|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: Re: ----- (Reply to this comment)
by Simply_Crispy
Mike -
I've reported this comment to abuse (not self-abuse, just regular old abuse). The mental images you've thrust (!) into my mind are sure to keep me up at nights. *shudder*
No worse than the time Steph told me you write your reviews in your underwar. I feel dirty just reading your profile page.
Okay, maybe I won't send in that abuse report. Especially if you're going to be tossing syrupy compliments like this my way.
Tossing syrup for the syrupy tosser.
I had resolved to stop writing reviews. That's how my 2005 started. But now you've given me motivation to get back on the review-writing horse. If only to watch you suffer. Thanks!
You're going to watch me suffer. Dude, you know that restraining order is good for a minimum of 500 yards. And, no, that doesn't mean you can bug my house. Again.
Anyway, if it's any consolation, I'll be doing less reviews this year than I did last year. Promise.
Chris
|
Jan 23 '05
4:12 am PST
|
|
Re: ----- (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Chrisp-
Thats a bit like the time Nat told me that the last of the multiple orgasms I gave her the other night wasn't as good as the others.
I've reported this comment to abuse (not self-abuse, just regular old abuse). The mental images you've thrust (!) into my mind are sure to keep me up at nights. *shudder*
Or me saying to you that your writing on this review didn't make me throw up as much as some of your others.
Okay, maybe I won't send in that abuse report. Especially if you're going to be tossing syrupy compliments like this my way.
Anyway, this is the first review of 2005 from you I've read. Sigh. And my year had got off to such a good start,
I had resolved to stop writing reviews. That's how my 2005 started. But now you've given me motivation to get back on the review-writing horse. If only to watch you suffer. Thanks!
-mike
|
Jan 22 '05
10:36 am PST
|
|
hi. (Reply to this comment)
by erickmosaic
Well done.
etm
|
Jan 21 '05
5:04 am PST
|
|
----- (Reply to this comment)
by Simply_Crispy
Mike -
Doesn't reach the heights of Anderson's previous films
Thats a bit like the time Nat told me that the last of the multiple orgasms I gave her the other night wasn't as good as the others. Or me saying to you that your writing on this review didn't make me throw up as much as some of your others.
Sometimes, personal benchmarks are just impossible to reach.
Anyway, this is the first review of 2005 from you I've read. Sigh. And my year had got off to such a good start,
Chris
|
Jan 18 '05
5:59 am PST
|
|
Great review (Reply to this comment)
by pointtaken
Very poignantly stated and dead on. Wes Anderson rules in a very hard to explain way, but you did a good job.
|
Jan 13 '05
9:07 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Love it? Hate it? Aaagggh! (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Nick the Lounge Suenger-
blindly following moink, which will surely lead me into ferrin films and too much Quentin Tarantino.
I don't see anything wrong with a life like that, full of bliss and subtitles and samurai-sword knife wounds.
But in the end they'll just stare at you blankly, ask who Wes Anderson is and tell you your shirt is green instead of blue.
Sounds very Orwellian, to me. Will they also try and convince me that 2 plus 2 equals 5?
The only thing therapeutic here is the primal scream you utter at that point.
I could use a good primal scream. My screams are usually so... timid. Soft. Not-from-the-diaphragm. A good primal scream would clear out the cobwebs, and start my 2005 off on a clean and clear note.
I'm sort of surprised at how good he is at the sad clown. From his early days I wouldn't have thought he would go that direction (except the lounge singer - he was always essentially a sad clown).
I think I just had a bit of deja vu. No wait, I just had a bit of deja Sue!:
http://tinyurl.com/46lsm
All I know is that I far prefer that to the Chevy Chase mode of aged, unfunny clown.
Who would have thought, back when Chase was the Zen-golfer and Murray the dimwit caretaker in "Caddyshack", that their respective career paths would have diverged so much. Bill was nominated for an Oscar, for goodness sakes! Where's Chevy now?
As much as I love Bill, I don't want to see that much of Bill.
Your Bill-love is obviously not as pure and true as mine. Pity, that.
Or most people, really.
I assume you wouldn't mind seeing the cast of "The Lord of the Rings" dressed only in Speedos. I hear that Gimli has shapely buttocks, perfect for swooning over.
if I see the movie and like it, I'll be forced to agree with you, which might put me in a coma.
