This is the thread where you come anticipate 'Life Aquatic' w/ me

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

http://movies.yahoo.com/

Trailer here; December release.

― Jimmy Mod, Man About Towne (ModJ), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 16:16 (twenty-one years ago)

WEEEE! I am TWEEEE!

― eat fudge banana swirl (Nick A.), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 16:22 (twenty-one years ago)

It is pandering to a sickeningly twee sensibility -- it looks great!

― Leon Czolgosz (Nicole), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 16:25 (twenty-one years ago)

The trailer looks okay. I'm mostly wondering if those songs are going to be in the movie as well.

― dean? (deangulberry), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 16:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah... Ceremony...

― Jimmy Mod, Man About Towne (ModJ), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 16:29 (twenty-one years ago)

i can't view the trailer. does it have some kind of quasi-jacques cousteau character?

― amateur!!!st, Wednesday, 18 August 2004 16:29 (twenty-one years ago)

better! quasi-clouseau!

― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 16:30 (twenty-one years ago)

oh man, cos i was thinking, the time really is right for a jacques costeau parody

― amateur!!!st, Wednesday, 18 August 2004 16:32 (twenty-one years ago)

cousteau

i have a hard time spelling that guy's name

― amateur!!!st, Wednesday, 18 August 2004 16:34 (twenty-one years ago)

i guess i'm excited about this, i dunno, i love rushmore with all my heart but i gotta say i wasn't really onboard for the tenenbaums

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 17:29 (twenty-one years ago)

No Fishstick this time!

― Leon Czolgosz (Nicole), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 17:30 (twenty-one years ago)

But will it have the "Aye Calypso" song?

― jocelyn (Jocelyn), Wednesday, 18 August 2004 17:44 (twenty-one years ago)

This thread came around about two years too late for me to really fulfill its wish.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 19 August 2004 03:41 (twenty-one years ago)

BUD CORT is in this movie? Do I love that, or does it annoy me? (I spend much of my life asking myself that question.)
Is this the first time someone who's obviously a fan of Harold and Maude and M*A*S*H has put my bud Bud into a movie as a tribute? That seems strange, but looking at his IMDB roster for the last while it seems like nothing but the usual little parts washed-up quirky LA actors wind up with as their career wanes.

― antexit (antexit), Thursday, 19 August 2004 11:20 (twenty-one years ago)

haha "gut feeling" is on the soundtrack

this looks rad. oceanographers are hot.

― stockholm cindy (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 August 2004 11:25 (twenty-one years ago)

I wish Anderson would try something else. Anything else but his usual bag of tricks.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 01:32 (twenty-one years ago)

I love his bag of tricks. And I'm a sucker for "seafaring" lore.

― stockholm cindy (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 01:35 (twenty-one years ago)

how much says the title goes back to the original

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 02:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Is this the first time someone who's obviously a fan ... has put my bud Bud into a movie as a tribute?

He did play GOD in Dogma I figure that Kevin Smith must've thought that he was being cute.

― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 02:08 (twenty-one years ago)

uh, that was Alanis?

― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 02:13 (twenty-one years ago)

common mix-up

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 02:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Pish. The version of God who gets attacked by the street hockey punks.

― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 02:28 (twenty-one years ago)

It is pandering to a sickeningly twee sensibility -- it looks great!

Whoa, you'll be saying you like Amelie next!

This thread is reminding me I really maybe actually should watch the Tenenbaums DVD I have.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 02:37 (twenty-one years ago)

There's twee, and then there's sick-making twee...

― Leon Czolgosz (Nicole), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 02:38 (twenty-one years ago)

*acknowledges wisdom of distinction*

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 02:41 (twenty-one years ago)

i wish i liked tenenbaums more, i really do

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 13:23 (twenty-one years ago)

i agree with jody. i got a lot of pleasure out of his last two movies (rushmore more than tenenbaums, but anyway). i look forward to this one.

― amateur!!st, Tuesday, 24 August 2004 15:23 (twenty-one years ago)

i just hope he doesn't go the p.t. anderson increase-the-mannerisms route.

― amateur!!st, Tuesday, 24 August 2004 15:24 (twenty-one years ago)

pt anderson decreased the mannerisms last time out!

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 15:25 (twenty-one years ago)

i didn't get that impression. maybe they were different mannerisms than before, but the whole thing seemed really oppressively quirky to me.

― amateur!!st, Tuesday, 24 August 2004 15:28 (twenty-one years ago)

it'd be apples + oranges anyway – WA's mannerisms are fun

― jones (actual), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 15:28 (twenty-one years ago)

I think people are confusing "twee" and "precious."

― Harold Media (kenan), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 15:37 (twenty-one years ago)

two months pass...

i saw the preview tonight. i'm excited. i can easily watch bill murray make droll faces for two hours if nothing else.

― amateur!!st, Monday, 8 November 2004 06:58 (twenty-one years ago)

i didn't get that impression. maybe they were different mannerisms than before, but the whole thing seemed really oppressively quirky to me.

-- amateur!!st (-...) (webmail), August 24th, 2004 9:28 AM. (link)

was totally write, am.

― Remy (x Jeremy), Monday, 8 November 2004 07:11 (twenty-one years ago)

they were filming this in rome/cinecitta when I was there in january!

― teeny (teeny), Monday, 8 November 2004 16:51 (twenty-one years ago)

three weeks pass...

so is this gonna suck or is it gonna be good

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 05:52 (twenty-one years ago)

haha - i was just trying to find a track listing for the soundtrack!

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 05:55 (twenty-one years ago)

from the whole adding "with steve zissou" thing to the title i'm sadly leaning towards it's gonna suck

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 05:57 (twenty-one years ago)

i mean you take a perfectly good movie title and you turn it into a shitty movei title, what's that all about

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 05:57 (twenty-one years ago)

roommate who projected it for film students said it really didn't do anything for him (he thinks wes anderson's best film is "Bottle Rocket").

old roommate who saw the above-stated projection said it was ridiculously great. said the projectionist was the worst projectionist ever.

― lemin (lemin), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 06:25 (twenty-one years ago)

read script today. more in line w. roommate-present than roommate-preterite.

― Remy Snush (x Jeremy), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 06:26 (twenty-one years ago)

a kid can hope...

― lemin (lemin), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 07:12 (twenty-one years ago)

The two webisodes on apple.com/trailers are beautiful. I'm stoked for this, if it holds true to those, it'll easily be in my top-5 of the year.

But I really like the title - "with Steve Zissou" flows better than ending on the hard 'c.'

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 07:40 (twenty-one years ago)

i like the name "zissou" very much.

― stockholm cindy (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 10:46 (twenty-one years ago)

"steve zissou" is a fine name, i just think the title sucks with it in it (is he trying to pull a little funny by making people think steve zissou is an actor in the movie?)

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 16:41 (twenty-one years ago)

no, i think he's trying to make it sound like a pbs program.

― stockholm cindy (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 16:42 (twenty-one years ago)

I love their red knitted caps in the Cousteau fashion.

― jocelyn (Jocelyn), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 16:51 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah i know jody (i guess the title of the movie is the title of bill murray's show or something), but it'd be kinda confusing to people who don't know anything about the movie, don't you think?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 16:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Mmmmmm Kubrick aperey

― Jimmy Mod always makes friends with women before bedding them down (ModJ), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 16:59 (twenty-one years ago)

There is such a thing as a target market

x-post

― Jimmy Mod always makes friends with women before bedding them down (ModJ), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 16:59 (twenty-one years ago)

but it'd be kinda confusing to people who don't know anything about the movie, don't you think?

those people would probably be confused by the actual movie as well.

― stockholm cindy (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Is it honestly possible to be confused by a Wes Anderson movie?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:02 (twenty-one years ago)

haha did you see the bravo special about tenenbaums featuring all the actors?

