The Royal Tenenbaums

[Puck Bond]

Has anyone seen the newest movie from Wes Anderson yet? I know it opened in limited release in LA and New York today, surely there must be some schmoes in those areas who have or want to see it. I'm dieing to see this film, it looks funny and the cast is great!

Also can someone let me no when this film will open nation wide?

[Irene Manor]

Puck, welcome to our little circle. It's all so very interesting here.

It goes wide Dec. 28, and will be everywhere Jan 4th.

It'll be in some bigger cities on the 21st.


http://www.joblo.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/001116.html


http://www.joblo.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000527.html


[This message has been edited by Irene Manor (edited 12-15-2001).]

[Irene Manor]

It's got a 9.1/10 with about 130 votes over at IMDB, so far.

[inglourious basterd]

Hopefully you wont take offense, but I wont really trust the IMDB rankings till the movie has been out for at least six to eight weeks. I am sure that half of those viewers are simply Anderson fans that chose to boost up the ratings by giving it a 10. That is clearly the case with LOTR.

[sloopyfan]

I've been looking forward to this movie for a while and I can't wait for it to come out. I am in Columbus so there is no telling when we will get it. This movie has a great cast, The Wilson brothers, Gene Hackman, Bill Murray and (Kumar from bottle Rocket.) I can't wait.

[Irene Manor]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by psudoazn:
Hopefully you wont take offense, but I wont really trust the IMDB rankings till the movie has been out for at least six to eight weeks. I am sure that half of those viewers are simply Anderson fans that chose to boost up the ratings by giving it a 10. That is clearly the case with LOTR.</font>


No offense intended, none taken. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

You are totally right, but still....

...It looks great!

[Benny]

All I can say is: Is this movie gonna kick ass or what! I am so looking forward to this one, it's a must-see!

[suntzu]

I just saw it tonight at a free screening at Phipps Plaza in Atlanta. It was hilarious and surely won't get any of your hopes down. I really have nothing bad to say about it except some might not like the darker, serious stuff. You will see what I mean. One scene in particular had everyone in silence.

[bluntman86]

yo,i can't wait to see this shit."rushmore" and "bottle rocket" were funny as hell,i will definetly see this thing! oh hell yea! i just hope it'll come to my town before my break ends.

[Benny]

I saw The Royal Tenenbaums yesterday, it was superb. Gene Hackman deserves an Oscar nomination for his role as Royal Tenenbaum. Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, and the guy who played Pagoda also did notably well. I had been waiting for this film for a long time and it didn't disappoint. It puts the "fun" in dysfunctional. 9/10

[loner]

You got that right Benny. This movie certainly does put the fun in dysfunctional. I thoroughly enjoyed this flick. I went into it with "Phantom Menace-like" expectations because I'm a big fan of Wes Anderson (Bottle Rocket is one of my all time favs) and I wasn't disappointed. All the actors (especially Hackman & Paltrow) give superb performances and there are big laughs from beginning to end. My only two gripes with the movie are the narration (it was at times unnecessary) and it's semi-serious turn near the end. But still it's the funniest movie of the year by far.

As a comparison to Wes's other 2 movies, I'd say it's better than Rushmore but it's not as good as Bottle Rocket.

I'd give it an 8/10

[Puck Bond]

The Royal Tenenbaums 9/10...

The Royal Tenenbaums is a hilarious, smart comedy with an outstanding cast. I think it is Wes Anderson's best work to date along with Rushmore. Gene Hackman is superb as Royal Tenenbaum, a lieing, scheming father who has abandoned his dysfunctional family only to come back to set things right. Like I said the cast is excellent...Anjelica Huston, Gwyneth Paltrow, Ben Stiller, Luke Wilson...and other friends and acquaintences like Danny Glover, Bill Murray and Owen Wilson. This film was funny the whole way through, not laugh out loud funny, at crude humor and toilet jokes...but just constant chuckling at the quirky, absurdity of this group. There is just something funny about watching ben Stiller and his two look alike kids walk around in the same red track-suits all the time. Other favorite parts include Gene Hackman showing his grandsons how to cut loose once a while, especially teaching them how to shoplift, dash across busy streets and so on. The Royal Tenenbaums is a quirky, funny comedy with a great cast and is definately the best comedy of the year.

[Benny]

If Gene Hackman doesn't get nominated for Best Actor for this, I will be pissed! Another thing I liked about this film is that although it is a sad story, the film and its actors found ways to lighten the story, and I was laughing at even the saddest parts of the movie (the last scene for example).

