no. It didn't after I saw it. It had a pacing and editting that was a bit rough. I would have preffered a few less vignettes and just lengthen the other ones. Like Night on earth, that stuck with 5. That was a good number. But before I saw the movie, I'd seen a trend of slowly growing box office numbers. I believe Dead Man only made 2 million, compared to Ghost Dogs 3.5. And then I knew from where I worked how massive the rental world is for his films. They were very popular. I heard a bit of buzz about C&C and was sure from all those factors it would make 5 or 6 million. Of course I was too young to remember if there was any buzz about any of his other movies before Ghost Dog, so I guess I didn't know thats the typical buzz for a 3 million b.o.

But I'm definately hearing much more buzz now. People have sort of included this film in all their early awards predictions (not just for actor, but director, film, script, etc) so they're not talking about it anymore as though it was some under-the-radar indie. And of course, even the reviewers have said its more mainstream than his usual stuff. So yes, now I can tell there's a difference between this and C&C going into its opening. It'll still depend on if its any good how long it holds though. But it is going to maybe make more in its opening weekend than it has for most of the other movies' whole runs. Or, well with only 25 theatres possible not, but it will still be very impressive. Maybe a million? Is that possible on 25 theatres?

I'm very positive and interested in 'Broken Flowers'. In most cases I 'sense' when an indie film will breakout. This one will gross at least 10 million in the U.S.

It's only because Jarmusch has produced a movie with a recognizable set of stars, that's in color, that's not foreign, that has a story and plot.

I other words, it is pretty much his only conventional movie.

I guess Ghost Dog could fit in that mold a bit, but critics barely imbraced it and it was really out of the reach of an Academy audience.

Yep



Yep.

YAY!

Admit it. You know your curiosity has been piqued even an eensie bitsy bit! \:D/

Oh, and Night on Earth was in color and had a ton of famous stars like Gene Rowland and Winona Ryder. Rosie Perez, and Roberto begnini. But you're right, it didn't have a story and plot in the same way.

I am curious about Broken Flowers. I'm curious about anything anybody I respect considers "good".

In 1991 (and now) Gene Rowlands was hardly a star. Rosie Perez was still doing Living Color. This was years before Begnini hit the scene... but yeah Winona was a bigger deal at that time.

This is also pre-Pulp Fiction, when there was nothing conventional about smaller indie films

He's worked with people that could be considered mega-stars, and I'm sure if Dead Man came out this weekend it would get more play for Depp.

But to me, this is kind of the first time Jarmusch has struck while the iron is hot (so to speak).

I was 11. Cut me some slack. I can only look on it in retrospect. Where i think it was big and good. You're most likely right. But hey, who cares...I got you to maybe consider going to see the movie. \:D/


Oh god I hope it doesn't suck. I'll feel awful.

Ebert & Roeper both gave it a thumbs up.

By comparison, I think Aristacrats went up on Roeper and down on Ebert. I'm trying to dig up what they actually said on it, but can only find it audiofile, which I can't play here.


But its mixed as far as other reviews. The thing is, some think it's dissappoint his usual fans because of its convention, while others think its still not legible to wider audiances. Could get stuck in the middle dissappointing both?

Argh! It's plummeting over at RT. Probably won't track much better than Ghost Dog.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/broken_flowers/

76% with 17 reviews in. 71% Cream. Psssht. Even 2046 is tracking better right now, and that interesting considering I haven't really noticed anyone on this site that was enamored with it at all though many have seen it. Its like they're fine calling Jarmusch void of emotion, but not Wong.

Anyways, I don't know how much it'll affect opening weekend without too much competition, but I'm trying to gage what kind of word of mouth it could have, and its not looking much warmer than any of his past work.

SOmetimes this happens when directors leave their style in pursuit of wider-appeal. Some handle the transition well, others, its like going through the motions of a style they're not actually that in to. I really hope I enjoy this. Right now Ghost Dog is my least favorite, and I still liked it enough. Not enough to watch it again, but enough to feel I didn't waste my time/money/brainspace. I'll be crushed if this is the first movie I see from him I actually don't like.