― stockholm cindy (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:04 (twenty-one years ago)

That's on the DVD, yeah? (Which I have but have not yet watched all the eight million bonus bits.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:06 (twenty-one years ago)

my Dad asked me if I'd seen this. also, he really likes Spinal Tap. WTF.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:31 (twenty-one years ago)

i was just trying to find a track listing for the soundtrack!

did you find this Blount?

I'm seeing this next week. Am trying not to be excited for it in order to avoid the predictable letdown.

― don weiner, Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:32 (twenty-one years ago)

don where are you seeing this???? is it out next week? anyhow some thread on ilm has a maybe/probably soundtrack - joan fucking baez: yes, new order: no (despite the trailer)(maybe new order will be like the stones with his previous flix where they're all over the movie, not so much on the soundtrack).

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:35 (twenty-one years ago)

im looking forward to it i think

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:37 (twenty-one years ago)

he thinks wes anderson's best film is "Bottle Rocket"

Royal Tenenbaums > Rushmore >>>>>>>>>>> Bottle Rocket

― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:37 (twenty-one years ago)

none of these dudes will top bottle rocket

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:38 (twenty-one years ago)

"Bottle Rocket" blows. Well not really. It's mildly amusing in parts - emphasis on "mildly".

― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:40 (twenty-one years ago)

o nate u r f00l.

bottle rocket = rushmore >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tenenbaums = life aquatic (i'm guessing)

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:43 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah i'm not sure what to expect from life aquatic - it doesn't appear to be as salinger as the last two which would be a plus and it looks like it's gonna be funny, or at least it looks like it has funny bill murray in it which is a big plus (so already - adventure flick a la bottle rocket only trade caper for epic maybe), BUT i'm hearing it's long as hell, like two and a half hours, it's got joan baez on the soundtrack, and i here that it becomes very very serious with bill murray's character growing for reasons explained on owen wilson thread, "letting" the shark get away etc, so who knows.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:48 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm ready for the "wes anderson gets some pussy" phase, personally

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:50 (twenty-one years ago)

don where are you seeing this???? is it out next week?

at phipps on 12 December; they are doing a screener (probably is "crits" only.)

― don weiner, Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:50 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm anticipating the movie equivalent of flipping through a coffeetable book in Starbuck's, but I'm all right with that.

― Tep (ktepi), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:50 (twenty-one years ago)

bah! hook a brother up!

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:51 (twenty-one years ago)

i've only half-watched any of these movies, but I think I'm Tenenbaums > Bottle Rocket > Rushmore

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:51 (twenty-one years ago)

bottle rocket really might be his best movie, actully, because the loveable inept criminal quotient is always great, and aside donald westlake or elmore leonard's novels, i can't think of anything else that has done it quite so well (band of outsiders, actually). and the inez-luke relationship was great, and -- wtf?? -- luke was actually GOOD in something!

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:52 (twenty-one years ago)

the more i think about it there are a lot of parallels between bottle rocket and band of outsiders. surely someone has written about that, no?

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:53 (twenty-one years ago)

bottle rocket > every one of you

― peter smith (plsmith), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:55 (twenty-one years ago)

hook a brother up!

probably can't do that for this one, which is ironic because in LA or NYC I can always drag along a guest to screenings. I'll look into it Blount but don't pin any hopes on it.

I never understood the geek love for Bottle Rocket, really.

― don weiner, Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:56 (twenty-one years ago)

(me included)

― peter smith (plsmith), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:56 (twenty-one years ago)

bottle rocket is so fun and sincere and imaginative and its just about how awesome it is to hang out with a bunch of dudes, and how the best achiev(e)ments in life are just the hanging-out parts. its like the best update on the hawks/peckinpah "bunch of dudes" movies around, and its my favorite movie of all time.

― peter smith (plsmith), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:59 (twenty-one years ago)

now it makes sense. i'm not a "bunch of dudes" guy. i like Clerks a lot, though.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 18:02 (twenty-one years ago)

this movie screened in LA about two weeks. still bevens to thread.

― I'm serious ... Ti-i-i-i-im (deangulberry), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 18:06 (twenty-one years ago)

* TWO WEEKS AGO, ARGH

― I'm serious ... Ti-i-i-i-im (deangulberry), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 18:06 (twenty-one years ago)

I SAW THIS.

I quite liked it. I was anticipating it being way too precious and gimmicky (hello, garden state), but it was 'new' enough for me to get into it. ILXors will FUCKING DIE during one of the key sequences due to a certain icelandic band being prominently abused for emotional effect. Fortunately the rest of the movie overcomes it.

also: BILL MURRAY WITH GUNS = AWESOME.

― still bevens (bscrubbins), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 18:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Rushmore > Tenenbaums (very very close) > Bottle Rocket (not so close)

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 18:14 (twenty-one years ago)

due to a certain icelandic band being prominently abused for emotional effect

They tie down Sigur Ros and beat the living crap out of them? BEST MOVIE EVER!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 18:16 (twenty-one years ago)

the more i think about it there are a lot of parallels between bottle rocket and band of outsiders. surely someone has written about that, no?

i think i saw him talking once about how he wanted a godard-style cutting technique on BR, ie no dissolves all hard cuts.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 20:11 (twenty-one years ago)

If that really was a spoiler on the Owen Wilson thread I am kind of mad. But since it's cinniblount, s'okay.

― Leon the Fratboy (Ex Leon), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 20:27 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm teh mad.

― B.A.R.M.S. (Barima), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 20:32 (twenty-one years ago)

BILL MURRAY WITH GUNS = AWESOME.

awwwwwww FUCK!

― Morley Timmons (Donna Brown), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 20:52 (twenty-one years ago)

BILL MURRAY WITH GUNS = AWESOME

This should be called The 'Mad Dog and Glory'/'Quick Change' Theorem.

― n/a (Nick A.), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 21:36 (twenty-one years ago)

paul eater to thread, I think he has inside info.

They were filming this in cinecitta when I was in Rome! No murray sightings though. : (

― teeny (teeny), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 05:27 (twenty-one years ago)

somebody post the soundtrack list dammit

― kingfish (Kingfish), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 05:53 (twenty-one years ago)

two weeks pass...

http://lifeaquatic.movies.go.com/splash.html

TRAILER!

cant wait. quick ilx-ers name those tunes!

― piscesboy, Tuesday, 21 December 2004 16:20 (twenty-one years ago)

it was very cute, not great, but entertaining. Willem Dafoe KILLS in it!!

― ddb (ddb), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 16:31 (twenty-one years ago)

aw crap. my post listing the soundtrack was lost.

― kingfish (Kingfish), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 18:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Dafoe dreadfully miscast in a Billy Gilbert part. What a waste of Noah Taylor, and the cutaway boat set. Murray carried it.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 18:57 (twenty-one years ago)

What a waste of everybody. Murray didn't carry shit. I can pinpoint exactly the moments where I began to give a flying fuck about the movie at all and when I stopped, and they aren't anywhere near the actual beginning and end of the film. What was the story, again? Owen Wilson is Jesus? What?

― TOMBOT, Tuesday, 21 December 2004 23:17 (twenty-one years ago)

more or less anal than tenenbaums?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 00:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Big time sloppy.

― I'm serious ... Ti-i-i-i-im (deangulberry), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 00:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Lazy is perhaps more appropriate.

― I'm serious ... Ti-i-i-i-im (deangulberry), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 00:55 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm afraid to ask whether that's a yes or a no

(whew, xp)

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 00:56 (twenty-one years ago)

sloppy anal, not non-sloppy anal

― I'm serious ... Ti-i-i-i-im (deangulberry), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 00:58 (twenty-one years ago)

I was very disappointed by the movie. I give it a B- and that's probably being generous.

