I went into this movie with limited expectations. I had seen all of Anderson films, but I didn't go into it with a heightened sense of "this movie is going to be brilliant" like I did for Royal Tenenbaums. I was let down the first time I saw that one.

I had a completely opposite reaction than all of you. I do however agree that Kingsley (Ned) Plimpton Zissou was the weakest character. As far as his accent goes, I think it's supposed to be overly-fictional just like the rest of the surroundings. Wilson also usually writes his own character, and due to Baumbach's collaboration with Anderson, he wasn't allowed the luxury. His character suffers because of this. He was no Eli Cash.

I thought it was obvious that the setting was just an elaborate distraction from the humanity of the characters. As a passive spectator, you have to dig to find that Zissou is desperate for acceptance and to have a family.
Murray was fantastic in this and I thought he did a better job in this than in Lost in Translation, which I never really loved anyway.

The shining star in this movie was Willam Defoe. He played Klaus brilliantly. So sensitive and needy, he was Murray's character out loud.

What did the four fuse-blowing scenes signify? Another act/chapter?
I liked how he separated the crew's identities by giving them different red caps. Did anyone notice that when Murray/Blanchett/Wilson were tied up, they were all tied up with different things?

Once again, Anderson used music well. This is his strongest asset as a director.

Even if you don't like it, as Drinky Crow said, It's great to go into Wes Anderson land for 2 hours. I would rather do that than to go into Michael Bay land any day.

On a side-note, Anderson's next film is planned to be an all animated feature using the same stop-motion animation as he did with all of his Life Aquatic creatures. It will be a good step for him (but probably not well received) as his style is so recognizable that it's bound to become banal.

As far as a ranking, on first sight, I'd rank it above Royal Tenenbaums, which I didn't like it the first time I saw it, and in between Rushmore and Bottle Rocket.

i actually liked owen wilson's performance and role in this one, whereas his stuff in the other 2 wes pics seemed a bit unbelievable (although completely enjoyable and fun, but in a very cartoonish sense). sure, the accent was ridiculous, but without his 1-on-1 scenes with murray, i would've *really* disliked TLA, rather than just being bored with it.

for the first time ever, i think wes could've done with shortening up a film, rather than going overboard with character nuances, background, subplots, visual gags, etc. i know with RT and Rushmore, i wish there had been more, but maybe that's what made them such fluid and focused pieces - there is very little, if any, deadweight, whereas TLA is often adrift. but, as most benefit-of-the-doubter types are saying, i'm willing to see how i react to TLA after seeing it a few times - much like a difficult record, i find that the subtleties and nuances of wes pics come out and are treasured only after a few viewings.

also, i thought the sigur ros inclusion was overwrought and about as out-of-place *feeling* as the pirate attack, rescue scene, etc. i don't subscribe to the idea that it somehow saved the film or even resolved all of the plot. it was also about as obvious and "touching" an idea as the emotional climax on an episode of Friends. bad job all around...

...but i still hold out hope that i'll come around on this one, if only because i didn't immediately like RT.

KPH

I agree with you about Sigur Ros. That whole scene was just... wierd. And little else.

I loved the whole pirate rescue thing, though.

i mean, really? you loved the pirate rescue?

disclaimer- i really don't intend this to turn into one of those "you liked this, you're dumb" acusatory threads where someone gets called a hipster and it's all sneers and digs. i am honestly curious as to what people really like about this film.

It was funny.

Maybe "loved" is too strong a word, but I enjoyed it. It was really stupid. Obviously. It was one of the silliest things I've seen in a movie. I thought it was great. Don't try too hard to "understand". You didn't like it. I did. Big deal.

believe it or not i'd wanted to have a discussion about it, not figure your steel trap mind out.

i don't disagree that individual scenes - like the attack and rescue scenes - were kinda fun and silly, but as for being part of a cohesive whole, i don't see it. were they more effectively integrated or built-up-to, i think there would've been a bigger pay-off (esp. with the sigur ros thing, which could've been amazing, i imagine).

KPH

Sorry, I just didn't think there was much more to it than preferentiality.

You chose not to quote it, but I did try to offer a brief explanation.

Care to elaborate on why you find it so hard to believe that anyone could "love" that part of the movie?

that was just the point where i threw up my hands and said to myself, ok, even anderson doesn't care where this flick is going. however, i can see the validity in watching it as just a whimsical sort of venture. i'm going to download and watch it again and try to have a better attitude about it and see how i feel then.

