User Score
5.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 172 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 50 out of 172
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. VivW.
    Jan 8, 2006
    0
    One of the worst movies ever.
  2. Mr.MovieGuy
    Sep 15, 2005
    3
    An immensely self-important bit of flotsam, where a stagnant camera and a sonambulant actor are passed off as "art." Tossing off everything film makers have learned over the past century about plot, pacing and character development does not make a film "important" or, in this case, even barely watchable. If I didn't know any better, I'd say this was made on a very tight budget, An immensely self-important bit of flotsam, where a stagnant camera and a sonambulant actor are passed off as "art." Tossing off everything film makers have learned over the past century about plot, pacing and character development does not make a film "important" or, in this case, even barely watchable. If I didn't know any better, I'd say this was made on a very tight budget, which only allowed the director to use a couple of locations...so he decided to just use up screen time watching the ticks and stares of Bill Murray. By the way, is it just me, or do all the roads and airports look the same, despite the fact that we assume (exposition is so last-century...) that Murray is flying around the country. I fear that Murray has entered his Woody Allen, "comedy is beneath me" phase...but I want the old Murray back...and I think most fans do to. Or is it that he's just lazy, and picks his roles based on how little dialogue they entail? All in all, a squirm-in-your-seat, check-your-watch, is-it-over-yet film that even the New Wave directors would have found just flat-out boring! Expand
  3. kathleen
    Sep 4, 2005
    1
    Slow down? Slow down? you'd have to slip into a persistent vegetative state to appreciate the pace of this film. i want my money back. i want my time back. i want bill murray to get over himself and just accept the fact that he's a fabulous comedic actor. i'm really sorry that that doesn't do it for him, but don't take it out on me.
  4. ElaineM.
    Oct 15, 2005
    3
    A major disappointment, particularly after seeing Murray in the spectacular Lost in Translation. The fault lies not with the actors though, but with the writing. Talk about cliches.
  5. MarkB
    Aug 14, 2005
    2
    So diappointing. I really liked Murray in Lost in Translation and wanted to enjoy this movie. The movie just failed. It failed to be humorous on a consistent basis and failed to tell a comprehensive story. The critics seem to guilty of the Woody Allen syndrom in that we all like Murray so anything he does must be good. Not here unfortunatlaly. If you can stand silent stares for minutes at So diappointing. I really liked Murray in Lost in Translation and wanted to enjoy this movie. The movie just failed. It failed to be humorous on a consistent basis and failed to tell a comprehensive story. The critics seem to guilty of the Woody Allen syndrom in that we all like Murray so anything he does must be good. Not here unfortunatlaly. If you can stand silent stares for minutes at a time throughout the movie and call it brilliant then you enjoy a different standard of excellence. Expand
  6. MarshaW.
    Aug 19, 2005
    3
    This film really drags. It is very very slow, dreary, and usually shot in dark settings. The actresses whose presences promise to revive it aren't enough. None of the characters was particularly interesting. Bill Murray continues the same acting as in "Lost in Translation"--a poker face, with one slight smile. It was as though he had been transposed from one set to the other. Really This film really drags. It is very very slow, dreary, and usually shot in dark settings. The actresses whose presences promise to revive it aren't enough. None of the characters was particularly interesting. Bill Murray continues the same acting as in "Lost in Translation"--a poker face, with one slight smile. It was as though he had been transposed from one set to the other. Really disappointing. Expand
  7. MikeK.
    Aug 20, 2005
    2
    After reading glowing reviews this film was a gigantic disappointment. You can have a deadpan actor but you then need an interesting plot. Think "About Schmidt". It deserves at least a 2 because it was nice to see some great actresses work. The best part was Murray getting punched, I felt like doing it myself.
  8. GeoffJ
    Aug 20, 2005
    3
    OK, I tried really hard to "get" this movie, and I failed. But a rating of 80? Please. The reviewers snookered me on this one.
  9. DanD
    Sep 19, 2005
    2
    An unsuccessful attempt to pull another Sideways.
  10. MegD
    Sep 2, 2005
    1
    Horrible - a waste of money and time. Very boring with unneccesary nudity.
  11. George
    Sep 23, 2005
    2
    I agree with Michael G.: Murry "masters" the same unemotional bump on a log that he's played in his 5 previous roles, and the bit is old. This business of "no actor is better that Bill Murry at doing noting at all, and being fascinating while not doing it" (Ebert) is amazing to me. When one's "fascinating" while doing nothing, and is then praised for it, I think someone should I agree with Michael G.: Murry "masters" the same unemotional bump on a log that he's played in his 5 previous roles, and the bit is old. This business of "no actor is better that Bill Murry at doing noting at all, and being fascinating while not doing it" (Ebert) is amazing to me. When one's "fascinating" while doing nothing, and is then praised for it, I think someone should point out what that really means:you are lazy and you lack range. If doing nothing is what is now considered acting, sign me up. I can do nothing with the best of them. Expand
  12. StephenJ
    Jan 12, 2006
    0
    I wish I could give this a negative score. Very disappointing and a waste of time. At the end, you will wonder "What were they thinking?"