Murray's decent in the film, but he can't carry the thin plot. Anderson's distinct style seems tired and forced in this one, and there are a few dull scenes that come off as amateurishly directed.

I really thought that Anderson had the makings of a director who could make a commerical film but now I have serious reservations. This was a relatively big budget movie for him, a significant leap forward in scope, and he didn't pull it off.

― don weiner, Wednesday, 22 December 2004 01:19 (twenty-one years ago)

To be fair though, whoever directed this movie deserves an A for effort in mimicing Wes Anderson's style.

― I'm serious ... Ti-i-i-i-im (deangulberry), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 01:23 (twenty-one years ago)

his movies are an excuse to make a couple of 2 minute music videos.

― ddb (ddb), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 17:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Saw this on xmas day. One of those movies that I enjoyed while I was watching it, but as time passes, I realize that it wasn't really all that good. The acting is pretty top-notch, especially Murray, Wilson, and Dafoe (who is hilarious), and it's visually stunning (especially the beautifully fakey stop-motion animation sea creatures), but Wes Anderson seems to have lost whatever grip he had on how actual humans interact and behave. I think he just needs to abandon all attempts at realism and just make a totally fantastic, magical movie with no "insights" into aging or romance.

― n/a (Nick A.), Monday, 27 December 2004 15:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh, and the Mothersbaugh score was great, very different from his scores to the other Anderson films. The whole thing seems to have been done on a Casiotone keyboard from 1986, all super-fake keyboard drumbeats and exciting minimalism. Kinda budget-Kraftwerk.

― n/a (Nick A.), Monday, 27 December 2004 15:42 (twenty-one years ago)

The use of outside music kinda flip-flopped: loved the Portuguese (?) Bowie covers and "Search and Destroy" (REALLY LOUD!) during one of the ass-kicking scenes, but the Sigur Ros scene is inexcusable.

― n/a (Nick A.), Monday, 27 December 2004 15:50 (twenty-one years ago)

enh, i liked it. it seemed like they were going to use either that or something like "God Moving Over the Face of the Waters"

still, i get the idea that anderson was experimenting with a lot of things this time around. using CGI, gun battles, explosions, big ass sets, aerial & underwater photography, etc

― kingfish, Monday, 27 December 2004 16:18 (twenty-one years ago)

>Wes Anderson seems to have lost whatever grip he had on how actual humans interact and behave<

I actually think even "Life Aquatic" comes closer to this than, say, "Mystic River." Humans behave very strangely, and surrealism often nails it better than Method wailing.

Plus, reproducing life accurately is overrated if not irrelevant. James Cagney is still one of the greats, and someone wrote admiringly that NO ONE ever behaved like that...

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 27 December 2004 16:20 (twenty-one years ago)

I thought "Gut Feeling" worked really well during that montage.
But echo many of the negative views already expressed in this thread.
I did love Dafoe, though.

― Trip Maker (Sean Witzman), Monday, 27 December 2004 16:40 (twenty-one years ago)

You're right that "reproducing life accurately is overrated if not irrelevant," but Anderson seems to think that he is reproducing life, or at least relationships and personal crises, accurately and that he has something to say about them, but he isn't and he doesn't. That's why I think he should totally abandon realism, like I said.

― n/a (Nick A.), Monday, 27 December 2004 16:43 (twenty-one years ago)

I haven't seen this movie but it doesn't sound like I will think it is realisic or supposed to be.

― RJG (RJG), Monday, 27 December 2004 16:49 (twenty-one years ago)

I have to say that the human interactions in "Mystic River" rang extraordinarily true to me; I liked that movie way more than I expected to.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 27 December 2004 16:54 (twenty-one years ago)

I thought it was rubbish.

I think I should start thinking about thinking about not posting, here, any longer, I think.

― RJG (RJG), Monday, 27 December 2004 18:42 (twenty-one years ago)

IMDB just recommended Lethal Weapon 3 to me if I liked this movie. Which I didn't, very much.

― brandon larson, Tuesday, 28 December 2004 05:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Royal Tenenbaums is pink, Life Aquatic is blue.

― ai lien m. draheim (kold_krush), Tuesday, 28 December 2004 15:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Royal Tenenbaums has a blue bit.

― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Wednesday, 29 December 2004 04:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Even the brazillian Bowie covers, which I liked on their own, just didn't really fit in any particular way. They implied some kind of larger theme but didn't deliver, like, "hey, maybe if I think hard enough about what all these bowie songs are really about, it will all connect to the story really nicely ..."

Still thinking.

Anyway, it was mostly a dud. But I liked Jeff Goldblum's line about being "part-gay"

― Hurting (Hurting), Wednesday, 29 December 2004 04:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Murray and Dafoe pwned. I can't decide if it was half-assed or way-too-assed, but I think I approve it.

― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Wednesday, 29 December 2004 04:08 (twenty-one years ago)

the Sigur Ros scene

EURGH. This is a distressing piece of news. (I mean, I'm glad the soundtracks are starting to get more modern for a variety of reasons, but still.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 29 December 2004 04:09 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think it was out of order.

― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Wednesday, 29 December 2004 04:21 (twenty-one years ago)

The whole movie reminded me too much of Sealab 2020.

― Hurting (Hurting), Wednesday, 29 December 2004 04:22 (twenty-one years ago)

...not 2021?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 29 December 2004 04:29 (twenty-one years ago)

1998.

― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Wednesday, 29 December 2004 04:32 (twenty-one years ago)

I loved Life Aquatic. I hope Anderson goes more in this direction: less commercial and less crowd-pleasing. People go into the theater expecting wild Bill Murray antics and big emotional peaks and they get awkward restraint, underacting, and utter emotional emptiness -- dramatic events happening to characters we feel nothing for -- a big aimless journey. It had enough visual detail and funny moments to keep me entertained during the film and enough ambiguity to keep me thinking about it after I left the theater. But then I've always liked films that are "failures" in the traditional sense. Most of the criticisms I've read here are kind of beside the point anyway (not realistic enough. not commercial enough. used the wrong piece of music in one part.). I'd like to see some more in-depth thoughts about what people think Anderson was attempting and where he failed.

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Wednesday, 29 December 2004 08:04 (twenty-one years ago)

I heard one piece from the score last night on the radio, it was honestly one of the coolest things I've ever heard, beginning with simple synths and drum machinery, and by the end was all timpani and horn stabs and strings and shit. Mark Mothersbaugh is my hero.

Um...yeah, I think this movie looks great.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 29 December 2004 14:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Most of the criticisms I've read here are kind of beside the point anyway (not realistic enough. not commercial enough. used the wrong piece of music in one part.).

How are these criticisms beside the point? Like I already said, "not realistic enough" isn't necessarily a failure, but in this case, I think Anderson was aiming for realism (in terms of emotions and the character relationships) and failed. I'm sorry, but saying that Anderson was successfully trying for empty characters that we don't care for seems like an unbacked rationalization.

― n/a (Nick A.), Wednesday, 29 December 2004 15:04 (twenty-one years ago)

This movie is a piece of crap.

― Pears can just fuck right off. (kenan), Wednesday, 29 December 2004 17:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh, I wouldn't go that far.

― n/a (Nick A.), Wednesday, 29 December 2004 17:00 (twenty-one years ago)

If I listed all the movies I've seen in the theater this year by quality and personal enjoyment, it would probably be somewhere solidly in the middle.

― n/a (Nick A.), Wednesday, 29 December 2004 17:01 (twenty-one years ago)

I have decided that Rushmore is as good as Mr. Wes is going to get. He clearly isn't interested in doing anything besides dicking around.

― Pears can just fuck right off. (kenan), Wednesday, 29 December 2004 17:11 (twenty-one years ago)

long-term cannibus use looms large over the emotional landscape of this picture. Best use of Sigur Ros in a feature film. Bud Cort. Four Stars.

