UPDATE: I have edited this post to include my thoughts on
Moonrise Kingdom, as well as the review for it and
Fantastic Mr. Fox.
About three weeks ago, I said I was going to embark on a journey through the filmography of acclaimed director Wes Anderson. I purchased all of his films online, and went chronologically (after being directed almost unanimously to view them in that order on the website MUBI) through his filmography, beginning with
Bottle Rocket and seemingly wrapping up with
The Darjeeling Limited, only to be informed that he also directed the 2010 animated feature,
Fantastic Mr. Fox. No worries. A quick look at the guide showed that it premiered on Cartoon Network in the near future, and now, I have watched all of Anderson's films, with the notable exception of
Moonrise Kingdom, which, currently, isn't playing anywhere near me. But because of its strong critical/audience praise and its increasing numbers at the box office, I can only hope it will get expanded to a theater near me shortly.
It's hard to say where I stand when it comes to Wes Anderson as a director. I went in very optimistic because of prior research saying he made compelling comedy-dramas that had interestingly flawed characters, cheerfully quirky scripts, smooth cinematography, an abundance of charm and wit, and quotable lines to boot. One thing I'm always looking for in film are characters that have flaws in them, humanity in the storytelling, and evocative cinematography. When it came to watching
Bottle Rocket, I was overflowing with excitement and joy. Only to be...somewhat underwhelmed.
The hardest part about reviewing Wes Anderson's pictures, or for that matter trying to explain to people why they are good or bad, is trying to put the positive or negative aspects in perspective. If I were to say the constant preciousness and warmth of the picture became grinding and tedious (just hypothetical, by the way), unless you saw the picture, you wouldn't know what I'm talking about.
Bottle Rocket's main problem is that it is sluggish and just, for the most part, not interesting. It's slow, plods along at a very unusual pace, and the characters are flat and underdeveloped. The cinematography, on the other hand, is wonderful, unique, and always softly applied. Not to mention, once in a while, the script squeezes out a good laugh or two. My review of the film turned out to be a compromise, where I noted of the film's positive aspects, yet its negative aspects that anchored it. I gave it a fair two and a half stars. Not a turnoff, entirely, for a first-time director.
My review of
Bottle Rocket, http://stevethemovieman.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=reviews&action=display&thread=3141
I still had faith that Anderson could win me over with his future installments. Think about it; the story of
Bottle Rocket was, Anderson made a thirteen minute short with Robert Musgrave and The Wilson Brothers for cheap (unseen by me), showed it at a festival, got a distributor and a producer, and eventually, went on to adapt the idea into a feature film. While the man didn't get financial independence after the film's poor performance at the box office, those who did see it noted that whether they liked it or not, they knew they saw something bright ahead for Wes. His sophomore effort was
Rushmore, often regarded as the man's masterpiece. Not in my eyes. I somehow disliked this one more so than
Bottle Rocket. For one, that godforsaken methodical pacing breeds contempt faster than you can hit "fast-forward," and the characters, once more, are flat and only merely elevated by their humble quirks and their fine performances from their respected actors. Jason Schwartzman, who would later go on to be an Anderson regular, along with Bill Murray (who has been in every Wes Anderson film ever since this one), to be fair, give noteworthy performances here. But the story is an odd one - one so odd, it becomes unappealing. The character placed in the position of the protagonist is a scheming brat and the side-characters do little to exfoliate the picture.
Rushmore is not bad, but repetitive, inconsistent, tonally lost, misses too many opportunities to truly breed life into its story, and overall, boils down to being not that funny and not that interesting. I still gave it a respectable two and a half stars, mainly because I saw through a lot of its flaws and still believed that a good script and premise could be delivered by Anderson.
My full review of
Rushmore, http://stevethemovieman.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=reviews&action=display&thread=3146
My thoughts proved prophetic. I was granted with a gem of a picture, from the whimsical mind of Wes Anderson. It was
The Royal Tenenbaums, a fun, depressing, invigorating piece of modernist art. From its character driven dialog, to its colorful atmosphere, and creatively three dimensional characters, it was everything I wanted it to be. As you can imagine, I walked in cautiously. I thought two things; is Wes going to blow another grand opportunity, and why did he choose to focus on a movie about three child prodigies when they are now middle-aged people inhabiting midlife crisis's? Anderson proved that he can creatively mix his warmness in his movies and his crisp, verbally-alive dialog into a wonderful movie. He shows that depression is the new happiness, and that employing imperfect characters isn't something to groan about, but to embrace. I gave the film a well-deserved three and a half stars.