  13. Dr.Alano
    Mar 14, 2006
    1
    lame, tired existentialism. great premise wasted. stupid ending. not worth the investment (money or time).
  14. John
    Aug 7, 2006
    1
    You`ve got to be kidding!! This is Hindemith to Mozart. Intellectual masturbation. A downright stupid film attempt. Pink--more like a pink slip!!
  15. JoelP.
    Sep 8, 2007
    1
    Terrible, boring film. This is not entertainment.
  16. [Anonymous]
    Aug 21, 2005
    2
    Remember the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes?" The critics are way off on this slow moving pointless story. Bill Murray's performance is catatonic, not nuanced. I think that the reviewers believed that they had to give this movie a rave review. Why????
  17. MovieMike
    Aug 22, 2005
    3
    Lost In Pretension. Director Jarmusch wrote this for film for Bill Murray and it is perfect for both of them. Neither have much to say. Too unclear in their own minds about a competent ending they edited the movie into an inkplot test with the message to the viewer, "Here you figure out what I wanted to say." Perhaps Murray was exactly the wrong choice for this role. Perhaps their was Lost In Pretension. Director Jarmusch wrote this for film for Bill Murray and it is perfect for both of them. Neither have much to say. Too unclear in their own minds about a competent ending they edited the movie into an inkplot test with the message to the viewer, "Here you figure out what I wanted to say." Perhaps Murray was exactly the wrong choice for this role. Perhaps their was more in the script that needed more acting than Buster-Kearton deadpan. Another belly flop that has charmed the critics. Expand
  18. SuzyW.
    Aug 27, 2005
    2
    Narcissistic movie with irritating plot frequently repeated by middle-aged auteurs: a man on a journey to discover himself that requires him to encounter simultaneously threatening and alluring women who have no real personalities. Thin on dialogue. Can't believe the mainstream reviewers are taken in by this as 'art.'
  19. SyK.
    Aug 30, 2005
    2
    Banality masquerading as the wistful and poetic. The major critics follow one another like sheep. Does anyone remember "Last Year at Marianband"? Pretentious and banal, the critics fell over themselves to praise it. Then it disappeared into oblivioun. Expect a similar fate for "Broken Flowers."
  20. JayneR.
    Sep 15, 2005
    1
    I thought it was an obvious and very boring attempt at "hollywood cool" that most of us regular folk can't relate to even though we gave it a shot. The ending left me wanting my admission price of 8 bucks right back in my billfold. I refuse to spend one more dollar on Bill Murray's dead pan, it's boring now. I loved him and now he depresses me. I will not pay to be I thought it was an obvious and very boring attempt at "hollywood cool" that most of us regular folk can't relate to even though we gave it a shot. The ending left me wanting my admission price of 8 bucks right back in my billfold. I refuse to spend one more dollar on Bill Murray's dead pan, it's boring now. I loved him and now he depresses me. I will not pay to be depressed, I can turn the news on for that, thank you. My group began to attempt to make sense out of it all by philosophizing some kind of understanding to justify the 100 or so minutes we clung to each scene trying to derive meaning out of "pink things" and other subtle inuendos. To no avail, it just stunk and that's that. Expand
  21. MichaelG.
    Sep 16, 2005
    1
    Only one funny chapter (Sharon Stone). Bill Murray is getting tiresome playing a depressed person.
  22. AnneM.
    Sep 3, 2005
    2
    The emperor has no clothes! This movie was absolutlely NOTHING wrapped up in the pretentions of 'artsy', 'indie', ' minimal'. Well, it's definitely minimal.
  23. AlejandroR.
    Sep 4, 2005
    0
    This movie is astoundingly awful. Don't waste your time. What is wrong with these critics who write such glowing reviews? There's nothing here that's original, humane, or even witty. I haven't felt this angry after seeing a movie since "Very Bad Things" - nuff said.
  24. Yinkotsu
    Jan 22, 2006
    3
    Seriously, the humour in this movie was SCARCE. Also, incredibaly slow. ''Whoopdeedoo, what an awesome film, lets all watch some guy being zoomed in on while he's on an airplane, slouching.'' Five minutes later, then pops on the Travel Music. Kinda catchy, but it really started to PEEVE me off after it's repeats. The only funny part was with Sharon Stone. Oh, Seriously, the humour in this movie was SCARCE. Also, incredibaly slow. ''Whoopdeedoo, what an awesome film, lets all watch some guy being zoomed in on while he's on an airplane, slouching.'' Five minutes later, then pops on the Travel Music. Kinda catchy, but it really started to PEEVE me off after it's repeats. The only funny part was with Sharon Stone. Oh, and an absolutely WONDERFUL (Sarcasm!) Ending. But I guess it kind of does fit. Then, afterwards when the screen turned balck, I said to myself : "It better not be the end, or I might have to strangle myself with my hair." Well, what d'you know? Here comes the credits. This film was pointless. Expand
