The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou

[Alexandro]

I tried to re watch this the other day for the first time probably a couple of years back, and couldn't get through it.  I wonder if all these positive elaborate reactions to it have changed with the years. I remember really liking this movie when I saw it in the theatre (both times) but now it was impossible for me to even finish it, it just bored me and at moments felt some pain watching it, kind of like "wes, why are you doing this?" a lot...

my take now is that this was probably a very funny, moving, touching screenplay to read with everything in place for a great movie. I bet every actor was excited not only of working with wes anderson but also of working with him in what probably looked like it as going to be his best film to date. but in the end all the great elements don't add up and it becomes very frustrating. everything is distracting you from something else in this film. it's hard not to NOTICE everything: the tracking shots, the deadpan performances, the humor-humorless lines, the "irony", the "sadness", the musical choices, it's all too transparent and it lacks surprise and rhythm. bill murray seems completely lost here. I haven't seen those extras everyone mentions here where he gets annoyed by wes but it wouldn't surprise me if there is a masterpiece performance from bill murray lost in rejected dailies for this film. owen wilson is very unfunny, which before this movie I think it was almost impossible to conceive. he's never unlikeable, but here he seems weirdly lifeless. angelica huston gets to do nothing, as in darjeeling limited, she's just another "mother figure". blanchett gives her least memorable performance. only willem daffoe and goldblum are both memorable and funny with what they are given.

it is true that the film was a new stretch for wes. he's not simply recycling the royal tenembaums, it is true that this movie encompasses a lot of things, there's humor, drama, action sequences, animation. but it's all fully realized in the page.  the film itself feels disjointed and unfunny and forced. it's more exciting to describe it and it probably was more exciting to make it than to watch it.

later in darjeeling he showed the same signs of being too wrapped up in details, and in my opinion he reversed that in a way with mr. fox, which to me illustrates perfectly the difference between a well done wes anderson movie and a failed attempt (of course leaving out rushmore and tenembaums...and rockett)...(oh and DEFINITELY, wes's movies benefit from the big screen, A LOT)

[Gold Trumpet]

I had to find my review to even remember what this film was about. Luckily, I was at a high point in my smugness at the time and apparently I decided I could say something about the movie while actually not reviewing it at all so I'm still wondering what this movie is about, haha.

[Stefen]

I wonder if all these positive elaborate reactions to it have changed with the years.

This may be able to be said about all of Wes Andersons movies. I don't want to find out. I'm only watching anything new he comes out with from now on. Nothing old.

[OrHowILearnedTo]

I remember hating this when it fist came out. It's been so long i can't remember anything about it, other than it reconfirmed my belief that Jeff Goldblum was/is awesome. I was with some friends recently who had just seen it and were quoting all the funny parts. I actually got kinda excited to see it again. Alexandro's post brought me back down to earth.

[modage]

I rewatched all his movies a few months ago and felt about the same about this one.  It's got great bits, but it's sloppy and doesn't quite work.  (It's still better than Fox).

[Pas]

To me it's his weakest. It's too idiosyncratic, really. It screams ''look at me!''

Rushmore will probably always be Wes Anderson's best. I can't see him doing better than that IF he continues like he has since then and just recycle on and on his now infamous style.

[Pubrick]

wow, everything ppl are saying about this Life Aquatic is what i thought about the Darjeeling Limited. if it's true that all the hallmarks of a snooze-maker were there since Zissou, then it's apparent his films have become empty shells that merely peddle the wes anderson "brand".

what are his concerns as a filmmaker? it's hard to tell anymore, i could see where he was going up until Zissou (or so i thought), and
especially with tenenbaums i think we all could feel the weight of the content as it married perfectly with his style. but his last two original films CLEARLY show he has exhausted that well. they're just empty, lifeless parades. everyone is going through the motions and it almost LITERALLY feels like that when even his compositions are so FORCED into place -- look at the whip pans at the start of Darjeeling.. that's all i can reference in that film with any certainty cos i fell asleep soon after.

this happens to every filmmaker with such a unique style. look at every major "messiah" director of the last 20 years, i'm talking about ppl who everyone thought were going to be the next kubrick and save cinema (ALL OVER AGAIN - am i right, conversation-between-oracle-and-architect-at-the-end-of-matrix-revolutions??). anyway, then look at what happened to them:

• QT: devoured by his own style AND his own hype (which also happened to be part of his style). more than anyone he was doomed to implode due to the self-feeding indulgence of what he is all about.
  
  
• gondry: needs to shut the hell up with his scripts, be kind rewind was his Darjeeling Limited. Science of Sleep was his Zissou. -- no wonder he's making docos and thankfully stopped writing his own scripts. hope he stays that way.
  