How many gigabytes do you have left?

Not as many as I care to admit.


So anyways, here's the website: http://www.brokenflowersmovie.com
Requires a pretty high level of flashmedia.

I finished a B.O. analysis too, which has slowly been downgraded over the day from 30 to 26 million total, and I'm not really sure where its going from there. Could be lower. I expect the star power to pull it, but limited releases pretty much gaurantee that a movie can't be front-loaded, so there's that idea.

Its a mixed bad, and depends on how much people like Murray dead-panning. Alot of the reviews comment, very truly, that some see the dead-pan as brialliant and emotional, while others will just find it flat and monotone. Very true. Oddly enough, when I saw Lost in Translation, I found it the former, and when I saw Life Aquatic, the latter. The difference was since Life Aquatic had higher comedy elements around him, it made more sense and was still enjoyable. But it was very flat in comparison to his LiT version of self.

Phew! With 20 reviews counting, it's back up at 80%. I have a feeling it'll peter out and remain somewhere in the lower 80's, but that does mean people are warmer to it than his previous two. Honestly, Ghost Dog and Coffee & Cigarettes were two very different beasts. C&C was a bit choppy. I tend to like it because I *think* its a hint of something transcendental. Just sort of, a greater sense of timing. How many different people, everywhere, are going about their business, but still connected. But like I said earlier, their was maybe too many vignettes, and so while there were bright moments, the movie felt pretty monotone, perhaps underdeveloped. Should have been more like Night on Earth.

Ghost Dog was Ghost Dog. It had incredibly heavy philosophical and literary routes...plus a soundtrack. I think it worked well for anyone into Samurai lit/phil, but since that has to be one of the least interesting motiffs for me, it really went over least well out of all the Jarmusch flicks.



I think I'll post my b.o. analysis in here early, to see what you guys think, if anyone is interested?

Woohoo! Ebert gave it 4 STARS!

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... 22001/1023



Yay, I could use a good laugh. I wouldn't really consider any of Jarmusch's past works comedy, but this one seems to be a little lighter of a general envirnment while at the same time keep the protagonist pretty dark and aloof.

I hope to see it soon... Sounds like a combination of About Schmidt + The Banger Sisters.....
Is Murray in the same league as say Alec Guiness... ??

I just saw Broken Flowers today.

I have to admit that while I love film, I don't have the ability to dig deep and alot of times see what's deep under the surface. It really frustrates me because I see how intelligently and knowingly some of you talk about many movies. I am trying to learn to read films better.

Anyway.... as for Broken Flowers. I actually enjoyed it. Murray is good, yes, but I also loved the story. I don't want to give anything away even though I'm afraid I might just by saying what I thought of the ending so let's just say it was a bit abrupt, a bit frustrating at first and you could maybe also call it baffling a bit. But I did enjoy it, moreso than I thought I would.

I haven't seen any of this director's previous works so I can't say how disappointing it will be to them. I don't think it alienates mainstream audiences... they might not think much of it or just find it mildly amusing, but on the whole they won't hate it or anything.

I got a bad feelin' as Broken Flowers started to unreel tonight. I got to thinkin': "Oh, oh... this is Jim Jarmusch's sell-out movie..."...

...and I know that Bill Murray has already sold-out numerable times, most recently in the over-rated racist study Lost in Translation...

...but then Jim and Bill started to speak to me. They said: "Hey, Bradley! We're still groovin' to the same tunes, man!"...

...and then the parade of supporting actresses began... Sharon Stone... Frances Conroy... Jessica Lange.... Tilda Swinton.... Julie Delpy...

...and not to forget Alexis Dziena as Lolita, and Chloë Sevigny as Carmen's assistant...

...and danged if the whole thing wasn't pretty darn good. Not Jarmusch's best work (I can only dream he'll ever top his transcendent comic masterpiece Down By Law (...on my all time top ten list...), but this is a smart little bit of tricked out writin' and directin'...

