Broken Flowers
User Score
5.9 out of 10

Mixed or average reviews- based on 158 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 90 out of 158
  2. Mixed: 20 out of 158
  3. Negative: 48 out of 158

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  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, 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. ShawnB.
    Jan 3, 2007
    4
    Meaningful story but f.cked up acting and script.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 a time throughout the movie and call it brilliant then you enjoy a different standard of excellence.… Collapse
  7. 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 disappointing.… Expand
  8. 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.
  9. DougR.
    Aug 22, 2005
    4
    A mediocre movie that did not live up to the critics raves. I think they liked the director and actors and wanted to find something nice to say. Even my wife almost fell asleep and she really was looking forward to it from the reviews. How you could walk out and rave about that movie is beyond me.
  10. HowardS.
    Aug 25, 2005
    4
    Very disappointing, especially after reading the glowing reviews! Murray's deadpan expression worked well when he was "Lost in Translation" in Japan, but his comatose personality is boring here. Too much time wasted on camera shots of Murray in his apt and motel rooms; needed better editing! Only life in movie was with Sharon Stone and "Lolita" dgtr. At least, if his current girlfriend did write the letter, it caused Murray to "come to life" a bit! No Oscar nom for this one, Bill!… Expand
  11. 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.
  12. GilJ.
    Aug 7, 2005
    4
    Bill Murray has spread himself too thin. Can someone say Samuel L Jackson. Hey Bill, what about Bob?
  13. DanD
    Sep 19, 2005
    2
    An unsuccessful attempt to pull another Sideways.
  14. MegD
    Sep 2, 2005
    1
    Horrible - a waste of money and time. Very boring with unneccesary nudity.
  15. 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 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
  16. 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?"
  17. Dr.Alano
    Mar 14, 2006
    1
    lame, tired existentialism. great premise wasted. stupid ending. not worth the investment (money or time).
  18. 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!!
  19. JoelP.
    Sep 8, 2007
    1
    Terrible, boring film. This is not entertainment.
  20. MarieM.
    Aug 11, 2005
    4
    It dragged. And the ending was uneventful and disappointing. Murray was good at playing a numb person, but ... there was really no great acting or story to keep one interested.
  21. [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????
  22. MarkG.
    Aug 22, 2005
    4
    Parts of the scenery were interesting making me wonder where the travelouge was taking Murray - a lot of flying to visit place after place that all looked alike. Of course Sharon Stone was good. Perhaps the critics are mailing this one in after the much more interesting 'Lost in Translation.' The ending made me say "That's It??!!" Apparently the message is that white men over a certain age are comotose.… Expand
  23. 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 more in the script that needed more acting than Buster-Kearton deadpan. Another belly flop that has charmed the critics.… Expand
  24. MarkB.
    Aug 24, 2005
    4
    A vaguely well-to-do but endlessly unhappy permanent emotional burnout (Bill Murray) receives two pieces of news that would rock anybody else's world but barely causes a ripple in his: a son he never knew is now a near-adult and may be visiting him soon, and a typewritten, anonymous letter from the boy's mother--any one of several past lovers Murray's had--has just arrived. (The letter is typewritten, but the envelope is hand-printed, and yet he still has no idea who wrote it. I can instantly recognize the handwriting of several people I haven't seen in years or even decades; is Murray's failure to do the same an indication of his total lack of involvement or just a screenwriting glitch?) Cult director/writer Jim Jarmusch chronicles Murray's subsequent, heavily reluctant cross-country odyssey to lean which woman from his past (Sharon Stone, Frances Conroy, Jessica Lange, Tilda Swinton) owns the incriminating typewriter. Jarmusch's last effort, the multi-skit crazy quilt Coffee and Cigarettes was, to me, a smug, unbearably self-indulgent misuse of normally talented actors and intriguing personalities in a film that made me acutely aware that I have a pair of buttocks that can be subject to intensely wrenching pain under the right circumstances, which Coffee and Cigarettes certainly provided. I got into a lot of arguments about this (including on this website!), and since I've normally admired Jarmusch's past efforts (especially Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai and his alternately hilarious and poignant global jaunt Night on Earth) I really wanted to like this one. But I'm afraid Broken Flowers was pretty much more of the same, with no conversation in Jarmuschland