6/10
Not Wes Anderson's Best
30 December 2004
First, as you can tell from the other comments, if you aren't a committed Wes Anderson fan, you should give this film a pass. I heard several "worst film ever" comments from my other movie goers, and I could I understand where they were coming from. I didn't agree (by a long shot), but the film lacks some key ingredients that his other films had. First, there wasn't a single character I cared anything about. Even Gene Hackman's twisted Royal managed to elicit at least a grudging fascination from me, whereas this collection of deadpanning oddballs did nothing. Also, where a number of reviewers mentioned "lots of plot," it wasn't in any kind of coherent narrative structure. Now, these things wouldn't matter so much (at least for me) if the film had been consistently clever, imaginative, funny, etc.--but I didn't find that it was. There was way too much capital Q Quirkiness (or quirkiness for its own sake) as well as too many flat sequences. In the past, Bill Murray has been the foil for the intense characters--here, he's not only the focus, but he's surrounded by others—Owen Wilson, Jeff Greenbaum and Anjelica Huston—who are all taking the same ironic, deadpan approach. That's why Willem Dafoe's wackily (and intensely) homoerotically- charged Klaus is so much fun. And for those who appreciate the concept of an apparently never-ending supply of David Bowie songs sung in Portuguese to a softly strummed classical guitar, there are plenty of very smart and inventive moments. They just don't add up to a satisfying whole. And if you aren't the kind to get off on the above-described Bowie tunes, stay far far away from this film.

My favorite small bit—a quick roller-coaster of a tracking shot as our heroes make their way up a beach in an action sequence reminiscent of the Beatles' Help.
21 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed