Broken Flowers

User Score
5.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 174 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 86 out of 174
  2. Negative: 50 out of 174
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. richardb.
    Aug 20, 2005
    5
    I saw Dead Flowers last night. And yes, Bill Murray does do world weary well. I get it. And the mature actresses do look pretty good for their age, although not compared to the starlets, who look GREAT!! And there are some mildly enjoyable nuances and seemingly evocative moments. But no plot. No murder to be solved. No class struggle. No surprising revelation of something. And no point. I saw Dead Flowers last night. And yes, Bill Murray does do world weary well. I get it. And the mature actresses do look pretty good for their age, although not compared to the starlets, who look GREAT!! And there are some mildly enjoyable nuances and seemingly evocative moments. But no plot. No murder to be solved. No class struggle. No surprising revelation of something. And no point. Instead we get "only black people have happy families". Middle-aged white women are casually sexy,soulless (actually most everyone is soulless) or dog whispering lesbians. And bikers are bad. Wow. All of this would be fine background to a gory zombie movie. Alas, all we get is vague mood and a vague disengaged put down of America? all white people?Ford Tauruses? But on a happier note, since my wife made me see Flowers last night, tonight we're seeing Grizzly Man. Expand
  2. NickN
    Jul 5, 2007
    10
    A clever and meaningful film about a middle aged man reflecting on his life and his future. If you think the movie has no end, you're an idiot and you have no idea what they're trying to say. I can see the criticism that it moves slowly, because some people aren't able to engage without constant fireworks.
  3. ChadS.
    Oct 30, 2005
    8
    Don(Bill Murray) hardly seems to be a racist, but derrogatory terms like "spade" and "raisin" are used, albeit in a different context outside of Winston's hearing range. Don calls his wife "the sweetest grape on the vine," and in naming detectives to Winston's daughter, Sam Spade is evoked. Curious, no, especially in light of the wonderful friendship Don and Winston seem to Don(Bill Murray) hardly seems to be a racist, but derrogatory terms like "spade" and "raisin" are used, albeit in a different context outside of Winston's hearing range. Don calls his wife "the sweetest grape on the vine," and in naming detectives to Winston's daughter, Sam Spade is evoked. Curious, no, especially in light of the wonderful friendship Don and Winston seem to share. It's the film's chief delight. Jarmusch and John Sayles are two white men who often write great characters for African-American performers. Winston's passion towards detective stories seems quirky, but that would be a racist notion, because there would be the assertion that a black man doesn't read. As for the women, my favorite stop, and performance, belongs to Laura, as played by Sharon Stone. Jarmusch cleverly acknowledges the former sexpot is aging and passes on the nudity duties to her daughter/protege, as played by Alexis Dziena. The road trip might've been more fun with Winston(Geoffrey Wright) tagging along, but his presence in the guise of a mix tape is a clever subversion of the buddy movie. "Broken Flowers" is an art film, but it's a lot easier to watch a long take of Murray on a couch than an obscure Thai actor sit in a tree in what seems like eternity(this is in reference to "Tropical Malady"). A long take, people, isn't categorically pretentious. Expand
  4. VivW.
    Jan 8, 2006
    0
    One of the worst movies ever.
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. PatC.
    Mar 27, 2006
    8
    A gem of a movie similar to Lost In Translation, but even more flagrant in its audience exclusion. The story is basically Bill Murray embarking on a journey where he encounters the kind of people who would be clueless to understand this movie. This creates an atmosphere of alienation and loneliness through which Murray perseveres by force of habit. The movie truly is a work of genius, but A gem of a movie similar to Lost In Translation, but even more flagrant in its audience exclusion. The story is basically Bill Murray embarking on a journey where he encounters the kind of people who would be clueless to understand this movie. This creates an atmosphere of alienation and loneliness through which Murray perseveres by force of habit. The movie truly is a work of genius, but with one glaring flaw. Murray needs more facial expressions in his arsenal. OK, I get it, deadpan implies emotions roiling under the surface, but any nominally human father would have cracked a smile at the end of the movie. Given all that preceded it, that would have been awesome. Expand
  8. ShawnB.
    Jan 3, 2007
    4
    Meaningful story but f.cked up acting and script.
  9. vanvera
    Nov 30, 2005
    8
    Slow and good. very good for your soul.
  10. 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.