...if you're in the mood for deadpan, low-key hilarious comedy, you can do a lot worse than Broken Flowers...

4 out of 5.

w00t! Finally saw it yesterday! I have to agree with Bradely that I had some hesitation entering this film. I've loved Jarmusch's earlier works, and both Dead Man and Down by Law ar probably in my top 50 favorite movies, with STranger than Paradise and Night on Earth being pretty high up there as well. But his last two movies have been a bit disheartneing for me personally. Part of the reason was not because of the quality of Ghost Dog, but a subject matter I'm not up to snuff on. That's ok. I always found that he didn't bother trying to appeal to all literary or philosophical topics. So anyone into Samurai lit, would have loved it. Its no fault of the movie as much as my personal preferences. Coffee and Cigarettes took Night on Earth's vignette narrative to the next level. And it wasn't all that successful. Too choppy.

Broken Flowers is Jarmuusch's attempt to combine his two strengths. The visual "road trip" that Dead Man, Down by Law, Ghost Dog, STranger than Paradise were. Where he follows a single set of characters and how they interect with the landscape. And his second mode of stroytelling, the vignette. This is Mystery Train, Night on Earth, Coffee and Cigarettes, where there is no single character, and Jarmusch tries to relate their actions in small stories of parallel lives in a time and/or place.

Here, he combines the vignettes by having each woman's short story, and the road trip, by following Murray's Don around. We get a strong sense of both is story styles, but are denied the last bit of edge that made each one unique. A series of vignettes held together by one man's journey. A tease of the potential of parallel lives or self-awareness through extended travel. He doesn't quite fulfill either in his attempt to embrace both...but he comes pretty damn close.

I liked it, I liked the sense of distance and the fact that Jarmusch used the "mystery" of finding a long lost son to actually comment on DOn's washed-up-edness. The strength of the movie was to see where each woman ended up, as a counterpoint to Don's static life. They've all changed drastically, and one is left to wonder how they interacted in the past with Don. Jarmusch produces small bit of information, mostly on Frances Conway and Tilda Swinton's relationships, but doesn't go so far as to really define how they were then, or how they are now.

Bits of humour splash through the movie, including Don's exuberant next door neighbor, as well as situational comedy that arises from his meetings with exes. But they are not funny ultimately, and one is left wondering how they, and the brief journay to ground himself as a father, will affect Don.

Great movie, without the usual heavy references. In fact, Jarmusch drops all pretext of hidden layers. His characters unfold "real time" and there's no need to over-analyze there habits (something I miss, since I loved it in his past movies).

B+/B

I am actually liking this movie more and more as the days pass by. It's one of my favorites of the year.
Great to hear you did at least enjoy and liked it.

THAR BE SPOILERS AHEAD, MATEYS....but not much

Finally got around to seeing this, although it required a 3 1/2 hour drive on my part. No matter.

I still don't know what to think, frankly. I know I liked it, but I'm not sure how much. It never seemed to quite jump into the film stratosphere, if that makes any sense. Felt a bit hollow. I'm not sure how to explain/elaborate on that, it was just the vibe I got. It's imperative that I see it again; but that'll have to wait a while, unless it's comes a wee bit closer to home.

I wasn't going in expecting a laugh-a-minute comedy here, but I think it's important to note just how little humor there is. In fact, and this is not a criticism by any means, there's an almost overwheming sadness eminating from nearly every scene in this movie. It's palpable. I was especially struck by just how cold and uninviting Don's home was.

While I can't call it an overwhelming success, there are amazing attributes here. Firstly, Murray: this is now the third time I'm saying this (Rushmore, LiT) but the man has given yet another Oscar-worthy performance. You just can't take your eyes off his face, that marvelous expressive face.

Some scenes were golden; the Frances Conroy meeting was one of the most awkward few minutes I think I've ever seen on screen. But obviously, this was its intent, so bravo Mr. Jarmusch. It was also probably the funniest scene in the movie.

