I don't know, I found Rushmore to be pretty annoying and hackish as well. I felt Anderson used his understated deliveries and quirky dialog to hide the lack of real development or relationship between the characters. And the mix tape of a soundtrack (dedicated to his 7th grade crush no doubt) also helped gloss over the bad script.

I have no idea if my feelings for Rushmore remain the same. I saw it when it first came out more than a decade ago and that was when I didn't know who Wes Anderson was. All I know that I was consumed by the film's bittersweet melancholy. I never forget Miss Cross' eyes as she longs for her dead husband in Max.

See, I still think the Royal Tenenbaums is the one Anderson movie where all his little annoying quirks and homages works, but the thing about something like that is it only works once-- hence his inability to make another movie that isn't just a rewrite of his earlier works and influences.

Anderson isn't so bad. I enjoy even his medicore films (Zissou, Darjeeling), love his good films (Rushmore), and ejaculate wildly all over his best films (Tenenbaums).

Zissou and Darjeeling are mediocre due to their lack of structure and generally tired feel of the material. I enjoy many parts of both (standout parts from Z include the funeral, the film festival, and the moon jellies scene, and from Ltd. include the flashback, most of the train scenes, and the end), but they are dragged down by slow parts. Rushmore shows a better structure and great tone, and it looks terrific, but occasionally comes off as slightly contrived. Tenenbaums is all-out his best film. The structure is impeccable, the tone flawless, the actors fanastic, and the script perfect. It reminds me of a Salinger book, in the good way. If I had to pick anyone to direct any Salinger, it'd be Anderson, or at least Tenenbaums-era Anderson, which has a kind of airy lightness to it.

There are many parallels between Tenenbaums and Franny and Zoe, which i belive was one of the biggest influences on the writing of the story, in terms of child prodigies dealing with fame and their families. I'm not sure if you have read this or not (since you didn't mention it), but it's my favorite of Salinger's work and LEAGUES better then Catcher in the Rye.

I really loved Franny and Zooey, and will have to read it again. Catcher is terrific, though, with so many layers of metaphors and allusions and whatnot. I sort of speedread Franny and Zooey, and probably missed whatever metaphors and allusions and whatnot Salinger wrote in. I've yet to start on Nine Stories or any of the others, though, but I'm looking forward to it; the Glass Family is fascinating.

this is my favorite short story he's written. Check it out.

I was thinking about some of the other things I really liked about this film, one of them being the reveals throughout, about a character's history or personality, which were then played with. All three brothers slowly reveal their selves to the others, by bits and pieces, throughout. It reminded me of the Margot character in Tenenbaums and how you really don't know her at all until the very end of the film (where a lot of the other members of the family wear their hearts on their sleeves.) There's even a kind of meta-reveal at the end where they take you through the train one last time to get a second glance at all the people in their lives. You find out, in a way, what has really touched them and what they truly care about.

Since it is three people (again, Anderson concentrates a lot of energy into that specific dynamic in his films) two maybe know something about the third he doesn't, and vice versa. Anderson spends the whole film exploiting this unfamiliarity or familiarity with the others for all it is worth. Their back story seems fully realized and is made plain without being overbearing. Maybe these are the three most fully realized characters in any Anderson film. For any kind of information that put across by the brothers, it almost always gets warped into a misunderstanding, adds to confusion, or shines a light into an area previously untouched, rarely does dialog serve no purpose that I can discern. One of the guiding principles in the film, and what really moves it forward, is how they communicate with each other, so much through body language especially.

I also can't get the "I lost mine" Brody line out of my head. At first it seemed completely inappropriate, but the more I think about it the more it seems in character at least, but still awkward. It is followed with one of the deepest examinations of loss in an Anderson film, certainly less flippant than the dog and airplane flashback in Tenenbaums. A set of wake and funeral scenes that are beautifully put together. The film has so much respect for this family and the three boys during this section, they nearly eclipse the brothers in importance (and you feel that this refocusing is *right*) The ceremony is in direct contrast to their previous behavior "going to holy places" with no direction. Speaking of which, I was watching Malle's Calcutta and early in the film an Indian man is being interviewed who left his life and his family to just wander attending religious ceremonies, maybe this was inspiration?

Well, Malle's documentaries (as well as Renoir's The River and Satyajit Ray's movies) are credited by Anderson in his liner notes for the soundtrack CD as big influences on him for this movie. So, I guess that the answer to your question is, yes, quite possibly.

Renoir and Satyajit Ray, eh? Well, he's got a long way to go.

according to dvdbeaver, there is no audio commentary

I've got the disc and can confirm that. the film looks great as expected, and its got a trailer for a film called "The ONION movie", which I hadn't heard of, but looks like a lot of fun.

I remember reading about this several years ago-- apparently it was filmed and was so bad that the studio wouldn't release it. Then they tried to get a former Mr Show writer to punch it up with new material but last I'd heard nothing ever happened. Early word on the film was that it was Death though as far as laughs went-- only one or two writers from the Onion were involved and I'm pretty sure that once editors changed they tried to get "the Onion" label removed from the film. Shocked it's being released.

The lack of commentary still gives me hope this will appear in a special or Criterion edition down the line. While Criterion may be downplaying the possibility of a disc from them right now, I can also see Fox Searchlight asking them to keep it on the downlow for now while their disc comes to market. Anderson's commentaries (and Eric Anderson's artwork) are among my favorite and I really hope we get an Anderson/Coppola/Schwartzmann one down the line. I'm going to hold off on getting this for now.

And yeah, The Onion movie is by most accounts a trainwreck. It's been sitting on the shelf for a couple of years now. I too am surprised it's seeing a release at all. Though, it would be interesting to hear The Onion editors on a commentary track.

Is there any reason to believe that the Onion movie is coming out? I suspect they just made a trailer of the 2.5 minutes of good stuff and are releasing like any other trailer for a non-existant film.

No one should trigger a healthy nation's gag reflex as often or as intensely as quirky-moment-machine Wes Anderson. For years I've fantasized about the ultimate slo-mo outro to a documentary called Wes Anderson & The Life Arctic: Anderson is placed on a small dinghy with the Wilson brothers (all three of ‘em) and Angelica Huston, then slowly descended from a pastel-colored Finnish ice-breaker. Just as the tears appear in Anderson's horrified, frost-encrusted eyes, Abba's "So Long" kicks in, drowning the group's slow-motion screams for mercy. Anderson went from ass-clown status to the he-must-die list with 2007's Darjeeling Limited, a vapid film even by his standards that doubled as an effortless insult to India. It's the film equivalent of a frat boy carving his initials in the Taj Mahal. Anderson had the gall to dedicate the film to Satyajit Ray, who would have spat in Anderson's face had he lived to enjoy the honor.

Auch.

I think this belongs in the "Rediculous Customer Reviews" thread.

I disagree

It seems pretty easy to call a film "vapid" under the guise of an equally vapid critique.

What were the odds of someone with a Salinger username posting in a Wes Anderson thread

I really just wanted a chance to click the "Helpful/Not Helpful?" yes or no button, sorry. For the record, I would have clicked "Helpful".

About the same odds as someone who's a real smarty-pants posting in a Wes Anderson thread.

No, but seriously guys, this movie is so offensive(ly bad).

India is exotic! The poor people there are so noble!

Ah yes, please tell us that culture shock doesn't exist, and it makes for poor material for a story! And very untruthful. I for one know that even with in a few minutes of a completely different place I assimilate completely and understand their customs as my own. How right you are to assuage Anderson for making a film about people going somewhere they've never been and not "getting it."


It's more like the film equivalent of someone writing the sentence "It's the film equivalent of a frat boy carving his initials in the Taj Mahal" which is a really interesting way of looking at the movie. I'm sure Ray would have spat in another filmmaker's face who had a similar disposition, which is probably why he helped Renoir make his (very arguably racist) The River, and spoke volumes about how much he learned on the shoot. He clearly had zero tolerance for any outsider's view of his country.

The amount of flippant and ridiculously over the top statements in this thread would be enough to make an improv comic blush.

What are the odds of someone making facetious comments in a Wes Anderson thread?

1-1?