Broken Flowers (2005) -versus- Lost in Translation (2004)

I like Bill Murray in his films so much that the only way to give Broken Flowers some real competition was to put it up against another Bill Murray film -- last year's Lost in Translation.  Murray is the best actor working today when it comes to doing nothing, contemplating big things with seeming calm. 

Women... Can't live with them...

Broken Flowers is the story of a Don Johnston, a man who made his money in computers but doesn't even own one now, who finds out that twenty years ago he may have fathered a son by one of four possible women, and sets out to find the truth.  This act alone sets him apart from Bob Harris, the character Murray played in Lost in Translation.  Harris, as we meet him, is an equally lost soul, but his search isn't for meaning in his past, but only in his present.  In both films, Murray's character finds that events have shaken him into a new appreciation for his life.

These are both great movies, and Murray is great in both of them.  Lost in Translation aspires to be bigger and more commercial, and succeeds.  Broken Flowers feels like the low budget indie film it is.  Lost leaves you with a sense of hope while Flowers leaves you wondering if hope is even appropriate.  Even though the critics raved about each, they were good in different ways.  This is a tough call.

As I left the theater after seeing Lost in Translation, the audience was abuzz, talking about what a great new directing talent Sophia Coppola was, how funny the film was, how insanely perfect Murray was and how the script was touching, too.  The audience I walked out of Broken Flowers with, however, was buzzing about how the ending was too open and wondering what really happened even as they praised it.

Lost in Translation.  Because it was very nearly perfect while the competition was merely great.  See them both.