royal tenenbaums again

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

upon first viewing i privately decided it was possibly my favorite film i'd ever seen, i've viewed it four times since. um did this happen with anyone else? also more generally do you require time or general social/critical acceptance to truly love a film (tenenbaums reviews mostly lukewarm, 'it's good but no beautiful mind/monsters ball/lotr/amelie!', meanwhile everyone i know who's seen has basically said it was enjoyable but disposable)? in high school whenever 'best movies ever' were discussed in class most kids always just seemed to name the most recent passable film they'd seen, am i just afraid of being short-sighted like that? i feel like i'm going to be proved wrong in a few months and look back and say 'oh how sillyi was' or something, it's terrible. also is royal tenenbaums a great film?

― ethan, Wednesday, 13 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

wow this looks like a ronan thread.

― ethan, Wednesday, 13 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

i felt that way with rushmore for a real long time. but i think that royal tenebaums has an amazing storyline with more character development than rushmore. its certainly got more of a darker feel to it than previous work. i think gene hackman was grand in the movie. as far as putting it side by side with beautiful minds, RT blows the crap out of that movie. Russell Crowe is probably one of the worst actors in America. Amelie was a great flick as well, though i'd probably choose RT over it.

― Brock K., Wednesday, 13 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

darker?? i think one of the major reasons i can connect to tenenbaums like i never could to rushmore is because it's not full of that smarmy adolescent (okay, admittedly appropriate) darkness that kills a lot of the emotional resonance the film could've had.

― ethan, Wednesday, 13 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

"Character development" is something I've heard a lot of people praise TRT for, and I'm hoping someone will expound on that a bit since it's something I think I completely missed. My original gut response to the movie was along the lines of "what a sloppy, incoherent mess, yet sort of sweet." But so many people seem to really get off on the characterizations I'm thinking maybe I should see it again.

― xwerxes, Wednesday, 13 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

it certainly felt like a mess, that was partly what endeared it too me so quickly, finding meaning in the entire range of things i don't initially find emotionally affecting (romance between sixty-somethings) and coming around to jokes i don't initially find hilarious (dalmatian mice) is preferable to rushmore which, when it came out, was just about a nerdy kid my exact age, and all jokes are laid out one-two-three to be laughed at the first time and then it's over. also i think many people are focusing too much on the beautiful funny wonderous tingly gleeful but somehow inferior first half of tenenbaums which is fantastic style exercise stuff but didn't make me openly weep with joy (no lie) like the second part.

― ethan, Wednesday, 13 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Funny, I felt the only character who was really well-developed in Tenebaums was Royal. Royal's children (especially Ben Stiller and Gwynyth Paltrow's characters) and Eli--they were enjoyable to watch but seemed a bit cartoonish to me, for some reason or another, though even they are more memorable than, say, the ex-wife and Raleigh St. Clair (perhaps the one, true unmistakeable misstep of the movie is its underutilization of Bill Murray).

Of course, admittedly Max Fischer and the Rushmore students (Dirk, Magnus) are a bit cartoonish as well (Mr. Bloom, I thought, had more depth to him). Still, I guess I enjoyed Max's plight more than Royal's children's plights. Maybe it has to do with: Royal's children seem to have success unwillingly foisted upon them by virtue of their natural abilities (they just want to be normal folk) vs. Max wants to attain success/fame/fortune, but can't because he doesn't have the natural ability...

― Joe, Wednesday, 13 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

richie and eli i immediately and deeply, related to, from the start of the film to the very end i didn't expect to relate to chas and was annoyed at first but was completely in love with him by the end. less so but still important were margot and raleigh st.clair, the 'well i just want to die' exchange is one of those amazing laugh/wince/cry moments like the bedroom scene in rushmore but moreso. besides myself, royal and etheline are essentially my parents, ethel more than royal admittedly. i felt very much for henry sherman also but didn't really 'relate' to him. that's all the major characters, isn't it? i haven't seen it in almost two months so excuse my forgetfulness if so.