And the chat with his 'son' was, easily, the best scene I've seen all year. Everything about it was perfect; the dialogue, the acting. The shattering way it ended. I was prepared for an ambiguous ending, but not to these depths. It just sort of leaves our heads (like the camera) spinning. Again, not a criticism. The ending was 100% fantastic.

I also loved Don's unusual friendshup with Winston. Jeffrey Wright was a real surprise for me; he's an actor whom I am constantly hearing gives great performances, but I either haven't seen them or wasn't impressed (See: Shaft).

There was one sequence I didn't like though: the meeting with Tilda Swinton. It felt awfully arch and mean. I'm not sure that's a valid criticism, but it left a sour taste in my mouth, and the portrayal of the 'hicks' seemed kinda....false? Phony? Something like that.

Regardless of all this noise, this is clearly a movie that I can't judge in any way until letting it sink in some more and, at minimum, another viewing.

Awwww. I didn't think Tilda was mean at all. i thought that was the point of it. You have no idea why/how they parted. Perhaps he left her beat up on the side of the road? Slept with someone else? Honestly, due to the quation...I'm pretty sure he left her pregnant and she got an abortion/miscarriage/adoption/etc. That's the whole point. Just to be denied the information to make it easy, and you're left wondering why someone would be so bitter and retaliate. he could have been a total schmuck to her. Its one of those movies that didn't procur any moral judgement on anyone, because it didn't give enough info about either their present situations or their past ones. It just kinda...*happened*.

Admittedly, her role was a wee bit less developed to me. So I agree with you there. The other, women were given more time and more holistic contemporary settings. She kinda fit a certain stereotype. But they all did to a point, and were all from "anytown, usa" so I didn't mind too much.

Watch Wright in Basquait...it's probably what he's best knwon for. He's a comic relief here, but I don't think he got to me as much as he did to you.

The thing that got to me most was the consistent fade-to-black. For a movie that is supposed to be less choppy than Coffee and Cigarettes, it pretty much wasn't.

Dolce, your first paragraph there is a wonderful anaysis of the scene and its relation to the movie. You just saved me a lot of thought on it. Bravo, sir.

But from my viewing I think I just found the role underwritten/played. You're right that all the roles fit a certain stereotype, but the other three women were each vivid and nuanced. Each of those scenes just bristled with melancholy and feeling. They felt so painfully real it was literally hard to watch. Then comes the Swinton scene, presenting us with these awful redneck caricatures, and all I got from Tilda was "white trash bitch." The other women felt like they were given dignity and grace, even the "Animal Communicator." As I watching it, the sequence just felt off to me. Maybe it just felt as though it were taking place in "movieland," where nothing else in the film was located.

It's such an integral scene (as you masterfully described above), but it hit a real false note for me. I can't wait to see the movie (and this scene) again, as it's pretty much the one thing keeping me from rating it "great." Focus needs to expand some more.

It's also worth noting that this is the first Jarmusch movie I've seen. Hopefully, that won't be the case for long.

Well it should really please ya Dolce to know I finally caught this one last night. And I gotta say, I was really very impressed. It's minimalistic, but I found a lot to love. Bill Murray once again shines, and the supporting cast is all around great, especially Jeffrey Wright. And the ending... well, it's certainly not for everyone's tastes, but I thought it was also very good. I'm not exactly sure why people think there isn't anything to analyze the movie about, I've been deeply pondering a lot about the movie, especially it's finale. By the way, am I the only one who really loved the way Michelle Pepe's bit was handled? I don't think that scene could have been done better. A-

Moviedude, i couldn't agree with you more about the discussion of content. Jarmusch has always been incredibly demanding of his audiance, and I see Broken Flowers being no different. To me, Jarmusch always seemed like a man who rhuminated/philosophized using the visual (and plenty of literary) mediums. I actually marked down my grade because I thought it wasn't demanding enough. I put him on an especially high pedestal. My old "location" at BOM is "Frolicking gleefully amongst the Fellini and Jarmusch loonie bins"! The thing about him, is that he asks question, never gives answers, and as such, some people don't like how vague he could be. I'm not sure what he was "trying to say" by creating all these dichotomies between Murray and the women. He may have been saying simply "Look at how everyone turned out. Look at these envirnments, these spaces, how memory opperates in them, how identity is informed by both memory and contemporary existence." He also has one of the better senses of humour I've seen out of a young director. And the way Murray can hold the eye. All the actors and actresses involved were superb and should be recognized. It's the kind of film that really merits an "ensemble cast" category like Altman ones always do.