By the way loner, I saw it at the Ritz http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[The UserName]

I saw it and i give it a 9/10-Good cinemetography. good acting. good directing. Good cast. Great movie. Funny(in a different way). There were a few questions i had during the movie though(i.e.-why did ben stiller suddenly move into his mom's house?)Paltrow was hot. Luke Wilson, Gene Hackman, Ben Stiller, and Kumar were all great. I think they could have focused on the Gene Hackman trying to set things right story more because at one point only Richie's love for Margot was too important. Also Eli Cash crashing into Buckley-what was up with that? They didn't have enough of Bill Murray in it and that demented kid was unnecesary.Very funny, very dark and very heart warming at some parts and it's a different kind of movie than what i've seen lately and i like that. I actually almost cried at that one scene when ben stiller is in the ambulance with gene hackman. I liked The Royal Tenenbaums more than anderson's two previous films. Go see it.

[This message has been edited by The UserName (edited 01-03-2002).]

[The UserName]

[This message has been edited by The UserName (edited 01-03-2002).]

[This message has been edited by The UserName (edited 01-03-2002).]

[Beltfed]

Just saw it, what a fantastic movie..thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it, a good amount of people walked out though (interestingly enough). The overall darkness of this movie and Wes Anderson's other two creations is what I come to love and expect.

Some parts were laugh out loud funny, others just chuckle humor...the whole Royal and Pagoda thing was great, never got old.

Gener Hackman should be up for some type of award for this movie, he really did a great job....Gwyneth was excellent as well.

[This message has been edited by Beltfed (edited 12-30-2001).]

[loner]

****WARNING: Possible spoilers here. This post may ruin a couple of the jokes if you haven't seen the movie yet****


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Puck Bond:
There is just something funny about watching ben Stiller and his two look alike kids walk around in the same red track-suits all the time. Other favorite parts include Gene Hackman showing his grandsons how to cut loose once a while, especially teaching them how to shoplift, dash across busy streets and so on. </font>

I agree completely. It was just funny seeing Stiller and his kids always wearing those red outfits; and then the real LOL kicker came at the end during the funeral when they were wearing black ones!
But for me the funniest part of the movie were those paintings in Owen's apartment. I mean WTF?!?!? Something like that was just so unexpected. I couldn't stop laughing for 5 minutes after that scene.



[This message has been edited by loner (edited 12-30-2001).]

[John Q. Public]

MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD

I absolutely fucking love this movie. It represents a return to something that has been sorely missing from recent comedies: absurdisy humor. Jokes do not need 5 minute setup, and I salute Wes Anderson for not falling into this formula. Every character was great, but Dudly stole the show. I mean, what the hell was he supposed to be. When he handed Eli the shoe...classic I also loved how Pagoda ened up as Royal's trusty (most of the time) sidekick. Damn, I just can't get over how great this movie is.

I have a feeling, though, that this will go largely unappreciated in the long run. It just seems like the type of movie that many people would not "get." The humor is not always obvious and in your face, which is not a recipe for mass appeal. But to hell with what others think; I love it, and that's all that matters...Great soundtrack too.

[inglourious basterd]

I was one of the few people that didnt enjoy Rushmore. I felt it was an unbelievable situation and that the supposed comedy was not really funny. With that in mind, I did not really have much expectations for this one (however, the cast in this feature gave me some hope).

But given my past history with Anderson, I guess it is not a surprise that I didnt really get much out of this movie either. I believe that they introduced way too many flat characters that only existed to throw a punchline or two.

Another thing that got to me was the many themes it presented but didnt comment on. For instance, we are exposed to many subplots of love and dysfunction, but the movie simply points out the problems without revealing anything beyond the surface. To me, it sort of looked like a poor attempt at being some sort of social commentary.

Lastly, what got to me was the really disconnected blend between drama and comedy. I guess what Anderson wanted was for the audience to laugh and cry for his characters. It didnt work for me...it was probably because of the many flat characters (many of whom, I didnt care about).

I give this movie a 5/10 because it was simply average to me. It is pretty funny sometimes and there were many memorable moments, but there was nothing really that stuck with me as I left the theater.


[This message has been edited by psudoazn (edited 01-03-2002).]