― ethan, Wednesday, 13 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

argh mangled first sentence!! more readable:

'richie and eli i immediately and deeply related to, from the start of the film to the very end, and i didn't expect to relate to chas (and was annoyed by him at first) but by the end i was completely in love with him.'

― ethan, Wednesday, 13 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

oh god i can see already this is going to be one those threads with nine posts and seven of them are me.

― ethan, Wednesday, 13 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

It's the best movie of last year (of course, I haven't seen amelie or Mulholland Dr., but it's better than fucking Beautiful Mind). Again: who are all these people that identify with the guy from Rushmore and can I punch them? RT does have more character dev. than any movie ever made, extending into the past through the House (the closet full of games, the chilhood portraiture, the mice) perfectly.

― Dan i., Wednesday, 13 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Definitely see Amelie and Mulholland Drive, and see if you revise that statement....those were both excellent movies, I thought.

Don't get me wrong, I really, really wanted to love The Royal Tenenbaums. I loved Rushmore, and Wes Anderson, so I guess I had very high expectations. But something about Tenenbaums just struck me as sloppy - the story seemed to start out well, but then the story started to degrade. It struck me more as a sketch or a portrait rather than a finished film...I don't know if that's what Wes Anderson was aiming for, but it really started pissing me off after a while. I thought Gene Hackman's brilliant performance was the only thing that really held the story in place; he was like a much-needed backbone for an otherwise (I hate to say it) spineless film. One of the things I like best about Wes Anderson's style is his talent for character development, but for so many of the characters, the development, the empathy just wasn't there. Perhaps it was just because he had so many characters to work with this time around. Anyway, I thought The Royal Tenenbaums was good, but not great.

― geeta, Wednesday, 13 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Amelie makes me want to kill myself. Death to twee indie girl crap.

I thought Royal Tenenbaums was great, as I've said on the other 40 threads Ethan has started about the film. I'm not really as fond of it as Ethan seems to be (favorite film?), but I did like it better than Rushmore (which I also like a lot). I think I just relate to the plight of the characters better in Royal Tenenbaums than I did in Rushmore.

― Ally, Thursday, 14 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Death to twee indie girl crap

NOOOOOOO!

― gareth, Thursday, 14 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh, but Amelie was utter crap though.

I do love the Royal Tenenbaums, but I don't think I could say it was my favorite movie. If it had been about about Raleigh St. Clair it might have been.

― Nicole, Thursday, 14 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Amelie is rubbish. That girl in it? Frightening as hell. She has the vacant stare of the cud-chewing cow.

― Ally, Thursday, 14 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

it's probably not really my favorite film but i don't like anything better than it so it's a 'top tier' movie then or something gay-sounding like that, amelie looks so crap i can't believe it plus i have bad associations because this horrible indie guy who unsurprisingly loved it.

― ethan, Thursday, 14 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

it's probably not really my favorite film but i don't like anything better than it

What are these riddles in which he speaks?

― N., Thursday, 14 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

It's a bit rub.

― Nicole, Thursday, 14 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

i meant i don't like anymore more than it, there are other films i like as much but not 'better'.

― ethan, Thursday, 14 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Royal Tenenbaums is MY favorite movie, or at least even with Brother and Kicking & Screaming, and I don't even like Rushmore.

― Otis Wheeler, Thursday, 14 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

When we see A Beautiful Mind finally, as if that's ever going to happen, that will be your favorite movie, I promise. My mom still sometimes calls me Margot Tenenbaum. And laughs. She's just happy it's Pi Day, whatever the fuck THAT is.

― Ally, Thursday, 14 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

3.14. It was a very nice Happy Pi Day card she sent me.

― Otis Wheeler, Thursday, 14 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

HAPPY PI DAY!!

― ethan, Thursday, 14 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Did she send you the one with all the pi signs and flags? I understand the concept of pi, I just don't know why they have a holiday for it. What does it mean?

― Ally, Thursday, 14 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Ratio of diamater of a circle to circumference.