Hehe, y'know it's funny, even though I saw this Thursday night it was actually nearly sold out, due to Fox Tower always bringing in huge busines and it being the Cans Film Festival in Portland where if one donates three cans of food they get a free movie ticket. Anyways, right when the movie ended the audience actually let out a collective sigh, and I can tell that some people definately paid for a different movie then they thought they were getting into. I personally had thought the movie was a reflection of oppurtunities missed right from the get go, so the resolution was actually quite fitting for me. And yes, the humor really was great, I actually laughed out loud at some of the Lolita moments. I know some people felt dissapointed that the movie had the cast it did but several of them, especially Tilda Swinton and Julie Delpy, were barely used, but I actually thought it was a good way of having the ensemble cast work out. It was Murray's film, he's in virtually every scene, the rest of the cast was there for him, and the audience, to react to. It's a nice approach, and just another one of the things I appreciated about Broken Flowers.

I'm not sure as to the spoiler level of this post, so read at your own risk.


One does not become so emotionally distant by sleeping around a lot and never settling down. Nor by striking gold in the computer field. So how does Don Johnston become such a soulless, empty, hollow shell of a man? I have no idea. But Jarmusch sure does want to make it clear that Murray's character is pretty much lifeless. Fortunately, Murray is good at playing a character who only needs to walk around and act emotionally distant. So Murray is definitely very good here. I guess it just seems to me, that for a film about confronting your past, there wasn't very much confrontation. In fact, there was absolutely NO information about this character, other than the fact that he likes women and sleepwalks through life. And is rich by computers. Now this alone wouldn't be enough for me to say I didn't like the film.

Neither is the completely cliche and all too perfect past loves. Lolita, with her pink and her...well, lolitaty. How he sleeps with this past. And the perfect manufacturedness of the model home real estate past. And the crazy pet lady doctor, who also happens to be a lesbian? Even the token hick, complete with run down land and home way out in the middle of no where and over protective biker friends. OK. I don't know anything of Jarmusch, but for someone who expects a lot from his viewers, he sure seemed to be very precise and deliberate in all these characters. Far too direct, easy. What is there about them that isn't placed in front of me like a piece of chocolate cake? Can anyone really deny me that these characters weren't over written, stereotypical, caricatures? But STILL, I'm not going to directly fault the film. It's still well made and acted, is generally keeping me interested, and provides some fairly funny moments.

But then his trip is over, and he returns to the letter from the last woman he's been with. It's pink, and he starts to think maybe this was all a wild goose chase. Maybe he should change. Maybe he's going to learn something. Maybe this whole 75 minutes I just spent watching an interesting anecdote about a fucked up old man will not be for nought. And then he confronts the mysterious boy, and I'm thinking, OK, we're getting somewhere. (And btw, I do agree with yoshue about this scene. Sincerely great stuff.) But I think you know where I'm going with this. With the boy's running, he loses his last shred of a chance after this whole coming-of-old-age story to come of old age. And since he doesn't meet his son, he accomplishes nothing. The ending isn't deep, it isn't worth discussing. It's a point in time at which it becomes clear that Don Johnston is going to die the same man he started this journey. He isn't going to change - he came close, but it's gone now. I guess when you get to that point, the point where you realize you have nothing left to say, even though you haven't said anything, it's as good a time as any to end it. But that doesn't make it good. It makes it over.

I was REALLY looking forward to this one, too. And I'm not gonna lie - it was entertaining...but, well, I think my thoughts are clear. (or, perhaps, not.)

This os off-topic, but looks like Murray is still upset about his LiT loss:

http://www.handbag.com/gossip/hotoffthe ... yID=445387