[inglourious basterd]

Did anyone notice that this was as much a drama as it was a comedy? The only thing people have mentioned was that it was "the funniest movie of the year". I think it was supposed to be more dark and satirical than that... Key word is that it was supposed to be like that. Any thoughts?

[loner]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by psudoazn:
Did anyone notice that this was as much a drama as it was a comedy? The only thing people have mentioned was that it was "the funniest movie of the year". I think it was supposed to be more dark and satirical than that... Key word is that it was supposed to be like that. Any thoughts?</font>

Yeah...I do somewhat agree with you. There were some serious turns in the movie that seemed out of place with the rest of the movie. But they didn't bother me too much. This movie had me laughing more than any other movie this year. The good parts far out-weighed the negative ones. But I did have that feeling after watching it that if it were geared 100% towards comedy then it would have been even better.

This is one of those movies that I really did enjoy but still felt that a few minor changes would have made it great instead of just very good.

[Dignan777]

Just saw it today, and it is great. Gets pretty sad too. I just loved seeing all the Bottle Rocket/Rushmore crew back together again.

"That car has a dent in it" - Dudley Heinsbergen in The Royal Tenenbaums

[Dignan777]

One thing that I was upset with was the lack of Andrew "futureman" Wilson. Barely in the movie, and the parts he had were pretty much back to back. One of his credits is only a voiceover - which i have no problem with... just wish I got to see more of futureman. Bill Murray, and Owen Wilson weren't used enough overall.

[idealdiscountdude]

WOW!!! What a witty and intelligent adult comedy. Gene Hackman gives the Male performance of the year as Royal Tenenbaum.

I'll post my review when JoBlo does his!!!!

9/10

p.s. I loved Pagoda!!! He was awesome!!!

[loner]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dignan777:
Bill Murray, and Owen Wilson weren't used enough overall.</font>

Yeah I agree...I was really surprised at how very little screen time Bill Murray had. But he was funny. A few more scenes with him should have been added.

[Irene Manor]

I saw it twice today, and loved it more the second time. This blew me away. Everyone said that there was too much going on, but I didn't see that because the real story was about Royal becoming not so much of a "son of a bitch."

Those paintings in Eli Cash's room were soooooo funny! I busted a gut even more the second time because I was messed up. Did anyone think that the guy they were attacking in the painting looked like Chas?

[FeverDog420]

I finally went to see this fine film last night, and I had a big ol' grin on my face the entire time.

There's not a whole lot to say about the film itself that hasn't already been posted here, but one thing that hasn't been mentioned is its wonky production design. Little details, from the chapter breaks to the closet full of retro board games were delightful. I also liked how although it's set in the present, nothing in the movie specifically shows it. The odd wardrobes, rusty gypsy cabs, non-brand cigarettes and untrendy hairstyles created its own little world. And I appreciated that the only product placement was integral to the plot (Tic-Tacs); I get so tired of constant brand names in movies distracting me from what's happening in the scene. And those Dalmatian mice were priceless.

Lemme include personal recollections. First, I couldn't believe how uncrowded the theatre was; I was disappointed that the audience for a Friday night showing was so sparse. But then again, I live in NYC, so since it's been playing here awhile maybe it's not the hottest show in town. (I saw GOSFORD PARK earlier in the week and that house was packed.) But then again, my local theatre for THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS (UA Kauffman Astoria 14) is in Queens, whose residents aren't made up of the type who'd appreciate this brand of quirky humor.

Although it was a small crowd, it was a lively one. Everyone was having a ball (and I heard only one cell phone - it's a sad time when that's a compliment), and a rousing applause was led by yours truly when the closing credits rolled - until the stupid ushers turned on the flood lights before the song credits appeared and I had to hiss at them to turn them off until the movie was completely over.

I may have slightly annoyed my boyfriend by quietly singing along to all the wonderful tunes by Elliot Smith, Nick Drake, Lou Reed and others; did Wes Anderson raid my CD collection when I wasn't looking? He and Cameron Crowe better ask next time. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

So, on the walk home after the movie my boyfriend mentioned that he's seen only a portion of RUSHMORE and that he didn't think much of it. At this point I naturally bitchslapped him twice and pledged to force his (cute) ass to sit down with me and give it another chance. Surely anyone who enjoyed THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS will equally adore a comedy similar in so many ways, no?

Ok, enough rambling.

FeverDog

p.s. Hey "loner"! I see you're from Cherry Hill. My hometown is Maple Shade (class of '92). How are things down there?