  


• PTA: after Magnolia i would hav believed ppl if they said he was beginning to repeat himself, but he knew it too and rectified that in such an amazing way that ppl in the future will study his brain to find the kubrick gene -- a rare quality that enables ppl to EVOLVE beyond all established limits.

anyway my point is that wes needs to get his head out of his baguette-eating, pinky-raising, rose-smelling BUTT and actually put something worth watching in his films.

[pete]

easy with the science of sleep buddy.

[RegularKarate]

I remember thinking it was because he was writing with Baumbach, but then Darjeeling came out, which is way worse that Zissou.

Obviously, his style took over at the point of Aquatic... everything you say is pretty much right, but it's still watchable, it's just that the downfall is more apparent.

Once parodies of your work become almost indistinguishable from what you're currently putting out, it's time to shake the Magna Doodle.

[New Feeling]

Sure Life Aquatic has some major problems but it's still a fine film, and Wes has been back on the up-swing since then.  Both Darjeeling and Fox are great movies.  You guys are being haters.

And there is no way PTA has distinguished himself that much more than QT or Wes.  It's just that they are such easy targets because their style is so well-established and they are so shameless about it, whereas PTA seems to be consciously avoiding this, and as a result avoiding the backlash that has been dogging the shit out of Tarantino and W.  All three are exceptional artists at the top of the game and are continuing to put together legendary bodies of work. 

[tpfkabi]

This is the same kind of thing that is said in the music world after someone has been around.
Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of Beck.

When Odelay came out it took everyone off guard. If he's ever done any albums with that similar style they are usually looked over. It's not that they're even bad - if a new artist put the same album out (and by some miracle no one knew what Beck's voice sounded like) then they would probably be acclaimed.

That said, I liked Zissou back in the day quite a bit, but have not revisited in a while. There did seem to be something lost with Darjeeling. Was it because it was not enveloped in as much of a fantasy world as we expect from Wes?

What else can Wes do - have a static camera and not use Futura font? Then people would complain about him abandoning that.

I guess the biggest question is - after you become an established 'arthouse' director how do you not fall into a rut by exploring similar themes and using similar camera work and actors, AND who would be the best example of someone who has not (other than PT as suggested)?

[polkablues]

I guess the biggest question is - after you become an established 'arthouse' director how do you not fall into a rut by exploring similar themes and using similar camera work and actors, AND who would be the best example of someone who has not (other than PT as suggested)?

Aronofsky, maybe.

[Gold Trumpet]

Well, the "rut" of exploring similar themes and using the same conventions is a good thing. Filmmakers should explore personal conventions which could constitute a style for more than one or two films. That's healthy to me. I think the discussion idea here seems to be based on whether or not the style of Wes Anderson is really that redeemable over time. I didn't think it was then and I have seen the Royal Tennebaums again and it's even worse today for me, but I don't think it is uncommon for people to gravitate to a filmmaker in their youth and find their perceptions have changed over time. I imagine some of you may still like Royal Tennebaums even if you find his later efforts disappointing, but I doubt many people will like it with the same enthusiasm they originally had. I think Wes Anderson has a trendy style and it's being reflected. Even though New Feeling may disagree, it's not being a hater to objectively go back and reexamine your development with a filmmaker and come to less than satisfactory conclusions.

[tpfkabi]

I guess the biggest question is - after you become an established 'arthouse' director how do you not fall into a rut by exploring similar themes and using similar camera work and actors, AND who would be the best example of someone who has not (other than PT as suggested)?

Aronofsky, maybe.

I've never been crazy about his films, so I can't really speak on him. I get him and R(ichard) Kelly mixed up all the time.

I also wonder how differently we would view prior directors like Bergman, Fellini, Antonioni, had we actually been alive during their formative filmmaking years - it could all be said of what we said about Wes - same actors, camera moves, themes, etc. We (or in general and not necessarily me) say this now about Woody because he is still making films.

[Gold Trumpet]

I also wonder how differently we would view prior directors like Bergman, Fellini, Antonioni, had we actually been alive during their formative filmmaking years - it could all be said of what we said about Wes - same actors, camera moves, themes, etc. We (or in general and not necessarily me) say this now about Woody because he is still making films.

Exactly. The Miles Davis way of constantly changing your interests and approach is rare. We have to examine the formalities for what they are and find out if they are redeemable to how we see films. Wes Anderson made a transition between Bottle Rocket and Royal Tennebaums and the latter is a full development of a style and an approach, but he has only made 3 films within that realm. He's still young so if you think there is some merit within the approach, you have to be honest about what your misgivings are instead of just say he's not doing enough to change it up. There has to be an admittance to the limitations of the style or the film's rendering of it instead of a bogus claim to say the filmmaker just needs to do more to change. Compared to Hal Ashby and other filmmakers Wes Anderson holds up on a pedestal, his approach is much more developed and lucid in being a unique style. Let's start examining the style for what it is.