― LSTD (answer) (sexyDancer), Wednesday, 29 December 2004 17:15 (twenty-one years ago)

(Semi-Spoilers below)

I agree that if Anderson wanted us to feel anything for the characters who died then he failed utterly. But certain key "emotional" scenes were just so awkward that I can't believe the choices weren't intentional. In terms of character relationships, there were none! Every relationship was a failure: child/parent, husband/wife, captain/crew. There was a somewhat forced parallel made between the idea of a childhood hero being demystified and the idea of dissapointment with one's own parents. But overall the theme of an empty parent/child relationship was carried through pretty thoroughly (Cate Blanchett's character, Owen Wilson, Murray & Dafoe's relationship, the absence of Seymour Cassel).

Anyway, I saw all of this as being what the idea of a "life aquatic" was all about. "Spending half of your life underwater makes you sterile" was a key quote. One of the major "emotional" moments was played underwater through diving masks and intercoms (the "call me Stevesy" scene). I thought all of the underwater metaphors conveyed the theme of emotional detachment pretty successfully. It sounds pretty lame written out like this but I thought it worked well in the actual film.

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Thursday, 30 December 2004 19:09 (twenty-one years ago)

I liked this better than any of Anderson's other movies, but I'm not going to have its babies or anything.

― J (Jay), Thursday, 30 December 2004 19:39 (twenty-one years ago)

I think he just needs to abandon all attempts at realism and just make a totally fantastic, magical movie with no "insights" into aging or romance.
http://home.gwu.edu/~tombot/katamari.jpg

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 30 December 2004 21:29 (twenty-one years ago)

But why Albert Brooks, though?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 30 December 2004 21:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Comic Books! Albert Brooks! it's like that REM song.

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 30 December 2004 21:35 (twenty-one years ago)

*bows to this wisdom*

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 30 December 2004 21:37 (twenty-one years ago)

USE ONE FUTURA

― I'm serious ... Ti-i-i-i-im (deangulberry), Thursday, 30 December 2004 22:13 (twenty-one years ago)

yes. Bold, even.

― Pears can just fuck right off. (kenan), Thursday, 30 December 2004 22:38 (twenty-one years ago)

all this movie had going for it was futura, honestly

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 31 December 2004 04:42 (twenty-one years ago)

anyway i saw it today and yeah, it kinda stunk big time. nice-looking in parts but full of my least favourite shot these days, character in the middle of the frame, foregrounded, looking almost at the camera. it was hard to watch!

oh yeah and there wasn't really a movie there at all.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 31 December 2004 04:43 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm sorry, i haven't read this whole thread, but here's my review:

WHAT A SUCK-ASS MOVIE

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Friday, 31 December 2004 07:00 (twenty-one years ago)

murray was bad, defoe was good, cate blanchett is cate blanchett.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Friday, 31 December 2004 07:02 (twenty-one years ago)

i really should have seen "bad education" instead.

hollywood fucking sucks. yeah, i said it.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Friday, 31 December 2004 07:05 (twenty-one years ago)

can't really blame murray, what an underwritten (and confusingly-written!) and BORING character

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 31 December 2004 16:13 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm waiting on Remy's review once his holiday obligations are over.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 31 December 2004 16:26 (twenty-one years ago)

don't wait! don't go see it TODAY!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 31 December 2004 17:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Bad Education isn't much better.

― Carl Winslow is WHAT!?!? (deangulberry), Friday, 31 December 2004 19:34 (twenty-one years ago)

it's like fifty thousand times better

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 31 December 2004 20:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Let's compromise.

― Carl Winslow is WHAT!?!? (deangulberry), Friday, 31 December 2004 20:45 (twenty-one years ago)

twenty-five thousand times?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 31 December 2004 20:47 (twenty-one years ago)

i can't go any lower than that

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 31 December 2004 20:47 (twenty-one years ago)

i'll settle for 25,000. deal.

― Carl Winslow is WHAT!?!? (deangulberry), Friday, 31 December 2004 20:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Having heard mixed reviews, I was prepared for suckage; instead I liked it very much.

My husband: "It isn't Wes Anderson's best film, but it's better than 80% of what's out there."

Back when I was a young teen, my family used to watch ALL those "The Undersea World of Jacques Cousteau" TV shows, and oh my goodness, this was just OTM.

― Layna Andersen (Layna Andersen), Saturday, 1 January 2005 11:14 (twenty-one years ago)

I saw this two nights ago and i laughed and laughed. i lurved it.

― Jay Vee (Manon_70), Saturday, 1 January 2005 11:25 (twenty-one years ago)

WHAT A SUCK-ASS MOVIE

agreed, for once.

― Pears can just fuck right off. (kenan), Saturday, 1 January 2005 12:52 (twenty-one years ago)

it's great actually, but then i disagree with everyone on here all the time. it's far better than the dreary tennenbaums although that may be down to there being no paltrow.

― keith m (keithmcl), Saturday, 1 January 2005 16:25 (twenty-one years ago)

yay keith! (i haven't seen it yet.)

― youn, Saturday, 1 January 2005 21:47 (twenty-one years ago)

i've rarely been so sure of my not liking a movie

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Saturday, 1 January 2005 22:42 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm not a big tenenbaums fan but at least it had gene hackman, more 3d than any other character in that movie and doubly more than any character in this

― s1ocki (slutsky), Saturday, 1 January 2005 23:20 (twenty-one years ago)

i am off to see this now-and trying not to let the negative reviews temper my enjoyment. but i am less excited about it now.

― Emilymv (Emilymv), Sunday, 2 January 2005 00:33 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah hackman was WAY more fun to watch than murray this time around.. i did like the movie though.. didn't think anderson was trying to say ANYTHING AT ALL with it, which is why i liked it... just a very strange, melancholy mood trip..

― fauxhemian (fauxhemian), Sunday, 2 January 2005 03:37 (twenty-one years ago)

hackman in tenenbaums or murray in rushmore; the characters had life to them, they were kinda chaotic and unpredictable and hilarious

― s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 2 January 2005 18:42 (twenty-one years ago)

I didn't like it that much. I thought it wasn't as good as The Royal Tenenbaums, and no where near as good as Rushmore.

The scene with Sigur Ros playing made me want to die inside.

― jill schoelen is the queen of my dreams! (Homosexual II), Sunday, 2 January 2005 19:21 (twenty-one years ago)

which one was that? the horrible one in the sub?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 2 January 2005 21:20 (twenty-one years ago)

hackman in tenenbaums or murray in rushmore; the characters had life to them, they were kinda chaotic and unpredictable and hilarious

Wasn't that kind of the point? Murray was severely depressed and the few times he perks up it actually is funny.

It was terrible as a comedy - Anderson fanboys in the audience laughed at every single shot for the first 15 minutes and then got real quiet when they figured out it wasn't funny. And it was a failure in the action scenes and most of the dramatic scenes - but the emotional pull of the last 15 minutes was surprisingly strong.

The music cues were all terrible. The Portugese Bowie songs were fun in themselves (hope they're on the soundtrack) if irrelevant, "Search and Destroy" was completely wasted and Sigur Ros was the worst thing about the sub scene.