― Sterling Clover, Thursday, 14 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes, it's very big and clever of you to do a variation on Otis's joke, it shows a lot of creativity on your part, Sterling.

― Ally, Thursday, 14 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Today is 3/14, it's all a big joke. Frankly, I think your mom made it up (in addition to the joke attached to her card, "Got milk?").

― Otis Wheeler, Thursday, 14 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah, she thought that was really clever. I didn't even think of that, 3/14.

― Ally, Thursday, 14 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

You've got things upside down, Sterl!

― Josh, Thursday, 14 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

okay - now that i've seen it, everything makes sense. it is better than almost everything i saw last year and i am definitely going to see it again. no one i saw it with liked it but i think this is because they wanted the eccentric bits to be funny when they actually weren't. also, they wanted more progress to the characters, i guess. anyways, it pushed all the right buttons unlike amelie which just pushed my vomit-release button.

― dave k, Friday, 15 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

also, does anyone else buy the analogy royal tenenbaums:rushmore::jackie brown: pulp fiction. as in hotshot writer-director follows up flashy name-maker with lower-key but better and underrated flick? assuming you like jackie brown, i guess, which i did when i saw it ages ago.

― dave k, Friday, 15 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh no! We Brits don't get a Pi day. Anyone want to sign a petition for April to steal one of May's days? C'mon, April is way better than May, you know it's for the best.

― Rebecca, Friday, 15 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

how is "tenenbaums" lower-key or underrated in comparison to "rushmore"? the new york times named T.R.T. "the best film of 2001", for chrissakes. sounds like it was pretty hyped to me. and "tenenbaums" had almost as many A-list hollywood actors as ocean's eleven...that's not low-key! especially compared to rushmore's cast.

― geeta, Saturday, 16 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

i meant in terms of the style of the film itself - less fireworks, etc. good point about the fame quotient of the cast- although with the exception of hackman, i don't think i noticed it. oh, and bill murray too, despite the slightness of his role. haven't noticed any particularly strident hype on this side of the ocean, where the flick has just released, but i also was under the impression it was getting lukewarm-to-lousy reviews.

― dave k, Saturday, 16 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

i larfed non-stop and so did dr vick

― mark s, Tuesday, 19 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

four weeks pass...

I larfed non stop and so did my friend. Also possibly one of my favourite movies ever.

― Mitch Lastnamewithheld, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

"favouritIST", of course, in troo aye-al-ee tweespeek stylee.

― Mitch Lastnamewithheld, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

i loved it but i distrust the new sentimentality!!

― bc, Wednesday, 17 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

two years pass...

I watched this last night, and I didn't get it. It looked like everyone was just playing dress-up. It was like watching children acting out scenes with their Barbie and GI Joe dolls. Plus, scenes that seem to have been specifically written just to accompany the freakin' background music annoys the hell out of me. My wife says that she gets new things out with each viewing, but I don't know if I would have the patience to sit through that again.

It as a sweet movie, and I really don't actively bare any malice toward it, but I just can't quite follow the cult-status of The Royal Tenenbaums.

But the real reason why I'm reviving this thread is to point out that Pi Day is only three days away!

― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Friday, 11 March 2005 17:45 (twenty years ago)

wes anderson's films will not age well

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Friday, 11 March 2005 17:53 (twenty years ago)

I think Rushmore will age better than Royal Tennenbaums.

― Michael White (Hereward), Friday, 11 March 2005 17:57 (twenty years ago)

i am an emissary from the future, do not question my judgment

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:00 (twenty years ago)

agree on RT. Rushmore still works, at least in memory. mainly because it's about children so the style suits the story.

― ryan (ryan), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:02 (twenty years ago)

one problem for me with anderson is that neither my real nor imagined childhood was full of such disgusting preciousness. i watched transformers and he-man for christ's sake.

― ryan (ryan), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:10 (twenty years ago)

Now if David Sedaris ever goes through with making a movie featuring a cene of his fifteen-year old self lying naked on a bearskin rug while wearing a beret, I could see Wes Anderson being the perfect director for that.