A coma of Zissou-infused bliss. Just think: when you awake, you will be in your post-Zissou stage of life, where everything tastes better, the colours are brighter, and moink is always right.
Do you think I should see it?
See what?
-the mike aquatic
|
Jan 03 '05
9:05 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Love it? Hate it? Aaagggh! (Reply to this comment)
by millinocket,  in Movies
Bill Mikerry,
When in doubt: believe moink, ignore Evil N8. It's a system that will never let you down.
I don't like that system at all. Because it involves blindly following moink, which will surely lead me into ferrin films and too much Quentin Tarantino. So.......no. When in doubt, I will take a nap.
And I fart in your general direction.
Like you don't always? Pfft.
You were making a point (presumably).
No, I don't think so.
Why don't I just tell them about my favourite Wes Anderson movies instead? That way everybody wins. Plus: it's therapeutic.
But in the end they'll just stare at you blankly, ask who Wes Anderson is and tell you your shirt is green instead of blue. The only thing therapeutic here is the primal scream you utter at that point.
Bill sure has that sad clown thing down, doesn't he? I don't know how we're going to get the "Ghostbusters" sequel off the ground if Bill will only play morose.
I'm sort of surprised at how good he is at the sad clown. From his early days I wouldn't have thought he would go that direction (except the lounge singer - he was always essentially a sad clown). All I know is that I far prefer that to the Chevy Chase mode of aged, unfunny clown.
Let me put it this way: this film features footage of a man-eating Jaguar Shark. And it's still only the second scariest image.
I don't know if I can take it. As much as I love Bill, I don't want to see that much of Bill. Or most people, really.
Bravo for resisting the urge to disagree with me, before you've seen the movie. Others around here don't even go that far.
It's a mighty urge to resist, to be sure. And if I see the movie and like it, I'll be forced to agree with you, which might put me in a coma. The things I do for this site.....
See it see it see it see it.
Do you think I should see it?
Wes Suenderson
|
Dec 30 '04
12:30 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahoy matey! (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Dave-
I just got home, and read online that the great Jerry Orbach passed away! I of course didn't know this until tonight...and what was meant in good humour yesterday now seems...pedestrian.
Yeah, I spotted that, too. Don't worry about it, though. The ephemera of the Epinions comment section is not admissible in court. You had no hand in the death of Jerry Orbach, and thus don't need to feel any more guilt than you usually do.
without Orbach, LAWSZ would have never worked!!
Maybe Dennis Farina will fill in. Can he sing and dance?
A nice, Orbach-inspired article, to help ease your grief:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2111540/
-mike
|
Dec 30 '04
8:58 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahoy matey! (Reply to this comment)
by drarnoklein
Just a sad side note...
I just got home, and read online that the great Jerry Orbach passed away!
I of course didn't know this until tonight...and what was meant in good humour yesterday now seems...pedestrian.
A great Broadway performer, and tv/film actor...Orbach will be missed. Long live Lenny!!
-david
p.s. Sorry Mike, didn't mean to bring down the proceedings...Besides, without Orbach, LAWSZ would have never worked!!
|
Dec 29 '04
6:46 pm PST
|
|
Re: founder and president, Wes Anderson Appreciation Club (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Voxy-
It's after 3 a.m., and left to my own devices i would've gone to bed hours ago, but Cindy's asking me to use what's left of my brain to summarize this review for her
Hi, Cindy.
to explain what it is you're saying in this movie's favor that no one else is willing to. What do i come up with? "Well... he's the first person to explain it like it's a Wes Anderson movie". It's heartening.
It makes the movie reviewing game that much easier, if you can just boil the films down to their barest elements. "This movie is good because Wes Anderson made it, and he made it like he's always made his movies. The thing is what the thing is, and it's nothing else besides." It's a bit longer than your answer, but I think that if Cindy likes "The Royal Tenenbaums", she'll get it.
I'm MH-ing it more on faith,
As an agnostic, I thank you.
and my happiness at your eloquent understanding of his previous films, than out of believing that this movie is as good as your review (rather than its own, appalling, previews).