Maybe there was a great movie in Murray and his depression, but Anderson decided to cram in too much of his standard wackiness and attempts at mature themes (filmmaking allegory, father/son stuff) without saying anything.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Monday, 3 January 2005 01:48 (twenty-one years ago)

but the emotional pull of the last 15 minutes was surprisingly strong.

i was tempted to start throwing my gummy fries at the screen, but whatever floats your boat.

i agree about the music cues, which seemed even more than in tenenbaums to detach completely from the film, such as the scene with joan baez/ennio morricone's "here's to you" (about sacco and vanzetti!) in the b.g.: it wasn't even fun catching the tune, because my second reaction was, "why is this here?"

i don't think the portuguese bowie songs were that special, aside from the very wes-anderson-like "novelty" factor of hearing bowie songs in potuguese.

i agree completely that the "adult" themes felt overthought and shoehorned in with a high degree of awkwardness. in fact the movie really seemed to be a brittle skeleton of such themes with lots of not-so-glittery-this-time andersonesque quirks draped over it.

i have to admit i felt the "themes" to be telegraphed in a similarly literal way in his last two films, though there were greater compensations in both.

there's a bresson quote about the need to "hide" your most important themes--the more important, the more they should be "hidden." this isn't as facile as it might seem. i think wes anderson's movies could benefit from a little more effort to collapse the "themes" into the phenomenology.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Monday, 3 January 2005 02:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Murray's performance sold me on the last parts, no matter how awkward and cheesy they were. He was great throughout this, most of the cast was completely wasted (Anjelica Huston) or terrible (Wilson, Goldblum). Willem Dafoe was good but used badly - more cheap gags.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Monday, 3 January 2005 02:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Wasn't that kind of the point? Murray was severely depressed and the few times he perks up it actually is funny.

yeah but that doesn't make it any more fun to watch! also i thought his character was really confusing--was he actually SUPPOSED to have been a great filmmaker, now gone downhill? i guess so because they told us so, but you never got a sense of why or how. and the stuff you saw of his recent work looked pretty much indistinguishable from his "classic" stuff.

the last 15 minutes were the last straw for me. i mean did this movie really earn THREE scenes in a row where we see all the characters gather together and sit neatly arranged or walk down a staircase or walk down a pier onto the ship? one would've been self-congratulatory, three is just preposterous.

and man oh man was jeff goldblum wasted. i thought he could've been great--good idea to set him up as murray's rival, love triangle with anjelica, but it managed to miss any of the beats that would've made that fun to watch.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 3 January 2005 04:11 (twenty-one years ago)

"Back when I was a young teen, my family used to watch ALL those "The Undersea World of Jacques Cousteau" TV shows, and oh my goodness, this was just OTM."

Sweet. Another pop-culture territory conquered by the forces of appropriation. Maybe Anderson's next film will be based on educational film strips about Jewish holidays, or airline safety videos.

― Hurting (Hurting), Monday, 3 January 2005 04:21 (twenty-one years ago)

"conquered" how exactly?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 3 January 2005 04:24 (twenty-one years ago)

There's a little scene after the credits where Wes Anderson stabs everything we love with a sword.

― Carl Winslow is WHAT!?!? (deangulberry), Monday, 3 January 2005 04:35 (twenty-one years ago)

i thought it was fantastic, though i could have done without the computer generated creatures. it would have seemed more wes anderson-y if they had been obviously mechanical but still pretty to look at. the cg aspect seemed out of place. also, wilson's kentucky accent was way off, i hope on purpose? in spite of those problems, i found it mesmerizing.

― Emilymv (Emilymv), Monday, 3 January 2005 04:40 (twenty-one years ago)

I thought they were claymation, not CGI.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Monday, 3 January 2005 04:44 (twenty-one years ago)

really? i could be wrong, but they looked like cgi to me.

― Emilymv (Emilymv), Monday, 3 January 2005 04:46 (twenty-one years ago)

stop motion animation.

― Carl Winslow is WHAT!?!? (deangulberry), Monday, 3 January 2005 05:08 (twenty-one years ago)

""conquered" how exactly?"

I just meant that hip art and film seem to be hellbent on a quest to pastiche every bit of lowbrow kitsch and kitschy middlebrow ever created. I thought the trend was losing some steam, but Anderson is still plugging away.

― Hurting (Hurting), Monday, 3 January 2005 05:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Saw it last night and I enjoyed it a lot more than i think i would have after reading discouraging ilx reviews and hearing friends tell me it 'sucked'. It wasn't really that bad, it just didn't have the emotional content of the last two for me. It's beautiful to watch and i couldn't believe the creatures were models and not CGI they look amazing! Mothersbaugh alone is worth the ticket.

― Adam Bruneau (oliver8bit), Monday, 3 January 2005 15:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Captain Neato

Wes Anderson and the Problem with Hipsters,
Or What Happens When a Generation Refuses to Grow Up

― Pears can just fuck right off. (kenan), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 15:48 (twenty-one years ago)

or an essay about wes anderson, how hipsters suck, casual racism, and no mention of the sikh dude.

― kingfish (Kingfish), Friday, 7 January 2005 05:47 (twenty-one years ago)

why don't we just say this particular movie sucks and leave it at that? why try to make some broad-ass argument? oh, right...

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Friday, 7 January 2005 05:54 (twenty-one years ago)

the onion said the ending was "moving." which ending though? i counted 465,238 of them.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Friday, 7 January 2005 05:55 (twenty-one years ago)

it "moved" me all right

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 7 January 2005 07:02 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm still anticipatin'. that essay is really good, but from an english perspective, i never really read WA as 'hipster'. 'rushmore' and 'bottle rocket' anyway.

but i am a bit scared by this movie. because everyone keeps mentioning jacques cousteau. who the fuck was he then?

― henry miller, Friday, 7 January 2005 13:21 (twenty-one years ago)

No that essay is shit, just like the movie

― TOMBOT, Friday, 7 January 2005 13:34 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm easily sold on cheap anti-hipster rhetoric, so i liked it: possibly the argument that WA makes movies just for PBR-drinkers shows a faulty understanding of how movies get funded.

― henry miller, Friday, 7 January 2005 13:42 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm easily riled by people who write stuff like that that purports to be "cheap anti-hipster rhetoric" or whatever you want to call it but is really just a long way of saying "I'm bored of my friends" with a side dish of "I'm so naricissistic I see myself in everything, pop culture is like a shattered mirror, oh wow" like bitch, go buy some rollerskates, you got nothing new to say

― TOMBOT, Friday, 7 January 2005 14:10 (twenty-one years ago)

It was terrible as a comedy - Anderson fanboys in the audience laughed at every single shot for the first 15 minutes

This is OTMFM--what the fuck was so funny about the first 20 minutes or so? Like Bill Murray would APPEAR and people would laugh.

It wouldn't have sucked if Owen Wilson wrote it. Willem Dafoe was fucking pwned, why did he even agree to play such a woefully underwritten part? :(

― Allyzay Needs Legs More (allyzay), Friday, 7 January 2005 18:29 (twenty-one years ago)

the one scene i realize was pretty good was the one where willem dafore steps forward during the mutiny. that joke actually worked i thought.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 7 January 2005 18:38 (twenty-one years ago)

also what was with the topless chick? it seemed like her being topless was just a background joke that'd be there for the whole movie, but halfway through she just stops being topless? wtf the point?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 7 January 2005 18:38 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.unreel.co.uk/reviews/f/Finding_Nemo/cast.jpg

― TOMBOT, Friday, 7 January 2005 18:39 (twenty-one years ago)

someone write a paper called "finding zissou: something something and the something of somethingness"

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 7 January 2005 18:42 (twenty-one years ago)

hey, can the wes anderson version of katamari damacy have fire engines in it, too?

― kingfish (Kingfish), Friday, 7 January 2005 18:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah I was kind of confused when she stopped being topless too, to be honest. I was like, "Oh well there's pirates on the boat" but she never took her shirt back off?

― Allyzay Needs Legs More (allyzay), Friday, 7 January 2005 19:03 (twenty-one years ago)

but halfway through she just stops being topless?

disappointing. the lines anderson gave her were terrible, too.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Friday, 7 January 2005 20:36 (twenty-one years ago)

give him a break. he's working on having some "whores" in his movies to balance out all the "saints." baby steps, people.

