you criticize "Broken Flowers" for its lack of action or the inexpressiveness of its protagonist. You're criticizing the film by listing its greatest strengths. People say they think the film is awful, and generally, as with most unfounded opinions, they don't even proceed to explain why they felt that way. In the instances where the film's detractor does actually make an attempt to explain the reasoning behind his opinion of the film, he often goes on to list some of the film's strongest assets as if they were somehow weaknesses, flaws, or shortcomings in the film. The emotionally flat nature of Murray's character, and the lack of conventional action in the film -- these are the very things that make the film great. They leave the narrative open to subjective interpretation and allow the viewer to find his own meaning in the film. I wouldn't be very interested in a film that didn't at least offer that much. But today's viewers, it seems, want everything spelled out for them, and they want it all to happen right there on the surface where they can see it in broad daylight, and where there is no room for ambiguity or subjective interpretation. That kind of film offers so very little. It's discouraging that people actually seek out that type of film, and then criticize the films that transcend the petty limitations of that type of film. It's so backwards. "Broken Flowers" is about the lack of resolution offered by life, which here is reflected as a lack of resolution offered in cinema. The French New Wave directors, back to the Italian neorealists, back to the French poetic realists -- they all believed in a cinema that's supposed to echo reality. In reality, we generally get no such resolution. So why do we so often get it in cinema? Because it sells, because it's what people want. They want resolution. And most films give it to them. These insignificant, inconsequential films that are released these days give their audience exactly what they want. In "Broken Flowers" we have a film that is bold enough to say no, to refuse us what so many other films allow us. And in doing so -- in leaving his film unresolved -- he gives it an amazing potency. Since the film never really ends on the screen, it must continue in our minds -- that is, if we care about the film enough to let it continue there. Many people here obviously didn't, I suppose because the film lacked the conventional entertainment value that so many years of Hollywood rubbish has made them accustomed to. Otherwise, refusing the audience resolution is one of the strongest tools a filmmaker has (some great examples: "3 Women" by Altman, "Picnic at Hanging Rock" by Weir, "L'avventura" by Antonioni, "Blow-Up" by Antonioni, "Taste of Cherry" by Kiarostami, "The Wind Will Carry Us" by Kiarostami, "Fellini - Satyricon" by Fellini, "Fellini's Roma" by Fellini, "The Devil, Probably" by Bresson, and so many others), and Jarmusch uses that tool wonderfully in "Broken Flowers". When the film isn't resolved on screen, we have to resolve it in our minds. This is an infinitely higher function of cinema than the shallow, superficial entertainment that many of the posters here want from a film, and criticize a film when it fails to deliver that entertainment. There's so much more to cinema than entertainment. I hope one day more people will learn to see that. Unfortunately, I have my doubts.

Wrote a gah damn novel!! Longest Imdb post ever goes to...