|
Re: What's the Big Deal with Wes Anderson
I wouldn't mind Wes Anderson so much is that he took one of the funniest actors of my generation and sucked out all the joie de vivre from him so that he acts like he's been diagnosed with terminal cancer in every one of Anderson's films.
Ivan Reitman and Harold Ramis created cinematic magic with Bill Murray that Wes Anderson can only dream of. |
Re: What's the Big Deal with Wes Anderson
Originally Posted by PopcornTreeCt
(Post 6024892)
I love The Royal Tenenbaums and Bottle Rocket but I don't think too highly of Wes Anderson. He has yet to make an accessible audience friendly film.
|
Re: What's the Big Deal with Wes Anderson
Yay accessible audience friendly films! :yack:
|
Re: What's the Big Deal with Wes Anderson
Originally Posted by PenguinJoe
(Post 11556085)
You cannot deny the originality in his works.
All his films are very similar in many ways and he doesn't stray too far away from his formula. |
Re: What's the Big Deal with Wes Anderson
^^
Seconded. Rinse. Repeat. Release on Criterion. |
Re: What's the Big Deal with Wes Anderson
Originally Posted by Solid Snake PAC
(Post 11556371)
Do you still think he needs too...8 years later? lol...
I actually think highly of Anderson now. Mostly because my 2 favorite films from him are The Darjeeling Limited and Moonrise Kingdom. I like him but had he done nothing after The Life Aquatic I might not be saying the same. P.S. What happened to cygnet? |
Re: What's the Big Deal with Wes Anderson
I wasn't too thrilled at a few of his films, quirky just for quirkys sake. Darjeeling Limited, which felt kind of like a long music video compiling all of Wes Anderson's favorite songs while the characters walk around in slow motion
however Moonrise Kingdom I thought was a really great film, probably my favorite Wes Anderson film. Still haven't had a chance to see The Royal Tenebaums. |
Re: What's the Big Deal with Wes Anderson
Originally Posted by PatD
(Post 11556357)
I wouldn't mind Wes Anderson so much is that he took one of the funniest actors of my generation and sucked out all the joie de vivre from him so that he acts like he's been diagnosed with terminal cancer in every one of Anderson's films.
Ivan Reitman and Harold Ramis created cinematic magic with Bill Murray that Wes Anderson can only dream of. |
Re: What's the Big Deal with Wes Anderson
Originally Posted by PatD
(Post 11556357)
I wouldn't mind Wes Anderson so much is that he took one of the funniest actors of my generation and sucked out all the joie de vivre from him so that he acts like he's been diagnosed with terminal cancer in every one of Anderson's films.
Ivan Reitman and Harold Ramis created cinematic magic with Bill Murray that Wes Anderson can only dream of. |
Re: What's the Big Deal with Wes Anderson
Originally Posted by Draven
(Post 11556548)
Oh good god, what unbelievable crap. Murray obviously enjoys the work. He's not a puppet, slaves to the whims of his director. And it's not like he hasn't done that kind of work before the Anderson movies. There's room for many kinds of roles for an actor of his caliber.
And frankly, I think the reason Murray does it is to garner critical acclaim from movie snobs and award givers. But, playing a character like Peter Venkman takes a lot more effort and talent than playing the same stock character he's played in all his appearances in Anderson's filmography. |
Re: What's the Big Deal with Wes Anderson
As per usual, you've given something a cursory look, dismissed it, and completely missed the point.
Murray is superb in Wes Anderson's films, as well as movies like Lost In Translation, Broken Flowers, etc. He couldn't and shouldn't have to play Peter Venkman all his life. He grew up, perhaps you'd like to as well? |
Re: What's the Big Deal with Wes Anderson
Originally Posted by Supermallet
(Post 11556585)
As per usual, you've given something a cursory look, dismissed it, and completely missed the point.