― Carl Winslow and Jeanne-Claude (deangulberry), Friday, 7 January 2005 20:40 (twenty-one years ago)

one month passes...

What do the Britishers make of this movie? There's much to enjoy, but I think it may be Wes's least substantial film yet.

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Monday, 28 February 2005 14:57 (twenty-one years ago)

It also made me very nostalgic for this much-loved book from my Nipperhood.

http://childrensbookshop.com/images/bookimages/52/52903.jpg

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Monday, 28 February 2005 14:59 (twenty-one years ago)

I enjoyed the this film. It had some great silly parts like all the bits with the pirates and the gunfights. I guess it's just kind of a warped caper. I liked it better than the Royal What-yer-ma-callits.

I'm not really into films that pander to the emotions, just kill a couple of hours and be vaguely amusing and that's good enough for me. It really is one of the most vaguely amusing films I've seen.

― jel -- (jel), Sunday, 13 March 2005 18:06 (twenty-one years ago)

I just assumed that the girl had put a top on, as it was a wee bit chilly out at sea.

― jel -- (jel), Sunday, 13 March 2005 18:14 (twenty-one years ago)

I like Sigor Ros.

― jel -- (jel), Sunday, 13 March 2005 18:20 (twenty-one years ago)

when has wes anderson not pandered to the emotions? actually i'm not sure what that means.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 13 March 2005 18:21 (twenty-one years ago)

I dunno. It just felt like the right thing to say.

― jel -- (jel), Sunday, 13 March 2005 18:23 (twenty-one years ago)

My arbitrary and unsolicited ranking of Wes Anderson's success as a filmmaker:

Rushmore .... 87%
Bottle Rocket ... 70%
Royal Tenenbaums ... 50%
Life Aquatic ... 40%

― Remy (null) (x Jeremy), Sunday, 13 March 2005 18:41 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0432283/

Isn't this a dr.seuss thing??

― jel -- (jel), Sunday, 13 March 2005 18:49 (twenty-one years ago)

oh, roald dahl. I am not anticipating.

― jel -- (jel), Sunday, 13 March 2005 18:52 (twenty-one years ago)

I bet it will be cute.

< / derision>

― Remy (null) (x Jeremy), Sunday, 13 March 2005 18:56 (twenty-one years ago)

I liked it when Dr. Morbius said this:

Humans behave very strangely, and surrealism often nails it better than Method wailing.

Plus, reproducing life accurately is overrated if not irrelevant. James Cagney is still one of the greats, and someone wrote admiringly that NO ONE ever behaved like that...

I don't know if it's relevant, any more, to this thread, but I thought it deserved to be singled out for attention.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Sunday, 13 March 2005 19:06 (twenty-one years ago)

There are an awful lot of hardcore Method actors (I call 'em Methodists) strewn across the quirky landscape of WA's film history. W.A. isn't surreal IMHO, he's annoying, in-jokey, and oppressively quirky. The notion of character seems to've disappeared during his transcendence from minor underground cult-figure to popular "underground" cult-figure.

― Remy (null) (x Jeremy), Sunday, 13 March 2005 19:30 (twenty-one years ago)

one month passes...

i saw this tonight (it came out here just a couple weeks ago) and thought it was terrific - i hate to invoke the old super-vague accusation of point-missingness, but those of you looking for a certain kind of 'substance' are maybe missing the point, i think. and, lord, accusations of sloppiness are really just dead wrong. i'd say more (in fact i did, and then deleted it), but it's late.

― jermaine (jnoble), Saturday, 16 April 2005 23:27 (twenty-one years ago)

what about accusations of shittiness?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Saturday, 16 April 2005 23:42 (twenty-one years ago)

also wrong.

― jermaine (jnoble), Saturday, 16 April 2005 23:46 (twenty-one years ago)

crappiness?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Saturday, 16 April 2005 23:57 (twenty-one years ago)

so funny how anyone every wannabe film dude i know hates wes with such unfocused passion.

― kephm, Sunday, 17 April 2005 00:42 (twenty-one years ago)

~~anyone~~

― kephm, Sunday, 17 April 2005 00:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Let us love him, like a crazy sugar daddy, y'all!

― Suedey (John Cei Douglas), Sunday, 17 April 2005 00:55 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't hate him, I just hate this movie and the one before it.

― Remy (x Jeremy), Sunday, 17 April 2005 02:35 (twenty-one years ago)

actually, strike that. I'm totally indifferent about this one. I do hate Tenenbaums, though.

― Remy (x Jeremy), Sunday, 17 April 2005 02:36 (twenty-one years ago)

yes i hate it too.

― jed_ (jed), Sunday, 17 April 2005 02:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Most of the wannabe film dudes I know love WA. (cf. the Life Aquatic crowd laughing at every single shot for the first 20 minutes or so). Film geeks love them some Anderson.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Sunday, 17 April 2005 02:46 (twenty-one years ago)

when i saw it there were some scarfs laughing at every scrap of whimsy even where it didn't exist. when they giggled thru the first half of owen's death scene, up til whenever their tweeaddled brains could grasp 'this is like serious' i thought 'he totally gets the fans he deserves'.

― j blount (papa la bas), Sunday, 17 April 2005 04:55 (twenty-one years ago)

three weeks pass...

http://www.lartigue.org/img/mix/chronologie/chrono1905.gif
Le Bobsleigh à roues de Zissou, après le virage de la grille, Rouzat, août 1908.

― kingfish maximum overdrunk (Kingfish), Tuesday, 10 May 2005 05:02 (twenty-one years ago)

"I think he just needs to abandon all attempts at realism and just make a totally fantastic, magical movie with no "insights" into aging or romance"
Kinda touched on later by others but what on Earth makes you think this wasn't exactly that? The fact it had human actors?

― A Viking of Some Note (Andrew Thames), Tuesday, 10 May 2005 06:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Just came back from a friend's place where he, good friend Stripey and I watched this at his suggestion. Hm.

Stripey, who had never seen an Anderson film before, was vociferous about it on the way back from the friend's house -- as she put it, she didn't flat out hate it but she found it very frustrating, to the point where she couldn't really enjoy it for that reason. Interestingly she used the word 'quirky' before I even brought it up -- Anderson is going to be trapped by that forever, I'm now willing to bet -- and used it very much in a negative sense -- to paraphrase her, "Yeah, it's quirky, but just about anyone can do something quirky, I could do it. It's not enough. There were some occasional funny moments but still." (She extrapolated a bit by noting she like me isn't interested in Napoleon Dynamite because the descriptions of the film sound so dully obvious, an 'oh isn't this quirky' sense that's pretty uncompelling, and she and I digressed into a larger discussion about 'quirky' as quality that deserves a separate thread/discussion.)

Her two other major complaints: first, that the pacing and editing simply didn't work, that it was at 'a stoner's pace.' (I had thought myself that it was telling that the action sequences were not filmed *as* action sequences.) She wondered if she was just so used to quicker editing and faster interaction in so many other films that as a result this just dragged in comparison, but felt that regardless that the conscious approach of the film (my take on it being that where some films use understatement as a quality, it was used here as a metier) grew irritating over time, and that we were seeing a series of related but individual sketches and bits that didn't 'congeal,' to use her own term.

Second, she felt that the film essentially indulged in red herrings too much -- that, as I believe she put it, Anderson and crew spent a lot of time putting in a lot of detail that was called attention to which did not in fact hold together, did not develop the story, didn't go anywhere. She found that extremely irritating, and quoted the Chekovian dictum about guns on the mantelpiece in the first act needing to go off in the third. For instance, I remember she was suddenly excited by the appearance of the crashed plane in the seabed because as she told me later she figured it would have something to do with Wilson's character, being a pilot, and felt miffed that didn't turn out to be the case. Later on she especially liked how the hostage rescue/sinking of the Hennessey boat/etc. sequence brought things together, gave it some urgency, actually tied the threads, but that this was too little too late. As for the climactic scene, as she put it: "We saw the shark. It was pretty. So what?"