  11. JonathanZ.
    Oct 3, 2005
    7
    Ever since I saw Lost in Translation (although Rushmore is a close second), I've enjoyed seeing Bill Murray on the silver screen. His ability to play incredibly remote (even glacial) characters with just the right amount of nuanced humor always strikes me as the mark of genius. In this film he plays the part of Don Johnston, an aging and lonely Don Juan. Events are put into motion by Ever since I saw Lost in Translation (although Rushmore is a close second), I've enjoyed seeing Bill Murray on the silver screen. His ability to play incredibly remote (even glacial) characters with just the right amount of nuanced humor always strikes me as the mark of genius. In this film he plays the part of Don Johnston, an aging and lonely Don Juan. Events are put into motion by a mysterious pink letter with no return address telling him he has a son. With the help of his neighbor and MapQuest, he goes off to visit four women he dated 20-odd years ago in hopes one of them will reveal herself to be the mother. I found the combination of mystery and episodic road trip to work particularly well, considering I was expecting an indie film. Sure, the pacing is off at points and the humor is tinder dry, but I didn't really mind that. I don't think anyone will argue against the fact that Murray drives the entire picture. His face is a stoic mask, and every subtle gesture hints at some deeper form of melancholy. BOTTOM LINE: Though short of greatness and a little confusing, this film is definitely an enjoyable change of pace from the mainstream. Expand
  12. jasons.
    Oct 4, 2005
    8
    The pace of this film has so much to do with Don's character. Who hasn't had a period of time in their own life where nothing happens, nothing is felt? Why else do so many people spend billions of dollars at the theater each year? To fill a void? The trip Don takes is the "hero's journey" where we watch tepid Don's metamorphosis into a man engaged with the world and The pace of this film has so much to do with Don's character. Who hasn't had a period of time in their own life where nothing happens, nothing is felt? Why else do so many people spend billions of dollars at the theater each year? To fill a void? The trip Don takes is the "hero's journey" where we watch tepid Don's metamorphosis into a man engaged with the world and the people around him. I praise Jarmusch for steering clear of a Hollywood morality treatment to the film. There's no huge happiness, or "meaning of life" smashed over the viewer's head; just a story about a man who steps up to responsibility. And in this world that's not so minor of a thing. Oh, I laughed a lot, too. Expand
  13. DanB.
    Aug 14, 2005
    6
    Ehh. I dunno. It doesn't build up much steam, its episodes aren't so witty or poignant... and neither is the film. It is amusing though. I just kept imagining Wes Anderson doing it better. And the ending... I think people who like the ending are liking the idea of a vague, non-standard ending, while not realizing the ending as-is is a lukewarm finish to a lukewarm film. If I Ehh. I dunno. It doesn't build up much steam, its episodes aren't so witty or poignant... and neither is the film. It is amusing though. I just kept imagining Wes Anderson doing it better. And the ending... I think people who like the ending are liking the idea of a vague, non-standard ending, while not realizing the ending as-is is a lukewarm finish to a lukewarm film. If I could I'd give it 6.5. Expand
  14. 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
  15. sjb.
    Aug 16, 2005
    9
    Bill murray follows "Lost in Translation" with yet another brilliant under-stated performance.
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. JulieR.
    Aug 23, 2005
    5
    Mediocre at best. Murray has moved way beyond the subtle, introspection of his work in "Lost in Translation" to deadpan, expressionless, non-acting. How did this guy with the personality of a doorhandle attract so many intelligent, quirky women?
  20. MarcK.
    Aug 24, 2005
    5
    Another overrated movie in a horrible year for movies...maybe since movies are so awful this year, critics are jumping on anything that might be remotely interesting. As someone noted below, Murray plays just about the same character as he did in "Lost in Translation." What a stretch. The thing that I did find interesting about the movie that no one (thus far that I read, at least) has Another overrated movie in a horrible year for movies...maybe since movies are so awful this year, critics are jumping on anything that might be remotely interesting. As someone noted below, Murray plays just about the same character as he did in "Lost in Translation." What a stretch. The thing that I did find interesting about the movie that no one (thus far that I read, at least) has talked about is the theme of self-examination of the choices we make in life, and how those choices affect us as we move on in our lives. Expand
  21. 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 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
  22. 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.
  23. GilJ.
    Aug 7, 2005
    4
    Bill Murray has spread himself too thin. Can someone say Samuel L Jackson. Hey Bill, what about Bob?
  24. Mark
    Aug 8, 2005
    10
    By far the best movie of the year. As per usual in his latest movies, Bill Murray turns in a stellar performance, simultaneously hilarious and tragic.
  25. KenG.
    Sep 14, 2005
    6
    Movie is dealing with some meanful themes but the handleing of it felt slight and thin.
  26. DrSuess
    Sep 15, 2005
    10
    Lovely.
  27. DanD
    Sep 19, 2005
    2
    An unsuccessful attempt to pull another Sideways.
  28. MegD
    Sep 2, 2005
    1
    Horrible - a waste of money and time. Very boring with unneccesary nudity.
  29. 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
  30. johnj.
    Sep 3, 2005
    6
    Most of the movie was fine but the Worst ending of any movie ever.
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.