Director: Wes
Anderson | Starring:
Bill Murray, Owen Wilson, Cate Blanchett,
Anjelica Huston, Willem Dafoe, Jeff Goldblum
Released: 2004
| Runtime: 119m
| Rating (out of 5):
**½ |
|
When I first saw the
promos for this movie, I nearly burst with joy. Wes Anderson and Bill
Murray together again? It was like a deadpan dream come true. Anderson
must write parts specifically for certain actors, as he gets just
perfect performances out of them. Witness Murray in Rushmore
or Gene Hackman in The
Royal Tenenbaums. Those performances are picture perfect
with not a false note anywhere. Just amazing, really. Murray has,
in fact, absolutely mastered the ''who gives a shit'' attitude that
makes his characters so wonderfully comic. You can see the real beginnings
of that move from the manic goofball thing he used to do to this awesome
whatever it is in the second act of Groundhog
Day, as his spirit is broken and he becomes just a bundle
of self-deprecation and comic stoicalness. Anyway, Anderson has taken
full advantage of this discovery and has written greatly flawed characters
(his specialty) for Murray that are at once complete douchebags and
sympathetic at the same time. Steve Zissou is that man. The problem
is, it turns out, that he's just a little too similar to Royal Tenenbaum--a
part that Hackman already played to perfection. In fact, the whole
movie, with its theme of fathers and sons and loyalty and redemption
ends up feeling like a less well-done version of Tenenbaums.
It doesn't help that some of the same actors are in both films, but
I swear there are some scenes and situations that are almost identical.
You have the wacky assistant with a funny accent, the rival for the
wife/ex-wife's (in both cases Anjelica Huston) affections and a once
affluent and admired protagonist in financial and moral ruin. The
movie seems to start not at the beginning but in the middle somewhere
and meander around from there. It's as if a whole chunk of the film
is missing. It's not that there are necessarily plot holes or things
aren't amply explained, but there's a definite sense that something
important is passed over--including more information about his best
friend, Esteban du Plantier, who was killed by the mysterious Jaguar
Shark, and is the whole impetus for his crew going out on this latest
adventure. There just could have been more back-story to fill out
Zissou's life. I'm sure I'm just missing the point, but I also couldn't
figure out the point of all the weird, fake computerized fish. I assume
it's supposed to be Zissou faking stuff in his own film, but he wouldn't
really have had enough money to create special effects. I don't know;
I'm kinda dumb about this stuff sometimes. Granted, there are some
funny lines in this thing, and some funny situations, but too often
they seem more like little vignettes strung together by a weak overall
plot structure. I gave this thing only two and half stars not because
I think it's worse than a film like Harold
& Kumar Go to White Castle (which garnered three stars), but
it's more out of disappointment than anything else. I wouldn't discourage
anyone from tuning in to this movie if it comes along on cable, but
if you have as high a regard for Anderson as I do, I would suggest
skipping this one in order to avoid that inevitable sinking feeling.
[DVD]
|
|
|
Booze
& Grub
Reviews of New York City's most popular (and least
popular) bars and restaurants. |
Hipster
Book Reviews This much ignorance
about literature can only lead to hurt feelings and a whole lot of
nonsense. |
Music
Check out the albums that have left Mr. H with permanent hearing loss in his left ear, but a song in his heart |
|