[This message has been edited by FeverDog420 (edited 01-05-2002).]

[This message has been edited by FeverDog420 (edited 01-05-2002).]

[Benny]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by FeverDog420:


p.s. Hey "loner"! I see you're from Cherry Hill. My hometown is Maple Shade (class of '92). How are things down there?

[This message has been edited by FeverDog420 (edited 01-05-2002).]

[This message has been edited by FeverDog420 (edited 01-05-2002).]</font>

Cherry Hill, Maple Shade, that's all so familiar! I used to live near there, I still occasionally visit friends there sometimes, and I have relatives who live down at the shore near Atlantic City.

By the way, I'm glad everyone here is digging the movie, I personally think it's better than Rushmore. Gene Hackman for the Best Actor Oscar, I say!

[Benny]

By the way, what is the name of the song which plays at the end of the funeral and in the end credits? It's a cool song, and I've heard it before, but I don't know who sings it and what's it called and it's been bugging me since I saw the movie, so does anyone know?

[bob]

I saw this movie back on the 29th, and the more I think about it, the more I like it. This is, in my opinion, the best film of the year. Funny enough to be called a comedy, and yet sincere enough to be a drama. Acting was excellent across the board, and the film just rocks. 9/10

"Everybody knows General Custer died in Custer's Last Stand. My book says: Maybe he didn't?"-Owen(God of Comedy)Wilson

[loner]

As other people have mentioned it was great to see Kumar Pallana (Pagoda) have a bigger part in this film after his brief appearance in Rushmore. He was hilarious and worked very well with Hackman. It was just great to see him in some very funny scenes again like in Bottle Rocket.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by FeverDog420:
p.s. Hey "loner"! I see you're from Cherry Hill. My hometown is Maple Shade (class of '92). How are things down there?
</font>

Still as boring and uneventful as ever. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif Maple Shade huh? Cool. My hometown is actually nearby Collingswood (class of '91). But lucky you. You got away and are now living in The Big Apple! I was able to get away for a few years (CA), but I unfortunately got sucked back http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

cheers...

[This message has been edited by loner (edited 01-06-2002).]

[FeverDog420]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Benny:
By the way, what is the name of the song which plays at the end of the funeral and in the end credits? It's a cool song, and I've heard it before, but I don't know who sings it and what's it called and it's been bugging me since I saw the movie, so does anyone know?</font>

I can't remember the title, but it's performed by Van Morrison. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif (I perused the soundtrack and it's unfortunately not included.) http://www.joblo.com/ubb/frown.gif

[Benny]

Hey loner, I hear Collingswood has become a big town for antiques and shopping, is that true?

[loner]

That Van Morrison song is called "Everyone".


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Benny:
Hey loner, I hear Collingswood has become a big town for antiques and shopping, is that true?</font>

Yeah kinda...for people who can't afford to do that kind of shopping in Haddonfield I guess.

[Irene Manor]

Did anyone notice that...

Ritchie lets his hawk go and feeds it 3 sardines, then he starts reading "3 PLays by Margot Tenenbaum", and finally the movie "opens" to Chapter 3.

Worth mentioning, I thought...

[max]

Huge disappointment. The movie is mostly unfunny and strenuous. It tries so hard to be original that it fails to create real situations and recognizable characters. It also works too hard at being simultaneously funny and touching and rarely ends up being either. For example, I don't find someone's finger getting chopped off either funny or moving. It has its moments and I smiled a few times. I've been trying to figure out what the movie was missing and I think I finally figured it out: a laugh track.

[dh1989]

Today was horrible for me!!! http://www.joblo.com/ubb/frown.gif

I was looking on Yahoo! Movies showtimes for my area and it said "The Royal Tenenbaums" opens at the St. Charles Town Center rplacing "The Majestic". I was very excited and decided to take off and go see the 4:00 P.M. show. But when I got there(after a one hour drive) a paper on the box office window said "ERROR! We are not showing "The Royal Tenenbaums" and the media was mistaken". I was pissed. How stupid can a theatre be to say you are getting a film and not get it. Well at least Amazon sent me my LOTR figures. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif but also http://www.joblo.com/ubb/frown.gif

[Benny]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by loner:

Yeah kinda...for people who can't afford to do that kind of shopping in Haddonfield I guess.</font>

Ha! I'd have to agree with you there, I did most of my shopping at the Cherry Hill Mall.

