criterionforum.org

Anywhere near Ann Arbor, MI - Wes Anderson and Jason Schwartzman will be at Borders(!) on October 15

How can Roger Ebert maintain such wildly divergent opinions about Anderson's work when his movies are all pretty much the same?

Svevan wrote:How can Roger Ebert maintain such wildly divergent opinions about Anderson's work when his movies are all pretty much the same?

Because they're not.

Antoine Doinel wrote:

Svevan wrote:How can Roger Ebert maintain such wildly divergent opinions about Anderson's work when his movies are all pretty much the same?

Because they're not.

Yeah, there's a pretty easy answer to that.

Mr_sausage wrote:

Antoine Doinel wrote:

Svevan wrote:How can Roger Ebert maintain such wildly divergent opinions about Anderson's work when his movies are all pretty much the same?

Because they're not.

Yeah, there's a pretty easy answer to that.

Not trying to criticize Anderson's films, I just think disliking one while liking another is an admission of uneven taste, especially his last three (Tenenbaums to Darjeeling) which are aesthetically identical.

Stephen Holden in today's NY Times film fest wrapup:

[quote]“Persepolisâ€

"twee"

I agree. If Wes Anderson was music, he'd be released on Sarah Records.

I'm fucking sick of the word "twee."

An ex-girlfriend uses that word every other sentence, and now it's in every other sentence in every other review of any Wes Anderson movie. I can't escape it.

kaujot wrote:I'm fucking sick of the word "twee."

Pardon my ignorance, what what exactly does "twee" refer to in Anderson's movies?

kaujot wrote:I'm fucking sick of the word "twee."

An ex-girlfriend uses that word every other sentence, and now it's in every other sentence in every other review of any Wes Anderson movie. I can't escape it.

Preach it. It's becoming this decades "flamboyant".

Macintosh, this may help.

Macintosh wrote:

kaujot wrote:I'm fucking sick of the word "twee."

Pardon my ignorance, what what exactly does "twee" refer to in Anderson's movies?

The OED's definition might illuminate that:

1. Originally: 'sweet', dainty, chic. Now only in depreciatory use: affectedly dainty or quaint; over-nice, over-refined, precious, mawkish.

Even more interesting, tho', is the etymology given: [f. tweet, an infantile pronunciation of sweet.]

I actually think it exhibits less of "the T-word" than any of Anderson's other films, and can see how it has been viewed as maturation in some quarters in that regard. It is also, however, my least favorite of his films. The first two reels were great, and the film had me in its spell up until The Inciting Incident, which felt arbitrary and mechanical. I also think I actually groaned out loud when the boys literally let go of their baggage. All of the characters were well acted, but I found all of them (even the supporting ones) less and less likable as the film went on. Normally, I admire films with unlikeable protagonists, but I don't think that serves Anderson's intentions here. This isn't really a pan of the film, just an expression of disappointment. I'd call it recommended with reservations. I got a big kick out of the cold opening, and I ultimately liked just about as much of the film as I didn't. It didn't sour me on Anderson as a filmmaker. In fact, it makes me wonder where he goes from here.

Jeff wrote: In fact, it makes me wonder where he goes from here.

The Fantastic Mr. Fox - coming to theaters in November 2009! I saw Anderson in a discussion last week and he mentioned they already have a release date even though production, I believe, has yet to start.

On another note, an interview with Anderson was in the Onion's A.V. Club section last week.

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote:"twee"

So, does this mean Holden reads this forum and takes his cues from us?

Jeff wrote:I also think I actually groaned out loud when the boys literally let go of their baggage.

youre not alone. i looked at my girlfriend with really wide open eyes when that happened. there were also a few other scenes that made me feel like that as well. but overall, the writing was better than life aquatic which was so twee(?) it gave me a headache.

Saw this tonight, and as one who is full on Anderson admirer, I was disappointed by this as well. For me, this is first time where Anderson didn't have any control over the tone of the film. It was really all over the place, with the first and second half of the film have having two entirely different feels. In my opinion, the film really didn't get going until "the incident", and it was only then that the characters really began to take shape. I felt that there actually could've been less train/India-on-the-road scenes and more flashbacks. The flashback to New York was the most fleshed out, interesting and significant portion of the film. More about Wilson's dark emotions and Brody's relationship with Alice would've been great. Moreover, I think Anderson made a huge mistake in not including Hotel Chevalier either as a prologue or a flashback in the film. Without it, Schwartzmann's character comes off as more charming and less emotionally manipulative (and physically abusive?) than he actually is.

While I always enjoy when directors use a familiar cast of characters, at times it felt particularly labored here, specifically the needless inclusion of Bill Murray.

That said, there are some charming moments, beautiful cinematography, set design and the soundtrack is as usual, top notch.

pitchfork... ugh.

Antoine Doinel wrote: Moreover, I think Anderson made a huge mistake in not including Hotel Chevalier either as a prologue or a flashback in the film. Without it, Schwartzmann's character comes off as more charming and less emotionally manipulative (and physically abusive?) than he actually is.

I actually don't think he's that manipulative, as I think Hotel Chevalier is his story that he was writing at the end, and that the episode never really happened as depicted in the short. He just wishes that she cared and would come back and leave him her perfume, but she never did, and he brought that perfume along himself as a reminder. It seemed too out of character from the movie to be "real".

I was under the impression that all of his character's "ficitional" stories were actually real. Both of his brothers seem to recall the events in his stories quite clearly. Even at the end when he's reading Hotel Chevalier, he stops himself from short of saying the characters are fictional, and just says "thanks" to the praise from his siblings.

Hotel Chevalier will be added to beginning on approximately 700 screens starting this Friday.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Hotel Chevalier will be added to beginning on approximately 700 screens starting this Friday.

Natalie Portman's bony ass was unappealing enough on my computer monitor, I don't want to see it on the big screen. I'm convinced she's a twelve year old boy, one on whose ribs one could grate some cheese.

…

If you check out the corresponding thread for Hotel… you will see that you are in the vast minority there. Even those of us who like boys still like this girl's ass.

LeeB.Sims wrote: Even those of us who like boys still like this girl's ass.

Probably because it looks like a skinny young boy's ass.

Donald Brown wrote:

LeeB.Sims wrote: Even those of us who like boys still like this girl's ass.

Probably because it looks like a skinny young boy's ass.

Well played.

Speaking as one of those who like girls, I have to say I thought her nude profile looked superb and didn't really remind me of a particularly boyish figure (her haircut is another matter - though what can you do after you shave your head). I also think this is the first time I've ever encountered anyone who has such raucous and abrasive reaction to Portman's body type. I mean, she's practically the size of a smurf, so it's not like she would look that great with a tonne of ba-dunk-a-dunk. I think a far better target for that type of body-type criticism within the mainstream would be Keira Knightley.