Murray is superb in Wes Anderson's films, as well as movies like Lost In Translation, Broken Flowers, etc. He couldn't and shouldn't have to play Peter Venkman all his life. He grew up, perhaps you'd like to as well? Peter Venkman and Phil Connors were works of comic genius and hardly Adam Sandler-level. They're no less grown-up than Groucho Marx. And why does a comic actor have to appear in films where the humor is dry as prairie dust to be taken seriously? Oh, right--because it's "grown up". Please. (Also, I take exception to you attacking my maturity simply because I don't have the same taste in film as you. I've been quite civil and stated a cogent case. Just because I might prefer Sleeper over Annie Hall has no bearing on my maturity. I like hearty, thoughtful laughs--I guess that makes me a man-child.) |
Re: What's the Big Deal with Wes Anderson
Originally Posted by Supermallet
(Post 11556262)
And I have to come to the defense of Happiness, although I know many of the posts were written in 2005. That film is a masterpiece of 90s cinema. Unfortunately, Life During Wartime was unwatchable tripe.
|
Re: What's the Big Deal with Wes Anderson
I would like to see him write actual adult characters someday. All his characters are bizarre child-people and it's becoming a bit creepy.
|
Re: What's the Big Deal with Wes Anderson
Originally Posted by PatD
(Post 11556591)
What point have I missed? He plays the same dour, put upon character in every one of Anderson's movies. He's a little more lively in Lost in Translation--true.
Peter Venkman and Phil Connors were works of comic genius and hardly Adam Sandler-level. They're no less grown-up than Groucho Marx. And why does a comic actor have to appear in films where the humor is dry as prairie dust to be taken seriously? Oh, right--because it's "grown up". Please. And by missing the point, I mean you've missed out on all the subtlety and humor (yes, humor) that Murray has brought to his post-Anderson roles.
Originally Posted by PatD
(Post 11556591)
(Also, I take exception to you attacking my maturity simply because I don't have the same taste in film as you. I've been quite civil and stated a cogent case. Just because I might prefer Sleeper over Annie Hall has no bearing on my maturity. I like hearty, thoughtful laughs--I guess that makes me a man-child.)
And I'll take Love and Death over both Sleeper and Annie Hall. But then I'll take Manhattan over Annie Hall as well. |
Re: What's the Big Deal with Wes Anderson
Since TRT he has collaborated on screenplays with Noah Baumbach (The Life Aquatic / Fantastic Mr. Fox),
Roman Coppola (The Darjeeling Limited / Moonrise Kingdom) & Jason Schwartzman (The Darjeeling Limited). Up to TRT his writing partner was Owen Wilson. From what I have seen I prefer the stuff he wrote with Wilson. I would like to see him & also Tarantino direct a screenplay that someone else wrote and see what happens. If you are a good director you can make a different kind of magic. Look at David Cronenberg and what I would call his "dramas" (The Dead Zone, M. Butterfly, Spider, A History of Violence, Eastern Promises, A Dangerous Method). He did not write any of those but yet they feel like his but with a different tone. |
Re: What's the Big Deal with Wes Anderson
Originally Posted by PatD
(Post 11556357)
I wouldn't mind Wes Anderson so much is that he took one of the funniest actors of my generation and sucked out all the joie de vivre from him so that he acts like he's been diagnosed with terminal cancer in every one of Anderson's films.
Ivan Reitman and Harold Ramis created cinematic magic with Bill Murray that Wes Anderson can only dream of. His performances in Anderson's films have been his best of his career. Yeah, if you're a kid then you won't get anything out of his Anderson films yet love his goofy characters of the past. There is plenty of room to enjoy both, but he got older and smarter and realized he could make people laugh in different roles. Sometimes actors like broadening their horizons. Sometimes you don't want to be the goofball. And your line about "Wes Anderson can only dream of creating cinematic magic like Reitman and Ramis"...That was just a ridiculous thing to say. Any one of Anderson's films is superior to anything either of them have done and I actually like some of Ramis' films. Was there memorable characters or lines in their films? Yes. Are they good filmmakers, not really. I don't think Anderson looks to Ivan Reitman as an inspiration. :lol: |
Re: What's the Big Deal with Wes Anderson
Liked Murray alot in Broken Flowers & The Limits of Control, he should do another film with Jarmusch.
|
Re: What's the Big Deal with Wes Anderson
Jarmusch has another film coming out soon which is great. I've been wondering when he was going to get around to it.
|
Re: What's the Big Deal with Wes Anderson
Originally Posted by foofighters7
(Post 11556963)
I bet you like spolosions too, don't cha?