[FeverDog420]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Benny:
Ha! I'd have to agree with you there, I did most of my shopping at the Cherry Hill Mall.</font>

Ah, the Cherry Hill Mall. That takes me back...

Didja ever wonder why The Limited store is so huge? It used to me a two-screen movie theatre back in the '80s. I remember seeing CLUE, THE MONEY PIT, GUNG HO, TOP GUN, BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA, JUMPING JACK FLASH, CROCODILE DUNDEE, and ALIENS there (kinda like where Chuck E. Cheese is now, which is where I saw BATMAN and loads of other flicks). Ah, nostalgia...

FeverDog

[This message has been edited by FeverDog420 (edited 01-08-2002).]

[CrowTRobot]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by max:
Huge disappointment. The movie is mostly unfunny and strenuous... I don't find someone's finger getting chopped off either funny or moving... I've been trying to figure out what the movie was missing and I think I finally figured it out: a laugh track. </font>


Well you're somewhat astute. One question: why does it need a laugh track (what is a laugh track? is that like canned laughter?)? Is it really a comedy?

I dont think the finger being cut off is funny or moving either. I don't think Anderson meant it to be funny. I think the movie is a reaction to other sorts of films that are popular right now. He spends a lot of energy making the first twenty minutes interesting and completely "quirky" but casts the rest of the film in a somber, staid tone that resonates with the human condition as it pertains to family and to genious. It's called "new sentimentalism" and is...well i hate the term "movement" (sounds like pooping) but it's a step in the direction of honesty, earnestness, and real humanity in these times of hip cynicism, sarcasm, and mockery (that have ruled all through the 90s).
If you were disappointed that there weren't any laughs, well then I think Anderson succeeded (even if you didnt like how it made you feel). HE wants to invite expectations of humor and quirkyness and one-liners, and undermines those expectations with loss, death, and real human emotions. SOme of the violence does seem...uncatagorizable: the finger, the car crashing...but the suicide is genuinely haunting. The montage editing that preceeds the suicide attempt is neither heavy handed nor out of place. It's the movies dark pole, in contrast to the lighter, quirkier opening sequence.
When you've had expectations unment, don't always dismiss the movie as "bad." Most good films do this on purpose. You're not clever for finding faults with the director, you're just too self-confident to admit there are things you might have missed; or you weren't looking for them. Read some books on how to watch movies (this is an honest recommendation, not an insult.) Can I suggest "How to Read a Film" by James Monaco? It changed my movie-going life.

[max]

CrowTRobot - You want me to read books on how to read a film? That's funny. I have a film degree. I think I know how to read a film. I'm also a film buff, so I've seen a lot of films. I'd like to think that all that moviegoing experience has taught me how to read a film. Yes, I expected the film to be funnier. Based on word-of-mouth and critical reviews, the movie's supposed to be hilarious. Well, it wasn't. I've seen RUSHMORE, which I liked much more, so I knew what kind of humor to expect. I also knew that Wes Anderson tries to convey sadness beneath the quirky humor. But I wasn't moved, either. You say that since I didn't find many laughs in the movie that Wes Anderson succeeded in what he was trying to do. Does that mean that all the critics and fellow schmoes who found it hysterical didn't get it? I think the movie is basically a black comedy. It finds humor in tragedy. We're supposed to laugh outside while we choke up inside. I didn't, ok? And judging from the mostly silent audience I was with, not many were moved either way. (Perhaps, like me, they haven't read Monaco's book?) I found the movie's humor forced and its pathos insincere. THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS is a self-conscious hodgepodge of "new sentimentalism" quirks. Can I suggest throwing Monaco's book out the window now(this is an honest recommendation, not an insult)? A film is better seen through one's own eyes than someone else's. Here's the best way to read a film: Open your eyes, look closer, then read yourself.

[CrowTRobot]