existing without a 30-second pause filling in space between every line of dialogue, and lots longer dead spaces when only one person's in the room or on the road. (I mean, I love Marvin Gaye's hit "I Want You" as much as anyone, but I have no desire to hear the whole song while staring at Murray's lump-of-white-Play-Doh-dropped-on-the-floor-next-to-the-radiator-and-left-there-for-a-month puss the entire time it's playing!) Just because both this and the last two films of Alexander Payne, About Schmidt and Sideways, all involve journeys doesn't make comparisons between Jarmusch and Payne fly; Payne, an American Charles Dickens, loads his films with incredibly well-observed detail while Jarmusch fills his with blank spaces and emptiness. Only the amusing sequence involving Jessica Lange (don't call her an animal psychic!), Chloe Sevigny and Ramon the cat brings much life to the archly slow proceedings; Jeremy Wright as Murray's mystery-loving neighbor is so likable that he helps tremendously as well--but the rub here, as poster richard b. astutely indicated, is that with Wright's character Broken Flowers is pushing the facile stereotype that Black people are by definition all happy and uncomplicated while Whites are neurotic and empty-souled. (Donald Bogle calls this the "huckfinn syndrome", and it's subtly racist.) Pauline Kael once wittily described Michaelangelo Antonioni's films as "come dressed as the sick soul of Europe parties"; insert "White America" in place of "Europe" and you've got the essence of Broken Flowers. And, quite frankly, I'm getting awfully tired of watching Murray repeatedly play these lonely, pathetic, emotionally-stunted, ennui-infested closet cases: I treasured his performance in Lost in Translation partially because it represented a CHANGE OF PACE, but whether you're discussing his 1980s Stripes/Ghostbusters period or his current The Life Aquatic/Broken Flowers one, a rut is still a rut. If nothing else, Murray's work here inspired in me a desperate desire to race home, throw my What About Bob? DVD in the machine, and take some delightful baby steps.… Expand
  25. 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.'
  26. 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."
  27. 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 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
  28. MichaelG.
    Sep 16, 2005
    1
    Only one funny chapter (Sharon Stone). Bill Murray is getting tiresome playing a depressed person.
  29. RDawg
    Sep 28, 2005
    4
    Boring, nothing gets accomplished. and I love bill murray, but could you at least try to show emotion??
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. 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, 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
  33. 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, 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
  34. 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.
  35. 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.
  36. 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!!!!
  37. 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?
  38. 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.
  39. 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.
  40. 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 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
  41. 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.
  42. JeffJ.
    Sep 16, 2005
    4
    A man goes on a journey of self-discovery -- a journey which goes around and around to end up nowhere and discover nothing. Slowly. I liked a lot of things about this movie, many moments and scenes are great, but in the end it adds up to nothing. Bill Murray's performance is so ultra-understated that I couldn't engage with his character at all. Why is he doing all this? What does he feel? What has he learned? Who knows? He's so opaque, it's impossible to tell. He is supposed to be this "Don Juan" who apparently has wooed countless beautiful women, but we don't see why. This movie was almost brilliant, but some crucial part is missing which makes the whole thing fall flat. Sorry.… Expand
  43. 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'.
  44. BarbD.
    Apr 11, 2006
    0
    So boring. So senseless. Total waste of time and money.
  45. 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.

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
79 out of 100

Generally favorable reviews - based on 39 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 34 out of 39
  2. Mixed: 5 out of 39
  3. Negative: 0 out of 39
  1. Newsweek
    Reviewed by: David Ansen
    90
    Funny, bittersweet, its understatement yielding surprising depth charges, Broken Flowers is a triumph of close observation and telling details.
    Read full review
  2. Rolling Stone
    Reviewed by: Peter Travers
    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.
    Read full review
  3. The Hollywood Reporter
    Reviewed by: Kirk Honeycutt
    70
    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.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »