Bah, you liked The Village. Your opinion is discredited!

...with SERIOUS reservations.

I didn't like it as much as Tennenbaums or Rushmore, but I didn't really like those films the first time I saw them either. So who knows, maybe I'll like it more on subsequent viewings, and it was only $15 so can't get too worked up.

I do think the soundtrack made a big difference in this film, there really wasn't much music at all the first 30 minutes, and I feel his excellent use of music made the other two films more fun. I had more issues with Life Aquatic, but it's still better than most mindless junk turned out these days.

[QUOTE=truedorian]I read Francis Rizzo III's DVD review of The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou - Criterion Collection at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=15651 and... I strongly disagree; this movie was a bore! I have enjoyed all of Wes Anderson's movies up to this point, but I could just not get into this. It has uninteresting characters populating a non-existent story that, for all of it's forced, pretentious quirkiness (emphasis on "forced"), eventually just becomes boring. The actors themselves give sincere but lackluster performances in this story-less film, having little to do except stare wistfully at the camera in their funny costumes while reciting trite, flat dialogue. Even the soundtrack (usually a winner with wes anderson films) comes across as forced and uninspired.

It always amuses me when I see "groupies" (be it a fan or an enamored film critic) apologize and attempt to explain away the obvious misteps of their "fave" artist. In the "groupies" eyes, their hero can do no wrong; even while admitting it's flaws, the failure (in their eyes) is a valid, noble attempt that will become more appreciated with a second, third or fourth viewing.

It's true that sometimes upon catching a film the second time around, you can find things that you missed upon the first viewing and, hence, appreciate the film more (I believe this is due somewhat to lowered expectations, which allows for an acceptance of the film on it's own terms.) However, sometimes credit should be given where credit is due: when it's entertaining and engaging, you'll know it (and you won't need to actively seek out it's positive qualities on repeat viewings); when it's not, you'll know that, too.

In the end, it's all relative, I suppose; one man's turd is another man's diamond. Perhaps Rizzo finds shakespearean tragedy buried in old "Gumby and Pokey" cartoons (of which the creatures in this movie are charmingly are reminiscent of).

In my humble opinion, with the exception of the creative photography and art direction in this film, this movie is almost a complete misfire. Rent, don't buy, if you're curious.

[QUOTE=truedorian]Not all movies can be immediately broken down into the diametrically opposed categories of "It rox" or "It sux". There are many movies that fall in between. Some movies require you to think about them for more than 15 seconds after you've viewed them, and this is not necessarily a failing.

There seems to be little room in this world anymore for movies that are imperfect but interesting. You either have to be instantly gratified or it's a complete failure. It makes me very sad that a movie filled with so many wonderful ideas, images, and performances as this one can be dismissed offhand as if it were no better than your average Grade-Z straight-to-video crapfest.

Like The Village, for example...

(By the way, I'm in total agreement.)

I agree wholeheartedly with this last bit of your post. I'm going to give it another go.

I am far from a Anderson know-it-all, but I have seen Rushmore, Royal Tenebaums, and The Life Aquatic and must say that I enjoyed The Life Aquatic much more than TRT. I really enjoyed the characters in this film and will leave it at that.

What exactly constitutes "contempt for the audience"? That's quite a phrase to throw out without anything to back it up.

To me, all the details, along with the understatement of the film show that Anderson loves his audience.

Movies like Meet The Fockers and Monster In Law truly hate their audience... as they should.

i'm going to be completely honest with you. i don't know why i wrote "contempt for the audience". it doesn't make any sense and i don't remember doing it, let alone formulating a reason to. i can only speculate that in my hurry to express what i feel was contempt for the importance of balanced time-pressure between scenes and moments, i forgot my intent for a moment and unwittingly typed the embarrassingly clichéd phrase: "contempt for the audience".

they don't hate the audience. they FEAR the audience. how else can you explain two movies about despicable characters going out of their way to convince us they really are nice people?

[QUOTE=Josh Z]This movie is definitely not "grade-Z, straight to video crap", but it is not terribly entertaining, either. My attention span is just fine, and I am no fan of mindless hollywood blockbusters. In fact, this film makes the same mistake a lot of those "blockbuster" films make (albeit, in a more creative way); it chooses to put it's (quirky, Lo-Fi) style over substance, attempting to sell half-baked ideas without there being any true story. I generally find that a tough quality to overlook in any film I that I come across.

If a film decides to be storyless, then it better be compelling in some other respect: intriguing characters, arresting visuals, thought-provoking or interesting ideas, inventive or well-paced editing, strong (or subtle) humor; I found no strong evidence of any of these qualities in "Life Aquatic", certainly not enough to sustain a film. As for originality, haven't we encountered many of these ideas before in the last few Wes Anderson films (of which I am a big fan of)?

There are a few (distinctive) things to recommend about this movie, as I pointed out in my earlier review, but overall, "Aquatic"'s charms wore off for me about a third of the way into the film. I might go so far as to say this film would have probably been better as a 30 minute short, rather than a full-length feature film. As it is, "The Life Aquatic" proves itself to be a mannered, trite bore of a film.

I refuse to grade a film on what it attempts to be or do; only on what it is and what it does. Nor do I believe a "C" movie should be given an "A" simply because there are so many "D" movies out there.

In fact, there ARE "Grade-Z straight-to-video crapfest" films that can stand up proudly and proclaim with honor: "For all our shittiness, at least WE are entertaining!"