[Mikel_Cooperman]

Went to see this with several friends over the weekend after all the good reviews. Though Murray and the supporting cast does a good job, we left with an empty feeling. The question of the movie is never resolved and you leave wondering why have all these characters. All these situations and then not have it amount to a single thing.
I'd like to know if people who have seen it feel the same way we do.

[Michael Reuben]

No, quite the opposite. It's hard to explain why without spoilers.

Spoiler:

By "question of the movie", I assume you're referring to whether or not Don has a son and, if so, by whom. But to me that's a McGuffin. The real question is, what does Don have to show for his life and what does he do with the rest of it? The film doesn't take the sentimental route of providing an answer. Instead it lets you follow Don on the quest -- and trite but true, the quest is always more interesting.

In many ways, the film has the same arc as The Life Aquatic, but Jarmusch's minimalism strips away all the whimsy and decoration that Anderson can't resist (and which I enjoy, BTW). Don is the latest (and I think the best) of Bill Murray's portrayals of an older man looking back over his life and dejected by how little it seems to have amounted to. I bet that, if you counted Murray's lines in the film, there wouldn't be many. He conveys so much through tiny gestures (his visits to his neighbors' home are priceless) that words are almost unnecessary.

But I suspect your reaction won't be unusual. Especially if someone is expecting a Bill Murray comedy (even one as mild as Life Aqautic), the film's elegiac tone will be a disappointment. (Not that there aren't laughs, but they're more like counterpoint to the principal mood.) The film may have made the cover of Entertainment Weekly, but I never for a moment thought that Jarmusch would make a crowd-pleaser, and he hasn't.

In case it's not already clear, I loved it -- and that's coming from someone who isn't a big Jarmusch fan.

M.

[Mikel_Cooperman]

I didn't really need it all spelled out or a sentimental ending just a resolution of some kind.

[Michael Reuben]

Well, there is a theory proposed. And it's a plausible one, especially since:

Spoiler:

None of the four women fits the description in the letter. So either it's a hoax, or Don forgot someone. Since it's hard to believe that someone from Don's past would resurface with such a huge revelation but leave out all the crucial identifying information, the hoax explanation is pretty appealing, and the film starts with a good candidate in Don's latest breakup.

I'd say the real resolution lies elsewhere:

Spoiler:

Don ends up back home next door to Winston and his wife and kids. They're the closest thing he has to a family, and they're great people who clearly care for him.

M.

[Kain_C]

I'm not a Jarmusch fan at all. And this film doesn't sound like it would appeal to me, especially with this no resolution stuff. I hate that sometimes.

[Brent Hutto]

I'm avoiding spoilers but am I getting the drift of the discussion here being if we hated The Life Aquatic (tedious, dull, repetitive, depressing) we might not enjoy Broken Flowers? I've never seen a Jim Jarmusch movie and frankly they've never appealed much. I'd be going as much for Bill Murray as any other reason. FWIW, we love love loved Lost in Translation.

[Michael Reuben]

Quote:

FWIW, we love love loved Lost in Translation.

Which I disliked. A lot. Go figure.

I think that Life Aquatic, Broken Flowers and Lost in Translation have numerous common themes, but they're very different experiences as films. Broken Flowers does move at a leisurely pace, but that shouldn't be a problem for anyone who enjoyed Lost in Translation.

But as with all non-mainstream cinema, YMMV. There's a reason why films like these don't open on three thousand screens.

M.

[Brent Hutto]

Yep, it hasn't opened yet on a screen within 100 miles of us but that's par for the course. I suspect we'll give it a shot when it shows up here in a couple months. It will no doubt beat getting desperate enough to go see Must Love Dogs or the like. Once a month or so it seems we just have to go to the multiplex on a night when the home theater doesn't cut it. It's surprisingly hard to find a movie worth 20 bucks or more.

[Michael Reuben]

Quote:

It's surprisingly hard to find a movie worth 20 bucks or more.

I know the feeling, and this comes from someone who lives in a town that doesn't lack for options. I went to Broken Flowers on the theory that any movie with the following cast was likely to have at least something I'd like:

Bill Murray
Jeffrey Wright
Tilda Swinton
Jessica Lange
Frances Conroy
Sharon Stone (trust me; it's perfect casting)

M.

[Mikel_Cooperman]

Quote:

I went to Broken Flowers on the theory that any movie with the following cast was likely to have at least something I'd like:

They were all great but not enough for me to recommend it and all of the supporting characters are on screen about 10 minutes each.

[Michael Reuben]

Quote:

all of the supporting characters are on screen about 10 minutes each

Because the film is about Murray's character, and he's in every scene. The rest of the cast gives him a series of things to react to, and you need actors who can make a vivid impression with minimal screen time.

Quote:

not enough for me to recommend it

Yeah, I got that.

M.