His performances in Anderson's films have been his best of his career. Yeah, if you're a kid then you won't get anything out of his Anderson films yet love his goofy characters of the past. There is plenty of room to enjoy both, but he got older and smarter and realized he could make people laugh in different roles. Sometimes actors like broadening their horizons. Sometimes you don't want to be the goofball. And your line about "Wes Anderson can only dream of creating cinematic magic like Reitman and Ramis"...That was just a ridiculous thing to say. Any one of Anderson's films is superior to anything either of them have done and I actually like some of Ramis' films. Was there memorable characters or lines in their films? Yes. Are they good filmmakers, not really. I don't think Anderson looks to Ivan Reitman as an inspiration. :lol: Has Murray's filmography before 1998 had a lot of shit before going indie? You bet. In fact, I don't blame him entirely for going the route he's gone.(The Man Who Knew to Little, anyone?) But, he has so much more potential than to play the same morose character over and over in Anderson's films. Hell, Lost in Translation, was terrific, because he could be more subdued and keep his impish charm without being laconic to the point of sedate. I don't like when Murray's a full-on, slob comedy goofball like in Caddyshack, nor his stock character in Anderson's line-up. I prefer the creamy middle of witty mirth. |
Re: What's the Big Deal with Wes Anderson
Originally Posted by PatD
(Post 11556357)
I wouldn't mind Wes Anderson so much is that he took one of the funniest actors of my generation and sucked out all the joie de vivre from him so that he acts like he's been diagnosed with terminal cancer in every one of Anderson's films.
Ivan Reitman and Harold Ramis created cinematic magic with Bill Murray that Wes Anderson can only dream of. The internet... endlessly entertaining. |
Re: What's the Big Deal with Wes Anderson
I know this is a thread for Anderson, who I am a fan of, but here is a Shout Out for Jarmusch!
|
Re: What's the Big Deal with Wes Anderson
Originally Posted by Dr Mabuse
(Post 11557318)
:lol:
The internet... endlessly entertaining. Although I suppose there is some comfort to be taken in safe, formulaic inertia... |
Re: What's the Big Deal with Wes Anderson
Originally Posted by JANK
(Post 11557400)
I know this is a thread for Anderson, who I am a fan of, but here is a Shout Out for Jarmusch!
|
Re: What's the Big Deal with Wes Anderson
Originally Posted by PatD
(Post 11557298)
And I bet you're typing this from a coffee shop and wearing a scarf and a beret while sipping a mocha, aren't ya? Let's put a kibosh on the stereotyping.
I'm not so much holding up Ramis and Reitman's *whole* filmography. But Ghostbusters and Groundhog Day are both brilliant comic works. Pitch perfect with comic timing like a swiss watch. In fact, Groundhog Day has the beginnings of more of Murray's seasoned, less goofball side shining through. But, hey, these two movies aren't filled with obscure music tracks and shot in Poser-Vision with each shot composed like a diorama to impress the critics, so...what? They're in the same category as Movie 43? Has Murray's filmography before 1998 had a lot of shit before going indie? You bet. In fact, I don't blame him entirely for going the route he's gone.(The Man Who Knew to Little, anyone?) But, he has so much more potential than to play the same morose character over and over in Anderson's films. Hell, Lost in Translation, was terrific, because he could be more subdued and keep his impish charm without being laconic to the point of sedate. I don't like when Murray's a full-on, slob comedy goofball like in Caddyshack, nor his stock character in Anderson's line-up. I prefer the creamy middle of witty mirth. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:26 PM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.