Do me a favour: try, in your own head, to formulate an action-packed, laff-a-minute preview for "The Royal Tenenbaums". Other than the sight of a car falling on a dog, or a Huston punching a Hackman, there are no real preview-friendly moments in that one. Think about that the next time you get dismayed by the "Life Aquatic" trailer.
I've been seeing several Bill Murray movies lately: Groundhog Day, Ghostbusters, the old ones where he's Satanic in the sense that Satan's a sleazy but persistent li'l negotiator too.
Someone's making the most of their Xmas break, I see.
I find that version easier to believe than the droopy tycoon of Rushmore, but hey: we believe Wes films because we _want_ to, not because mere reality lives up to them.
Ok, scratch all that stuff up top about "Wes Anderson is being Wes Anderson", and just tell Cindy that. It makes me want to sit through "The Life Aquatic" with Dis again, it does. Snoring and all!
Thanks, again, for being a sane voice in an insane world.
-mike
|
Dec 29 '04
9:09 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Thar's pyrite's on yon shippe! (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Mike-
How do you suppose I felt when my wife rolled her eyes at Before Sunrise and Before Sunset?
I'd suspect you felt disturbed, that she felt such hostility towards the sun. Assuming you're talking about points in the solar cycle, and not about the Ethan Hawke/Julie Delpy movies, for I see no possible reason why anyone -- Bach-loving or not -- would roll their eyes at them.
I had another late-film moment in mind.
What then?
I actually dig those forms of cinema, so that wasn't meant as an insult. I guess it came out thus, so, send me the bill for the soap
Apology accepted. And I stole the soap from a hotel bathroom, so don't worry about restitution. Though you should worry about pistols at dawn. Etc.
I thought at least you might point out that Mr. Pakula is no longer with us, and then I could say, I know, and we'd laugh.
Didn't Mr. Pakula die while driving on the freeway, when a brick from a passing truck fell off and smashed through his windshield? Hey, if you want to laugh at that, I'm good to go.
Fail again. Fail better. -- Samuel Beckett.
Aaaah, good of Mr. Beckett to drop by, and comfort me in my time of woe. All this Anderson bashing is making me feel like someone just beat up my mother. I take it personally.
I'd say you'd best save your big guns and bullets for Nate.
If you're gearing up for a fight, I'm betting you'll be disappointed. Wesnemesis or no Wesnemesis.
-mike
|
Dec 29 '04
9:01 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Ahoy matey! (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
The Dave Who Cried Wolf-
do I get an honorary 'club ring'? I've been working on the secret handshake too
Look, if you're willing to be the treasurer, and take the minutes at the meetings, then I'll think about letting you in. After all, we have a "No Daves Policy".
I think i'm going to draft a letter to Dick Wolf right now!!
"LAWSZ & ORDER". I like it.
Yes, the rambling "rambling, shambling quality" was prevalent in the other films...but the writing itself was stronger, and complemented the tone and structure of those movies, whereas in "LAWSZ" (Dum Dum), I never felt the screenplay went far enough. And I really wanted it too...
All I can say about that is this: I had reservations about the Owen Wilson-for-Noah Baumbach trade (I think they should have just released Wilson, and signed Charlie Kaufman as a free agent, but what do I know? I haven't even read "Moneyball"). I don't think Baumbach brought to the table what Wilson brought, but his "New Yorker"-styled strengths may prove more Anderson's speed, in the long run.
***SPOILERS*** Ironically, I felt the shoot-outs themselves were somewhat 'placid.' Which perhaps was the point. In fact, following the first shoot-out, I was waiting for a plot reversal...because the way it was shot, and executed, it felt overtly staged. And when nothing came about from it...I felt a little let-down (awwwww).***END OF SPOILERS***
Were you expecting the pirates to return in the end, for the grand sing-a-long finale? I think they would have made a great chorus line, headwounds and all.
Glad you liked my shark impression.
Can I call you Bruce? Or, rather, Bruce Jr.?
give me the works of Anderson, Payne, and (P.T.) Anderson any day. Throw in Nolan, Aronofsky, and Grandpa Tarantino (among others)... I think it's great that we have a number of directors(!) of whom we look forward to what they're going to do next.