My review of
The Royal Tenenbaums, http://stevethemovieman.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=reviews&thread=3157
By now, I didn't know what to expect from Anderson; a massive delivery, or a modest effort. I was greeted with
The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou, a film I remember "awwing" at when I was young, but thankfully not watching it. I wouldn't have had a clue what was going on, or what I was supposed to like or think of it. The film has an ensemble cast, like
Tenenbaums. The enigmatic Bill Murray is moved from the background to the foreground, and we are given welcomed, familiar faces like Anjelica Houston, Jeff Goldblum, Owen Wilson, Cate Blanchett, and Willem Dafoe in a story that isn't so much comedy, but more about sadness and tragedy. Unfortunately, character emotions and the human and emotional aspect of the film is sort of drained so we can be presented with glossy cinematography, careful editing, and the trademark warmness. I expected that, but didn't truly want it to overshadow its characters, becoming vastly overscale in its presentation.
The Life Aquatic wants to be an emotional story involving a hasbeen oceanographer, reconnecting with his crew and possible son on a voyage that is dangerous and perhaps not worth it. Sadly, we are given disjointed clips, questionable sequences spliced in between cuts, and just a plethora of droning occurrences. Again, not a bad film, but if it wasn't for the amazing cinematography, the truly remarkable look of the picture, and the beautifully fitting performance of Murray, himself,
The Life Aquatic would be a conventional tragedy. Two and a half stars.
My review of
The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou, http://stevethemovieman.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=reviews&thread=3161&page=1
Next on the deck, Anderson's
The Darjeeling Limited, which, at the time, I expected to be my final encounter with him until
Moonrise Kingdom. Overall, there's not a ton to say but it's a well done picture. The performances by the three male leads are divine, the setting of India provides a quirky, eccentric charm, along with intoxicating atmospheric shots, and the film itself plays like an unobtrusive work of poetry. It is the follow-up to a short Anderson did in 2007, called
Hotel Chevalier, which went on to be the most acclaimed short of the year. I found it to be Anderson parodying Anderson, emphasizing too much on character quirks, playing the trademark folk music, and providing the short with things that seemed to bloated for a thirteen minute clip. Two and a half stars for the short, three for the movie.
My review of
The Darjeeling Limited (includes a little snippet of my thoughts on
Hotel Chevalier, as well), http://stevethemovieman.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=reviews&thread=3164&page=1
Fantastic Mr. Fox is the first time Anderson has truly ventured out of his comfort zone, and he handles the out-of-place convention quite well. He tries to fit his trademark stylistic points in the picture, such as attentive framing, persistent warmness, and a keen eye for detail, and does an admirable job at it. The film goes back to the primitive stop-motion animation style that we should revisit, what with being bombarded with animated pictures from Dreamworks and Pixar recently, and I think somewhere along the lines of a digital up-conversion,
Fantastic Mr. Fox would've lost its way. But it doesn't. It stays focused, mature, and free of stupid cus, to make a delightful adventures. Three stars.
*Much has been made about the content of the picture, saying it will be "too mature" for children. I disagree. I believe challenging them at a young age (think seven plus) will be a healthy thing for them, and I can't stress how much of a better choice this would be versus a
Chipmunks extravaganza in muddled 3D.
My review of
Fantastic Mr. Fox, http://stevethemovieman.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=reviews&thread=3187
6/27/12 UPDATE:
My predictions were correct; Moonrise Kingdom was welcomed with a wider release and was playing at the theater I go to nearly every weekend. I actually saw the film at 7:10pm, the latest I've ever gone to the theater, since I usually go to matinees no later than 11:30am. The experience and the film itself, was unique and authentic. Moonrise Kingdom is definitely Anderson's best next to The Royal Tenenbaums. This is a surreal, enjoyable, and extremely ravishing film, complete with beautiful cinematography, luscious landscapes, and sunlit valleys as far as the eye can see. The two leads, Jared Gilman and Kara Hayword respectively, do an incredibly low-key and admirable job at creating two social misfits who find solace in one another, yet are strictly separated because of parental opinions. The film covers the themes of escapism and young love in a fresh, broad look, and I almost feel this could be the prequel to Tenenbaums, seeing as it shows the kids as spunky and lively, and just ahead in their taillights is a life of misery and uncertainty. But, for once, Wes chooses to look at when people peak in life and not the awkward aftermath. This is one of 2012's most beautiful pictures. And that takes care of the Wes Anderson filmography.
My review of Moonrise Kingdom, http://stevethemovieman.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=reviews&thread=3176
And there you have it. My recollection of Wes Anderson's films in an oversized nutshell. What can I say? I feel the man has untold potential, but doesn't always utilize it. He has made three solid films, one of them a work of black comedic art, and three films that sort of flounder in their own sea of obscurity. I do not consider any of his films bad, but I view
Bottle Rocket,
Rushmore, and
The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou as films that don't sit right with me. He is a director I think I'd rather listen to than watch. His films are nicely constructed, wonderfully photographed, but sometimes neglect urgency, fun, and entertainment. Still, if Anderson makes a movie in the future, you'll bet I'll see it. There aren't many directors I'm on the fence about, yet will still see every film they put out. I am convinced that sometime soon Anderson will make a film I'll label a "masterpiece."
Tenenbaums was close, but I'm waiting for something bigger, badder, and more...eccentric? I think
Moonrise Kingdom has fulfilled that desire.
Comments
Post a Comment