She did like the music, the Bowie rewrites, etc., she appreciated the not-quite-real sense of the ocean scenes though still didn't think they fully worked, and concluded by comparing the film to two other movies with quirk and specific editorial/cinematographic styles, Jarmusch's Stranger Than Paradise and Almodovar's Women on the Verge.... She thought the Jarmusch just dragged, was dull, suffered from similar flaws, whereas she thinks Almodovar's got a perfect grasp as to how to tie everything together, how to "throw you up against the wall" with his story, editing, pacing, how to be 'gloriously superficial' and make it all work. Anderson, in comparison, she felt like makes films for a cult, one that if you're not in means his work, or at least this movie, becomes a sometimes pleasant but ultimately pointless exercise.

While not quite so negative I'm not all that far removed from Stripey's take on things. If anything this is rapidly confirming my belief that Anderson is, if not believing his own press, then is at least essentially dedicated to making curios, and that winsome flatness starts to weigh too heavily towards the latter for me to automatically doff my cap to, that there's something charging towards the self-congratulatory and smug here. I honestly didn't know what to expect, having heard praise and anger both -- now that I have seen it, well, I pretty well think I can live without seeing it again.

But yeah, soundtrack's good.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 15 May 2005 05:28 (twenty-one years ago)

it's his stardust memories!

― j blount (papa la bas), Sunday, 15 May 2005 06:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh. My God. It's. Tedious.

The first time I saw Rushmore I loved it, there was a really affecting sense of solidarity between the two main characters, especially in the scene in the lift when Jason Nevins or whoever asks Bill Murray how he is and he just shrugs and takes another swig from the bottle (that's how I remember it anyway). Tenenbaums took that moment and stretched it out very thinly over two hours. It was full of moments when the characters had these kind of Prozac moments of self-awareness, and as a consequence I found it trite and boring.

To be honest I couldn't get much more than halfway through the new one. It came across as a smug self-congratulatory wankfest for all involved. And I just do not get this deification of Bill Murray. Fine, I accept that he's a better comic actor than Dan Ackroyd. But his world-weary manner is very wearisome over the course of two hours, and especially over the course of films with so little of interest to say - thinking mostly of Lost in Translation, of course.

― rwillmsen (rwillmsen), Sunday, 15 May 2005 06:37 (twenty-one years ago)

that reminds me - i finally saw garfield!!

― j blount (papa la bas), Sunday, 15 May 2005 07:18 (twenty-one years ago)

I saw it last week and it's almost entirely been erased from my memory since. You know, droll, a bit spoilt in a Gen Xy sort of way. References to references, pabulum, comfort food, pomo, magic realism. I'm not against the idea that set design should dominate a movie, but give me Fellini's Satyricon any day. You know, you get the feeling that Satyricon is for an audience who fantasized feverishly whereas this is for an audience who watched a lot of TV.

― Momus (Momus), Sunday, 15 May 2005 08:53 (twenty-one years ago)

give me Fellini's Satyricon any day

Great, great film -- I've only seen it the once, many years ago, but it was compelling and entertaining, and much of it still sticks with me.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 15 May 2005 12:58 (twenty-one years ago)

this is a really great movie, maybe even better than yellow submarine. probably my favorite of his four so far. overall the dialogue was stuffed with so many funny lines i had a hard time when it was over reconciling the tepid reception with the delightful film i'd just seen. bill murray played the role in this one he got over-credited for in lost in translation--slouching down the hill, not so much world weary as punch drunk with disappointment. i can't relate to how someone wouldn't be moved by his self-pitying monologue after he falls down the stairs. the father son moments between him and owen wilson nail the strained poignance that characterizes certain moments between grown sons and fathers. owen was great, playing against type for the first time since the minus man. cate blanchett remarked in one of the bonus features how rare it is for men to play innocent these days. he pulled that off admirably. angelica huston was spot on as she always is. i cracked up whenever willem defoe spoke. and the filmmaking, technically, was genius. each shot it seemed was crammed with witty details that furthered the sensibility (whimsical and exciting, a difficult combo to hybridize), from the mise-en-scene to the framing of the characters. even the names were inspired. the end was very moving. yeah . . . that's just scratching the surface. such a great film. i can think of few in recent years as positively affecting.

― august thyssen, Sunday, 15 May 2005 14:04 (twenty-one years ago)

maybe even better than yellow submarine

Now how intentional is that reference? ;-) (Oddly enough, if our friend had opted for his other choice -- National Treasure, god help us -- Stripey had by chance brought along Yellow Submarine as a backup.)

i can't relate to how someone wouldn't be moved by his self-pitying monologue after he falls down the stairs.

That? But it was so *obvious* -- it practically shot up fireworks saying, "Look! Here's the self-pitying monologue! And we're acknowledging the obviousness of it by having him wryly think of the comment after he has just fallen down the stairs! DO YOU SEE?!" My reaction was a slight smile at most.

whimsical and exciting

I agree with the first (at least in terms of intention). The second? Er...

Glad you enjoyed it but I was deeply unmoved, and was definitely not positively affected. Straining for profundity by way of doing your damnedest NOT to seem like you're straining for profundity thanks to diffidence at all costs becomes its own potential trap, and they all fell right in.

I just remembered one other thing that Stripey said that I thought was brilliant -- she says it would have worked *perfectly* as a recurring sketch feature in a variety show format, SNL, Mr. Show, whatever floats your boat. As she put it (and as I thought too) the film felt so much like a series of minifilms -- each scene, almost each *shot* being like a minifilm -- that its inability to 'congeal' was annoying. (For myself, Momus's mention of Satyricon makes me think of a way that seeming disunity can work in comparison.) But if it had been something where each week or every other week or whatever another day was told or another few minutes were shown, then she felt it would have worked much more effectively as humor, that all the various details would have been reminding signifiers than go-nowhere things-in-the-frame.

I will agree with you however on Angelica Huston, who was the one character that I thought got the pacing and delivery right because it, well, fit her character. She seemed to use it as arched-eyebrow dismissive defense instead of modus operandi.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 15 May 2005 14:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh, and if anyone was a total cipher in this movie full of them, it was Wilson. After five minutes at most his character was as fully developed as it was going to be and then he just kept saying lines, moving places and doing things. Thanks dude.

Goldblum and his Gattaca-like crew provided the best humor in retrospect because it was just enough -- at most a minute or two of screen time.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 15 May 2005 14:46 (twenty-one years ago)

i don't know. i thought owen cast enough intense glances that his character suggested a complexity beneath that well-mannered demeanor. that i believed his character, and bill's, made that heart felt father son moment touching to me. the obviousness had been built into the narrative and played with so much that bill's character seemed to finally be stepping out of the showiness, even if he was only able to do so as though he were still being filmed. i'm referring here to the double framing devices of filming everything and having a journalist tag along, writing an adverse coming of age cover story about the whole zissou set up. when he fell down the stairs he seemed to step out of the character he was playing for his doc and for the cubby to finally admit how he really felt beyond the character(s) he was attempting to portray.

anyways, i'm sure you got all that and it didn't move you anyways. those are pretty interesting ways of regarding the movie, even if i don't agree.

x-post. goldlbum was hilarious. the moment toward the end when the entire cast is lounging aboard the belafonte, and goldbum is balancing a martini glass on his knee as he lies outstretched on the floor is poster-worthy

― august thyssen, Sunday, 15 May 2005 15:08 (twenty-one years ago)

i thought bill murray totally sunk this movie (or at least he would've if the movie wasn't already sinking). he was pretty bad.