Oh, there's some great stuff out there. When it hits, we all stand up and cheer. And when it misses (I'm willing to concede that, in the grand scheme of things, "LAWSZ" will be considered a miss) they still push the envelope of celluloid to places that make the whole endeavor worthwhile. Three cheers for our generation of filmmakers! Hip-hip...
Jerry Orbach's agreed to star in this one too! (He liked the idea of Lenny singing on Broadway!!).
Just make sure that he doesn't put Baby in the corner, and everything will be fine.
-mike and order
|
Dec 29 '04
8:51 am PST
|
|
Re: murray mints (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Andy-
well, if you haven't heard of them, they're minty sweets that you get over here, and they're quite nice actually. just so that i make some sort of sense.
I imagine that they're made out of groundhogs (or golfcourse gophers). Am I right? Or are there still some gaps in my understanding of Scottish cuisine?
anyway, your opening paragraph (and, indeed, the 'racist grandfather' part, though we won't mention that) struck a chord with me. as a closet dork (closet?), these are questions i often toil over myself.
Apparently Soren and I, down below, discovered that we share the same racist grandfather. Maybe you're a cousin, too! (That would certainly take the sting out of all this "dorky" talk)
i guess i'm finally beginning to appreciate bill murray as an actor.
It's about freakin' time! You know, I had dinner with someone last night who repeatedly denounced Bill Murray as a smarmy oaf. It was all I could do to keep from pushing the pizza slices off the table, and hopping over to throttle her by the neck.
(as a side note, i watched "lost in translation" again, and picked up on lots more subtlely funny moments, especially the one where murray is in the lift with nothing but little old japanese men at the beginning. maybe i should review it? my second movie review!)
Normally I'd tell you to skip the review. But the movie section could use a couple more good writers (and by "a couple" I mean "dozens and dozens"). Have at it, if you please.
i might check this one out; it sounds fairly reasonable. plus, it has an mfunk75 recommendation, and even though he is a bit of a prick, how can i ignore that? ;)
Hey! That "prick" jab sure came out of nowhere, didn't it? I'm not saying it's not true, but you don't have to go broadcasting my prickiness all over the Internet. Just for that, I don't want you to see the movie. You've lost all your "Steve Zissou" privileges.
-mike
|
Dec 29 '04
8:40 am PST
|
|
Re: ............. (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Marc-
Thank God for a positive review of this film. I'd almost given up on the thing before even seeing it.
And that would be a damned shame. Which is why I must bark my praise as loud as possible. *bark bark*
Thanks for stopping by.
-mike
|
Dec 29 '04
8:34 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Thar's pyrite's on yon shippe! (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Dis-
Love means never having to pretend you like your BF's director man-crush.
...or fake newsman man-crush, or fictional TV-geek man-crush, or post-modern San Franciscan author man-crush, or...
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it startling that I have so many man crushes? It's probably just me.
-mike-crush
|
Dec 29 '04
8:33 am PST
|
|
Re: La La La (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Beck-
Just sitting here waiting for Nate to come around and kick your CanadianAss for writing a positive review.
Ok. You do that.
-mike
|
Dec 29 '04
8:30 am PST
|
|
Re: Love it? Hate it? Aaagggh! (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Owen Wilsue-
After reading this, I'm going directly over to read Nate's one star drubbing. I'm terribly confused, yet determined to see the film in any case.
When in doubt: believe moink, ignore Evil N8. It's a system that will never let you down.
I scoff at you.
And I fart in your general direction. But do go on. You were making a point (presumably).
Try describing color to a color-blind person who thinks they know what color something is, but are just plain wrong, wrong, wrong. Now that's some frustration.
Why don't I just tell them about my favourite Wes Anderson movies instead? That way everybody wins. Plus: it's therapeutic.
Is there something inherently wrong with laconic characters?
That's what I said.
Sounds quite like his character in LIT
Bill sure has that sad clown thing down, doesn't he? I don't know how we're going to get the "Ghostbusters" sequel off the ground if Bill will only play morose.
though I'm not really sure about the whole "Bill in a Speedo" thing. It sort of scares me. Is it supposed to?
Let me put it this way: this film features footage of a man-eating Jaguar Shark. And it's still only the second scariest image.