Maybe I'm a simple man, but as far as plots go in WA movies (minus Bottle Rocket), there is never much going on.

Rushmore - Boy has crush on teacher, fights over her with a millionaire father-figure. He makes plays, too.

Royal Tenenbaums - Dad wants to get close to his family again, pretends he is dying. Then dies once he reconciles.

TLA - Man wants to avenge death of friend from mythical shark. Meets possible bastard son. Gets attacked by pirates along the way. Finds shark.

I mean, the main plots of Anderson movies aren't much to speak of, but the thing that makes them great is the extra stuff - the sight gags, the gimmicks, the quirky characters, the dialogue. I think TLA was succesful at all of these things. Although after first viewing, the only thing I might be able to complain about was that it might have been slightly paint-by-numbers for Anderson.

In any case, I still enjoyed it a lot and expect to like it more with subsequent viewings.

If you go by this board, the reviews seem split in half. I myself have no desire to watch it as I'm not a Wes Anderson fan. I thought Rushmore was okay but The Royal Tenenbaums and Bottle Rocket bored me to death.

Above average to good... beats Xmas with the Kranks.

Bill Murray kills in this movie... that's all you need to know.

Watch the opening sequences of Rushmore and Nap D back to back and you will see where ND is similar in style. Downward camera of an object placed on flat surface.

Also Wes Anderson employs a feeling of ambiguous time setting (the movies feel like they could be set anywhere from the early 70's up until the present day. Nap D also uses this technique.

i liked it.

This movie made me sea sick.



I've only seen The Royal Tenenbaums, so I don't know about the others, but in TRT the plot actually drives a lot of the story. Also, the plot evokes sympathy from the audience. The movie goes somewhere. In this movie, however, the entire middle part of the movie is detached from the plot. It's a meaningless plot that wasn't meant to go anywhere.

I didn't really see anything brilliant in Murray's performance, but I don't know shit.

I liked it as well. Maybe not as strong as the previous two but I still enjoyed it. Great use of music during the rescue scene. Loved the bit where the 3 legged dog outpaced everyone.

"Yeah, I'll try one of those."

i didn't like it as much as the previous two. every ten-fiften minutes were like little vignettes, which is fine and all if aderson intende don us receiving zissou in an episode-like format. but it hurt the cohesion a lot, and each episode made me feel less connected to each character, i think, except for an emotional connection with murray's character. i liked it, in a meh sorta way.

Another statement that suggests that our lives parallel each other in a scary way. Except that "Bottle Rocket" easily bests this "LIfe Aquatic" piece, which I thoroughly enjoyed. I gave it a 3.9/5. My dad liked it more.

I saw it last week and thought it was definitely worth seeing. I'm not a huge Wes Anderson fan but I've seen all his movies and enjoyed them well enough.

I love Bill Murray as an actor and thought he gave a fine performance.

I enjoyed this most of all films released in '04 that I have seen.

Brilliant.

And, infinitely better than Royal Tenenbaums, which, like Matrix: Revolutions, put me to sleep.

This movie is fan-fucking-tastic. Anderson's attention to detail in each shot is amazing. The sets are unbelievable. That scene where Ned is following Zissou around the boat and it's all shot from an outside view is crazy good. If you try to follow the shots during the movie some are extremely involved.

I agree that Wilson's character is a little weaker than in past films but I guarantee if you see the movie again and again new traits will come to light. The movie is so detailed it'll be a joy to watch it again and find new things within it. Murray is great in a detached way. I think that's why some people are saying "what's so great about his performance". I don't know about all that "give this guy an oscar already" talk though. I doubt that will happen because it's a comedy.

So to sum up. I liked the Life Aquatic.

I hate those dolphins.

Just saw this movie last night. I didn't know what the hell to think about it. Overall, I liked the Royal Tenenbaums a hell of a lot more even though the pacing and feel of Life Aquatic was similar in tone. Bill Murray was tremendous as always and the soundtrack was fantastic. I also thought the pirate scene was hilarious, especially set to The Stooges. And ending with Queen Bitch was awesome.

I think I need to see it again.

saw it for the first time a couple months ago. Thought it was good, but not as good as the other Anderson movies.