(sorry for the sinking metaphors)

(even if they weren't really metaphors)

― s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 15 May 2005 15:52 (twenty-one years ago)

You what actually sorta annoyed me? Given the name 'Zissou' and all and the obvious Cousteau worship, I was hoping he played him as a French dude. Then I hear him speak (hadn't seen any of the trailers beforehand) and I'm all "Well this isn't fun."

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 15 May 2005 16:17 (twenty-one years ago)

"what this film needed was a good periscope!"

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Sunday, 15 May 2005 16:49 (twenty-one years ago)

I watched this again last night, to see if my initial opinion of the movie had changed since I first watched it. It hadn't, it was still one big underwhelming disappointment.

I think Owen Wilson must have contributed a lot more to the scripts of the other Wes Anderson films than I would have guessed, this lacked the character and heart of his other movies. There were some bits I liked but it never really came together, but I can't say it is horrible because it had some Scott Walker. I couldn't condemn a Michael Bay film starring Carrot Top if there were some Scott Walker on the soundtrack.

― Leon Federline (Ex Leon), Sunday, 15 May 2005 17:09 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm now envisioning Carrot Top seducing Liv Tyler with animal crackers while the soundtrack goes "If I jerk the handle you'll die." (As opposed to handling the jerk, which presumably is where the scene goes next.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 15 May 2005 17:53 (twenty-one years ago)

"this lacked the character and heart of his other movies."

i don't know, dude. i think you're leaving a lot out. what about cody?

― august thyssen, Sunday, 15 May 2005 18:29 (twenty-one years ago)

You're pinning your hopes for finding emotional connection on a three-legged dog?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 15 May 2005 18:46 (twenty-one years ago)

You know, you get the feeling that Satyricon is for an audience who fantasized feverishly whereas this is for an audience who watched a lot of TV. - haha momus very otm.

― j blount (papa la bas), Sunday, 15 May 2005 19:44 (twenty-one years ago)

I remember thinking that Tenenbaums did grow on me, but I think it was because all of the characters were actually connected in the end. Ned is on to something in saying that Wilson's character (also named Ned!) is a cipher. If anything, this was the weakness of the film: the Ned character is apparently there to bring about some sort of understanding in Zissou, but he's dull as toast.

He's inept but not comically inept, interested in his family although not in a heart-wrenching way, and all of the trouble he causes is boring. Great, Willem Defoe's character hates him and there's some half-assed love triangle. He's still the same guy coming out of the film as he was going in. No great epiphanies here, please move along. If anything, the Ned Plimpton character is the shark. Much noise is made about both, but they're both pretty static and unexciting.

― mike h. (mike h.), Monday, 16 May 2005 13:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Wilson's character (also named Ned!)

Oh GOD, you're right. That's an example of how uninvolving the character was, I completely forgot his name! And it's mine! Grrr.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 16 May 2005 13:43 (twenty-one years ago)

His being named Ned was one of the funnier things about the movie, and it wasn't even intentionally funny.

― Leon Federline (Ex Leon), Monday, 16 May 2005 14:38 (twenty-one years ago)

At least I'm not named Kingsley (Ned).

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 16 May 2005 14:44 (twenty-one years ago)

six months pass...

i had low hopes for this, but liked it quite a lot -- more than 'tenenbaums' anyway. it's murray's best performance in ages, goes back to When He Was Funny, ie the '80s.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Monday, 5 December 2005 11:43 (twenty years ago)

http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/s2s/latest/magnitudes1b/src/images/incorrect.gif

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 5 December 2005 16:33 (twenty years ago)

http://minicooper.blog.hr/slike/207010.jpg

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Monday, 5 December 2005 16:36 (twenty years ago)

i really dislike nu-bill murray

― latebloomer: The Corridor (Yes, The Corridor) (latebloomer), Monday, 5 December 2005 16:36 (twenty years ago)

me too, but this was a return to old-bill murray.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Monday, 5 December 2005 16:38 (twenty years ago)

the life aquatic is probably his worst, least funny performance, and that includes "larger than life"

(and there's considerable evidence that he knows it)

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 5 December 2005 16:38 (twenty years ago)

how is this old-style bill murray? in any way? it's like the worst tendencies of nu-murray!!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 5 December 2005 16:38 (twenty years ago)

nu-bill is depressive. old-bill is a bit manic.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Monday, 5 December 2005 16:40 (twenty years ago)

this is like his blankest, most depressive performance!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 5 December 2005 16:42 (twenty years ago)

naah.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Monday, 5 December 2005 16:45 (twenty years ago)

Much as I hate to agree with Enrique, I liked it. It was a blocked movie about a blocked guy like 8 1/2, an overdone under-baked white elephant movie like Lola Montes ( Awaits "please do not compare this piece of crap with those cinematic masterpieces" comments)

― k/l (Ken L), Monday, 5 December 2005 16:47 (twenty years ago)

on the commentary they bleep out the wrds 'jacques cousteau' -- why?

nb -- i really really expected to hate this, i hated 'tenenbaums' and put off seeing this a year. it's no 'rushmore' but i roffed quite a bit. 'throw him over the other side'.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Monday, 5 December 2005 16:50 (twenty years ago)

has every wes anderson movie so far been about a self-absorbed middle-aged man coming to terms with shit? sure seems like it.

FWIW i didn't HATE this movie, i just liked the undersea/whimsical stuff better than the trite melodrama.

― latebloomer: The Corridor (Yes, The Corridor) (latebloomer), Monday, 5 December 2005 16:52 (twenty years ago)

has every wes anderson movie so far been about a self-absorbed middle-aged man coming to terms with shit? sure seems like it.

bottle rocket -- no
rushmore -- not really, ok, maybe a bit
tenenbaums -- within a large ensemble piece
life aquatic -- yes

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Monday, 5 December 2005 16:55 (twenty years ago)

twelve years pass...

Saw this it's good

The dog smack is a once-a-year genuine laugh out loud moment

Does it hold together ah who cares

― remember the lmao (darraghmac), Monday, 8 January 2018 16:38 (eight years ago)

this is an underrated one, never understood the low rep compared to Anderson's other work.

― omar little, Monday, 8 January 2018 16:48 (eight years ago)

dmac u proclaim spoilers are horrible yet u fuck w me on this

― infinity (∞), Monday, 8 January 2018 17:31 (eight years ago)

this movie has Gut Feeling in it so it's basically already pretty good on that alone

― #TeamHailing (imago), Monday, 8 January 2018 17:34 (eight years ago)

also, have never come away from a wes anderson movie feeling bad or let down or anything. i think hindsight will be kind to his reputation

― #TeamHailing (imago), Monday, 8 January 2018 17:35 (eight years ago)

Guys the dog smack

― remember the lmao (darraghmac), Monday, 8 January 2018 18:52 (eight years ago)

This one and Darjeeling are the two Anderson flicks that made zero impression on me. Overuse of Bill Murray sadface. Visual feast tho (well they all are)

― Well bissogled trotters (Michael B), Monday, 8 January 2018 21:03 (eight years ago)

Darjeeling is the one that he needed slapping out of

― remember the lmao (darraghmac), Monday, 8 January 2018 21:05 (eight years ago)

I bet its LJ's favourite

― Well bissogled trotters (Michael B), Monday, 8 January 2018 21:09 (eight years ago)

six years pass...

think wes anderson's movies could benefit from a little more effort to collapse the "themes" into the phenomenology.

― H.P, Thursday, 17 October 2024 12:02 (one year ago)

brother, couldn't we all

― Daniel_Rf, Thursday, 17 October 2024 14:35 (one year ago)

Last time I collapsed the "themes" into the phenomenology, I ended up in the back of a paddywagon

― H.P, Thursday, 17 October 2024 15:12 (one year ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.