So I'm stuck. I really want to love this movie, yet I also really want to disagree with you. You make things so difficult.
Bravo for resisting the urge to disagree with me, before you've seen the movie. Others around here don't even go that far.
See it see it see it see it.
-mikeo
|
Dec 29 '04
8:29 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Tell my Jacqueline/Deep Search I love her very much (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Guide Dis-
Well, yes, but you didn't put it that way, did you?
Well, no, I didn't but… but… shut up!
In your analogy, it's we anti-Anderson viewers who are forever stumbling in an infinite darkness, tripping over our canes and guide dogs.
I'm not even sure that you have canes and guide dogs. More likely, your hands and feet our bound, cotton batting is stuffed into your ears, and someone has perched you on the edge of a cliff, spun you around three times, and told you to find your way home. It doesn't look good.
Did you hear me murmuring, "Die, man-crushes, and relax your infernal grip on moink's loins"?
Unless you were speaking some magical made-up language, where every word sounds like snoring, no I didn't.
Of course I did. It's just that you're like a blind man, fingers inching tentatively over bumpy Braille in tortuously slow comprehension, while my fully sighted eyes race across the page.
See what I mean? The whole you-are-blind/I-am-sighted analogy is easy to use, and fun to trot out at parties! Though a tad arrogant.
I know who will be parked on the couch eating bon-bons and monopolizing the TV with "Buffy" reruns.
Damn. Can we compromise with a "Freaks and Geeks" marathon instead? That way we both win.
I wasn't saying nay, I was quoting others' naysaying.
It sounded more like, "nay, nay, nay, Seabiscuit-bah, nay," to me. But maybe you were just quoting Roger Ebert.
I withheld my nay until actually viewing the film, but I can now sing my nay to the heavens, letting it ring joyously out. Nay! Nay!! NAY!!!
And your glorious voice will reach up to Him, and He shall look down upon you from Heaven and say, "Knock off that racket!" Amen.
-mike-nay-nay
|
Dec 29 '04
8:22 am PST
|
|
founder and president, Wes Anderson Appreciation Club (Reply to this comment)
by voxpoptart
It's after 3 a.m., and left to my own devices i would've gone to bed hours ago, but Cindy's asking me to use what's left of my brain to summarize this review for her - to explain what it is you're saying in this movie's favor that no one else is willing to. What do i come up with? "Well... he's the first person to explain it like it's a Wes Anderson movie". It's heartening.
I'm MH-ing it more on faith, and my happiness at your eloquent understanding of his previous films, than out of believing that this movie is as good as your review (rather than its own, appalling, previews). I've been seeing several Bill Murray movies lately: Groundhog Day, Ghostbusters, the old ones where he's Satanic in the sense that Satan's a sleazy but persistent li'l negotiator too. I find that version easier to believe than the droopy tycoon of Rushmore, but hey: we believe Wes films because we _want_ to, not because mere reality lives up to them.
cheers,
- Brian
|
Dec 29 '04
12:00 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Thar's pyrite's on yon shippe! (Reply to this comment)
by trust12345
Team dissou-
Love means never having to pretend you like your BF's director man-crush. You'll thank me later.
Oh, you'll thank me now when I reveal that he had plans to lavish sweet-man-love on this film first thing setting foot on your turf, come the opening. I advised to get his priorities straight. I mean, hell, this isn't even a Guy Maddin premiere! You've got to span time with the lady.
-John
|
Dec 28 '04
7:48 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Thar's pyrite's on yon shippe! (Reply to this comment)
by trust12345
Mike-
Frustrating, indeed. A Dis anecdote, for you and only you: She kept tapping me on the shoulder, during the screening, and feigning bored sleep. Then, upon exiting the theatre, her first words to me were, "Well there's two hours of my life I'll never get back." Fully aware that the clichedness of the line, along with its pooh-poohing of my favourite director, would get my ire up. And it worked. Grrrr!
Go get 'em, Dis. I mean, damn sorry to hear this. How do you suppose I felt when my wife rolled her eyes at Before Sunrise and Before Sunset?... At least she adores Bach, and that's good enough for me.
Ack! If it helps, the "I wonder if it remembers me" line accompanies the other moving moment. But you knew that.