Dearest Max:
No need to get upset. I was just disagreeing with you. My apologies if my methods got too personal. I would think someone with a film degree would have more confidence in their opinion. YOU really haven't heard about Monaco's book and you have a film degree? Well, a BA degree, right? Masters?
RE critics: who are critics, anyhow? They shouldn't be taken too seriously. They are paid to have and opinion and express that opinion in a brief paragraph or two, that's all. It's not like they have the ultimate say over a film's quality or artistic merit. YOu don't like Tenanbaums? fine. I did. And I did look with my own eyes. Monaco's book doesnt force me to adopt his theories. How to Read a Film is textbook on film theory. It is an excellent comprehensive text that covers all aspects of filmmaking. There are chapters on film as art, the history of the technical components, and a great chapter on Signs and Meaning. He talks about syntax vs paradigm (montage vs mise-en-scene), feminist theory, a whole lot about semiotics- icons, indexes, and symbols. There's bits abuot syndoche and metonymy. It's a great tool. So i'm not being forced to look HIS way, i read the book and found some tools to unpack visual art. Doesnt any of this ring a bell from your film classes?
So back to Royal Tenanbaums, when i watch a movie, I have all these ways of looking at it, to see if the director was smart (in anderson's case, I know he is) and think about why he made certain decisions, formally and story-wise. I don't overly concern myself with being entertained. The great shots, the pace, the craft of filmmaking is the entertainment. The story is incidental.
Whether or not you can find a "right way to feel" about the violence and the humor is very telling. Maybe he just wants you to think about what is funny and what is solemn, or question if there's even a clear rule for telling them apart, or a rule for how someone "should" react. Again, I felt that the characters were eccentric for a reason, and their initial "quirkiness" gave way to real humanity. The characters are both endearing and open to condemnation because real people are both, are complex.
any thoughts?

[max]

When was the book published? I've heard of it but I don't remember it being used in class. Listen, I'm not saying THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS is a bad film. Obviously there was a lot of care and thought put into the making of the film. That alone makes it more worthy than most of the films out there. But can't one read and understand a film without liking it? All I'm saying is that it didn't work for me. Another example would be CITIZEN KANE, your "perfect" film. I admire that film a lot but I couldn't warm up to it despite repeated viewings and several film criticism classes. Too much technique, I say. I was too aware of the camera. I think it all boils down to chemistry. There's this intangible thing between viewer and film that's unique. I'm sure there are people who read THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS the Monaco way who'd feel the complete opposite of what you feel.

[CrowTRobot]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by max:
I'm sure there are people who read THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS the Monaco way who'd feel the complete opposite of what you feel. [/B]</font>


I didn't make myself clear enough: the monaco book is a TEXTBOOK. he didn't invent the principles and tools he discusses, he has collected them in a text for film students. The tools he discusses were developed by many many different film theorists from the past century. There's no way to dismiss them, because they are all there is.
As for your idea of chemistry between the film and the audience, i'll agree as long as the dialectic between the two requires work and effort. THe film should make you think,or should upset expectations and undermine the status quo. The chemistry of great film is not how much it makes you laugh, or cry, or relate: that is the stuff of good acting. Acting can be found on the stage, on the street, on tv, etc. Cinema is a visual art, of which acting is only a part.
as for Tenanbaums, it's not the best film of the year, but it's got thought behind it, behind the direction, and I really appreciate that.

[Irene Manor]

Well, I have a 13 inch cock, so my opinion is most valid. [flexes]

Anyway....


I loved the movie and hear what Max is saying about being very aware of the camera. However, that is what I love about The Royal Tenenbaums, and all of his movies. It is like we are watching the world through Wes Anderson's odd eyes, and sometimes it's funny, but other times it's downright creepy. Personaly, I think the man's techniques are great; they are probably my favorite in current times.

I'm very excited to see what will come.

[max]

CrowTRobot and Irene - Like I said, I admire the thought and care behind THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS. No one can complain that Wes Anderson doesn't "create a world" in this film. Like his previous film, RUSHMORE, it's strong on tableau, weird excess or neurosis, odd verbal or visual joke, and weakened more or less immediately when it had to present plot, character, human relations. Scene by scene, THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS is quite accomplished visually. And Gene Hackman & co. are given elaborately constructed personae to fill in. But once the clothes, decor, the house, the weird occupations and obsessions are established, there is very little left for the actors themselves to play; no real characters are written here. The Tenenbaums and their circle never fully come alive. The quirkiness wears thin after a while . And the humor is not as consistently funny as it should be and most of it is plainly unfunny. (Stomach cancer, faked or real, is just not funny.) Like RUSHMORE, THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS seems furiously attentive to itself and annoyingly proud of its eccentricities. But at least the former had some energy. THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS, relaxed and more confident, just wanders around the party assuming that it's impressing people, with no notion of how tiresome it's becoming. It's a cold film, with no real human chemistry, a story that winds down into nothing, with nothing to say. I think it's pretty much exactly the film Wes Anderson wanted to make. And I loathed every other minute of it.