  25. RichardR.
    Feb 16, 2006
    2
    Funny? This bowl of bilge? Yo, Bill Murray was the funniest SNL guy by far, and he did some real funny movies afterward. But here he's just depressed and dull, with a real down soundtrack to boot. This should have been called Dead Man Just Barely Walking, Just Barely Managing a Pulse. I love Jim Jarmusch's movies, too, but this seemed like it was shot in a 9 square mile area, Funny? This bowl of bilge? Yo, Bill Murray was the funniest SNL guy by far, and he did some real funny movies afterward. But here he's just depressed and dull, with a real down soundtrack to boot. This should have been called Dead Man Just Barely Walking, Just Barely Managing a Pulse. I love Jim Jarmusch's movies, too, but this seemed like it was shot in a 9 square mile area, with the same boring freakin' landscape in every scene. And top it off with almost everyone's at home when this dork knocks! What are those chances, my Jimmy the Greek! OK, I'll admit seeing Jessica Lange (sooo hot! yet sooo cool!) was worth the whole movie, but man oh man, let's put this guy in a comedy next time! Expand
  26. Joe
    Feb 27, 2006
    2
    When is Bill Murray going to break out of his catotonic state? What a bore and what a lousy ending.
  27. MikeC.
    Feb 7, 2006
    3
    it really is quite unconvincing. it could have been great it someone just had spent longer then 8 hours writing the script.
  28. CherylR.
    Mar 13, 2007
    0
    What a total waste of 2 hours! I am highly unimpressed over wasting my time watching a movie that has no end!!!!
  29. NigelP.
    Nov 28, 2005
    3
    Difficult one, as my wife loved it but I hated it. Far too slow and pointless for me. I kept asking why? His girlfriend walks out on him, why? A young girl walks into the room stark naked, why? It ends up inconclusive, why? Why the hek did I watch it?
  30. MarkP.
    Aug 15, 2005
    3
    Generally favorable reviews led me astray on this one. Bill Murray wears his now omnipresent deadpan expression throughout and the plot is very thin- frankly its a tedious, empty film.
  31. GregG
    Aug 24, 2005
    0
    Where is a flashlight when I need one? My wife and I wanted to play gin rummy! Come on, Bill! This is beyond subtle. This is beyond deadpan. This is beyond the beyond! Don't waste your money.
  32. MikeM
    Aug 24, 2005
    3
    If you read the good reviews of the critics, all of them say nothing, just like this film. At the end of this film you could hear guffaws from the audience not believing what a lazy farce this is. "Minimalism" might work well in your living room but it's boring for over 100 minutes. Loads of characters but no insight into any of them. What was the point of this film? What is so funny If you read the good reviews of the critics, all of them say nothing, just like this film. At the end of this film you could hear guffaws from the audience not believing what a lazy farce this is. "Minimalism" might work well in your living room but it's boring for over 100 minutes. Loads of characters but no insight into any of them. What was the point of this film? What is so funny is reading Tanya's review here -- if the main character couldn't care less about his past... why should we? We won't especially when the main character isn't particularly likeable and is as sullen and lifeless as a rotted log floating in the river. Expand
  33. RonW.
    Aug 27, 2005
    1
    Nothing happens, then nothing happens, then Alexis Dziena appears fully nude, then nothing happens, then nothing happens, then it ends. Huh? Sorry, Bill, this one really IS lost in translation.
  34. TimK.
    Feb 16, 2006
    1
    Another movie hyped by the paid critics. They should call this 'Lost In Translation 2' or 'Lost In America'. The movie was joyless, dragged on like pulling a sliver and had an ending that made me want to scream. Save 106 minutes of your life and stay clear of this 'movie'.
  35. BarbD.
    Apr 11, 2006
    0
    So boring. So senseless. Total waste of time and money.
  36. LowCompanion
    Aug 26, 2006
    3
    This mighty be the most overpraised movie of the last 5 years. IIt's wafer-thin, oppressively slow, condescending. The non-hipster-identification-symbol-characters are all small, sad & mean-spiritedly written. It as if this was crafted by a college kid with sleep apnea. If this thing didn't have Bill Murray, it might completely worthless.
  37. Mar 9, 2014
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If you want a movie with no plot progression, setting, or acting this is a movie for you.
    If you ever wanted to watch Bill Murray sit on the couch silently for minutes at a time, you my friend are in for a treat.
    If you want to accentuate the monotony of life by watching a movie where nothing happens, and nobody goes anywhere and like life has no conclusions stop right here you found the one.
    If you want a movie that actually entertains then stop reading this and go find any other movie.
    Expand
Metascore
79

Generally favorable reviews - based on 39 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 34 out of 39
  2. Negative: 0 out of 39
  1. Reviewed by: David Ansen
    90
    Funny, bittersweet, its understatement yielding surprising depth charges, Broken Flowers is a triumph of close observation and telling details.
  2. 88
    Broken Flowers may be too low-key for laugh junkies, but Jarmusch fills his sharply observed comedy with wonderful mischief. The mix of humor and heartbreak brings out the best in Murray.
  3. It skips merrily along the surface with its over-the-top vignettes but never seems to arrive at a destination. Nevertheless, the journey is more than half the fun as every actor attacks his role with relish.