Oops. No, I had another late-film moment in mind. The one you just mentioned was innocuous enough for me; seemed like a very subtle jab toward sentiment on the writer's part, one quickly submerged in... [your aquatic pun here].
Oh. Dear. God. Are you actually comparing "LAWSZ" to some flimsy psychedelic Beatlemania, and some cheeky breast-obsession cinema? I may have to wash my eyes out, after reading that.
Sorry. But I actually dig those forms of cinema, so that wasn't meant as an insult. I guess it came out thus, so, send me the bill for the soap...
"I just wonder if the film might have been better if directed by someone like Sydney Pollack, or perhaps Alan J. Pakula?"
And I wonder if you're likely to get out of this comment section alive, spouting slanderous crap like that.
I thought at least you might point out that Mr. Pakula is no longer with us, and then I could say, I know, and we'd laugh. Now I have to wake up at dawn, again. Damn.
"You know, with a thriller angle, and starring Hal Holbrook instead of Murray... Anyone's guess."
Look, if you're jonesing for a shot of Hal Holbrook dressed only in a Speedo and a red toque, that's fine by me. But the rest of us are trying to live our lives, over here. We can't be having such disturbing images rolling around in our heads.
I renounce Hal Holbrook in a Speedo, I was wrong. And here are the names of other people who might be communist sympathizers: [your list of eps friends here.]
Pistols at dawn? Slight more on, again.
Fail again. Fail better. -- Samuel Beckett.
I'd say you'd best save your big guns and bullets for Nate. I'm chicken liver if he ain't your Wesnemesis for now...
-John
|
Dec 28 '04
7:43 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Ahoy matey! (Reply to this comment)
by drarnoklein
DaveFoe-
Dammit! I've been looking for a name for our little club for weeks, and there it was, right under my nose: Fandersons. Has some zing to it, I must say.
Seeing as I coined the term, do I get an honorary 'club ring'? I've been working on the secret handshake too...
LAWSZ
That acronym sounds like it should head a really bad prime-time cop show. "When the law ain't on your side… turn to the LAWSZ! (Coming this fall on NBC)"
...and everyone sings too! I think i'm going to draft a letter to Dick Wolf right now!!
I'd be willing to concede this point, if not for the fact that "Bottle Rocket", "Rushmore", and "Tenenbaums" all had this rambling, shambling quality to them. I thought "LAWSZ" fit right in with Wes' established tone and structural methods.
Yes, the rambling "rambling, shambling quality" was prevalent in the other films...but the writing itself was stronger, and complemented the tone and structure of those movies, whereas in "LAWSZ" (Dum Dum), I never felt the screenplay went far enough. And I really wanted it too...
The Philippino pirates, for one thing. I mean, having a gunfight in a Wes Anderson film? Who'd've thunk it? And I thunk it worked.
...Ummm...well...I wonder if Anderson himself thought the same thing? "A gunfight in a Wes Anderson film? Who would think it?" ***SPOILERS*** Ironically, I felt the shoot-outs themselves were somewhat 'placid.' Which perhaps was the point. In fact, following the first shoot-out, I was waiting for a plot reversal...because the way it was shot, and executed, it felt overtly staged. And when nothing came about from it...I felt a little let-down (awwwww).***END OF SPOILERS***
At the moment of the 'turn', I felt more shock than actual sadness. Which is an appropriate reaction, when something like that happens so suddenly and so out-of-the-blue. But, given some time for reflection, I can relate to the pain of the Zissou crew. I felt it worked.
I agree with the shock...I didn't expect that to happen either. However, because I didn't feel as connected to the characters, and their relationship to one another...it didn't have the same impact on me.
Nope. You're talking in circles, here. ;(
Glad you liked my shark impression.
I came in with low standards, given the critical drubbing the film had been taking. Maybe that's the reason why I enjoyed it so: lower than usual expectations. Maybe.
See, even with the lukewarm reviews the film has been getting, I went into the film with the attitude that Anderson has a very personal style that is not everyone's cup of tea...it is mine though. And all the directorial flourishes I've come to love in his films were there...the film as a whole just never seemed to gather momentum...
My criticisms aside...give me the works of Anderson, Payne, and (P.T.) Anderson any day. Throw in Nolan, Aronofsky, and Grandpa Tarantino (among others), and you've got a generation of filmmakers that have crafted very identifiable storytelling signatures that make for contemplative and engaging film viewing. I think it's great that we have a number of directors(!) of whom we look forward to what they're going to do next.
...Oh, Dick Wolf just called...nine episodes of LAWSZ has been ordered - and Jerry Orbach's agreed to star in this one too! (He liked the idea of Lenny singing on Broadway!!).
-DAVSZ
|
Dec 28 '04
3:00 pm PST
|
|
murray mints (Reply to this comment)
by andym173
well, if you haven't heard of them, they're minty sweets that you get over here, and they're quite nice actually. just so that i make some sort of sense.
anyway, your opening paragraph (and, indeed, the 'racist grandfather' part, though we won't mention that) struck a chord with me. as a closet dork (closet?), these are questions i often toil over myself.
oh! and i guess i'm finally beginning to appreciate bill murray as an actor. (as a side note, i watched "lost in translation" again, and picked up on lots more subtlely funny moments, especially the one where murray is in the lift with nothing but little old japanese men at the beginning. maybe i should review it? my second movie review!)i might check this one out; it sounds fairly reasonable. plus, it has an mfunk75 recommendation, and even though he is a bit of a prick, how can i ignore that? ;)
cheers,
- andy
|
Dec 28 '04
2:50 pm PST
|
|
............. (Reply to this comment)
by Vormancian
Thank God for a positive review of this film. I'd almost given up on the thing before even seeing it.
Nice review.
Cheers.
|
Dec 28 '04
11:21 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Thar's pyrite's on yon shippe! (Reply to this comment)
by disinclined
Zisstones,
She kept tapping me on the shoulder, during the screening, and feigning bored sleep. Then, upon exiting the theatre, her first words to me were, "Well there's two hours of my life I'll never get back." Fully aware that the clichedness of the line, along with its pooh-poohing of my favourite director, would get my ire up. And it worked. Grrrr!
Love means never having to pretend you like your BF's director man-crush. You'll thank me later.
The fake snoring/cliched grousing service is free to moink, but I'm also available to the general public at hourly rates and for children's parties. Email me for further details...
team dissou
|
Dec 28 '04
9:18 am PST
|
|
La La La (Reply to this comment)
by beckytcy
Just sitting here waiting for Nate to come around and kick your CanadianAss for writing a positive review.
|
Dec 28 '04
9:09 am PST
|
|
Love it? Hate it? Aaagggh! (Reply to this comment)
by millinocket, in Movies
After reading this, I'm going directly over to read Nate's one star drubbing. I'm terribly confused, yet determined to see the film in any case.
describe a colour to a person who has been blind since birth.
I scoff at you. Try describing color to a color-blind person who thinks they know what color something is, but are just plain wrong, wrong, wrong. Now that's some frustration.
I nod with approval whenever they bemoan the fact that there are just too many laconic characters.
Is there something inherently wrong with laconic characters? I don't think so.
Murray is just hitting his stride. Ironic, then, that his character here is a wilting flower.
Sounds quite like his character in LIT - though I'm not really sure about the whole "Bill in a Speedo" thing. It sort of scares me. Is it supposed to?
So I'm stuck. I really want to love this movie, yet I also really want to disagree with you. You make things so difficult.
Zissue
|
Dec 28 '04
9:05 am PST
|
|
Re: Thar's pyrite's on yon shippe! (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
John-
Oooh, I agree with Dis: "But I will continue to say nay on "The Life A_ssquatic" for the foreseeable future"... But you knew that. How frustrating for you, I'm sure (the Dis part).
Frustrating, indeed. A Dis anecdote, for you and only you: She kept tapping me on the shoulder, during the screening, and feigning bored sleep. Then, upon exiting the theatre, her first words to me were, "Well there's two hours of my life I'll never get back." Fully aware that the clichedness of the line, along with its pooh-poohing of my favourite director, would get my ire up. And it worked. Grrrr!
You single out (if I interpret your other hinted "moving" moment) two of my least favorite, ship-foundering scenes in the film.
Ack! If it helps, the "I wonder if it remembers me" line accompanies the other moving moment. But you knew that.
Excise those playing-on-the-heartstrings-sort-of moments and at least I respect the film as a whimsical contraption in the manner of Yellow Submarine (the movie) or a Russ Meyer film without the sex.
Oh. Dear. God. Are you actually comparing "LAWSZ" to some flimsy psychedelic Beatlemania, and some cheeky breast-obsession cinema? I may have to wash my eyes out, after reading that.
I say it again: all claims in the film to emotional gravitas of even the remotest nature are hollow and impotent. (For me).
For me: gravitas up the yin-yang. To each his stone, eh?
I just wonder if the film might have been better if directed by someone like Sydney Pollack, or perhaps Alan J. Pakula?
And I wonder if you're likely to get out of this comment section alive, spouting slanderous crap like that. ;)
You know, with a thriller angle, and starring Hal Holbrook instead of Murray... Anyone's guess.
Look, if you're jonesing for a shot of Hal Holbrook dressed only in a Speedo and a red toque, that's fine by me. But the rest of us are trying to live our lives, over here. We can't be having such disturbing images rolling around in our heads.
Pistols at dawn? Slight more on, again.
-mike
|
Dec 28 '04
9:03 am PST
|
|
Re: Mikey likes it, He really likes it.... (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Harvardy-
first of all good evening. How are you?
Fine thank you. Yourself?
You will be happy to learn that your assessment of this film is spot on.
Thanks for your condescending agreement.
Unlike everyone else on the planet, I had considerable difficulty swallowing "The Royal Tenenbaums"
A spoonful of sugar helps the "Tenenbaums" go down.
so it was with some hesitation that I went into this one. It went down like hot cocoa on a cold day. Clever, silly and stupid but completely loveable
I agree with all of those. I'd add "transcendent" if I weren't afraid of being barked down by the rabid dogs in this comment section
...Maybe I should check out some of Wes' other films...?
Hell yeah. If what you're going for is, like, a complete life.
p.s. Rushmore is worth seeing, eh?
If given the choice, between a chance to stare into the face of God, and just one more viewing of "Rushmore", I'd take the latter without a second thought.
-mike
|
Dec 28 '04
8:54 am PST
|
|
Re: Ahoy matey! (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
DaveFoe-
Although I may not be a die-hard Fanderson like yourself,
Dammit! I've been looking for a name for our little club for weeks, and there it was, right under my nose: Fandersons. Has some zing to it, I must say.
LAWSZ
That acronym sounds like it should head a really bad prime-time cop show. "When the law ain't on your side… turn to the LAWSZ! (Coming this fall on NBC)"
There were lots of things to like (Murray was excellent, DaFoe was hilarious, and I've always loved the attention to the little details in Anderson's films)
True, DaTrue, and true.
part of it had to do with the screenplay...there were times where it seemed to swim all over the place, and the rhythm of the movie didn't quite gel.
I'd be willing to concede this point, if not for the fact that "Bottle Rocket", "Rushmore", and "Tenenbaums" all had this rambling, shambling quality to them. I thought "LAWSZ" fit right in with Wes' established tone and structural methods.
Not sure if it was intentional, but there were lots of moments when the tone of the movie actually felt like watching an underwater documentary (i.e. somewhat placid)...but not in the appropriate parts.
Mostly, it was an exercise in placidity. But there were some wonderful cracks in the placid armour, in all the right places. The Philippino pirates, for one thing. I mean, having a gunfight in a Wes Anderson film? Who'd've thunk it? And I thunk it worked.
I just never felt as involved as I wanted to be. I wasn't as moved as I think i should've been when things took a 'turn' near the end of the film.
At the moment of the 'turn', I felt more shock than actual sadness. Which is an appropriate reaction, when something like that happens so suddenly and so out-of-the-blue. But, given some time for reflection, I can relate to the pain of the Zissou crew. I felt it worked.
the movie itself never seems to find its own 'weight.' (If that makes sense).
Nope. You're talking in circles, here. ;(
I think we gleefully come into his movies with high standards.
I came in with low standards, given the critical drubbing the film had been taking. Maybe that's the reason why I enjoyed it so: lower than usual expectations. Maybe.
-fandermike
|
Dec 28 '04
8:50 am PST
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.