(Sedaris wearing the beret, not the bearskin rug...)

― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:12 (twenty years ago)

RT is also abt children!!

i'd like to see it again, i really enjoyed it

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:14 (twenty years ago)

I like the performances a lot (save Gwenyth - whose merely passable - and oddly enough, Bill Murray, whose role is underdeveloped and superfluous) but I'm not fond of the "book" format and the superfluous narration. It could use a little less directorial presence. There should be an Altman edit.

― miccio (miccio), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:17 (twenty years ago)

I've seen it recently. I still laughed a lot. I never liked Rushmore.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:17 (twenty years ago)

i think Gene Hackman (or at least that character) really saves it. everyone else is either cipher or kind of a bore.

― ryan (ryan), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:18 (twenty years ago)

Skipping 7 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

um, i side with gene hackman

― j blount (papa la bas), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:23 (twenty years ago)

In a cage fight?

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:24 (twenty years ago)

Gene Hackman's one of my favorite actors ever so Gene wins it by a country mile.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:24 (twenty years ago)

miccio i know he's the lead. but i think the specific salty, chaotic, hilarious performance hackman came with is the only thing balancing out the rest of the movie's total anal retentiveness. and i'm not sure who else coulda pulled that off (not that that's my point anyway)

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:26 (twenty years ago)

it's a terrific performance, I'm not denying that. I just think the other actors should be given props to. His role requires people to react to him, and Huston, Stiller and Luke Wilson do a solid job making that happen.

― miccio (miccio), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:29 (twenty years ago)

no apparently they really didn't get along and have very very different philosophies about film/acting, apparently wes anderson likes to tell his actors every tiny thing to do - line readings, how to hold their head, etc., hyperanal, apparently he views them as dolls basically, and hackman chafed at this, found it insulting and a bit clueless, i do wonder if it's why hackman's the only one who seems alive in that movie and i think the tension that comes out of it probably does help the flick (and was probably unintentional, cuz anderson gets his wish with life aquatic - which i nevertheless like more than tenenbaums! - and will even more so with his next flick where he won't even have to bother with messy old human beings at all).

― j blount (papa la bas), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:29 (twenty years ago)

that's exactly it. basically what i'm saying is that hackman's style is what prevents tenenbaums from completely collapsing. sure there are some other good actors there but he's the only one i enjoyed watching--he really blows the rest of them off the screen

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:31 (twenty years ago)

I don't get that "everybody else is blown away" thing at all (though it helps that I'm a fan of what Huston, Stiller and the Wilsons do in most movies).

― miccio (miccio), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:33 (twenty years ago)

did everyone see that letter owen wilson wrote the new yorker, sticking up for stiller?

― j blount (papa la bas), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:35 (twenty years ago)

miccio i like those actors too but i don't really care for them in tenenbaums. in any given scene with hackman it's gonna be HIM i have my eyes on, not anyone else

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:36 (twenty years ago)

I kinda wonder if you guys are mixing up the characters personalities with the actor's efforts. The other people aren't supposed to be as alive as Royal. He's this irresponsible card, Huston and Stiller are bound by responsibility, Luke's depressed.

― miccio (miccio), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:36 (twenty years ago)

Hahaha no! I didn't realize the New Yorker was trashing Stiller either!

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:37 (twenty years ago)

it certainly doesn't hurt that he's a more vivacious character. but even so, it's probably easier to get a better performance out of a better role, no?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:39 (twenty years ago)

showier role

― miccio (miccio), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:39 (twenty years ago)

yeah david denby wrote some "piece" about how he's in a lot of movies and called him ugly in a manner ALOT less funny than when john simon used to do it. it was weird to, he said vince vaughn 'stole' dodgeball, and i'm like, well he is the lead, duh? anyhow owen wilson wrote something calling him a dick in a funny manner and threatened to sick jackie chan on him.

― j blount (papa la bas), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:41 (twenty years ago)

and it helps to have supporting actors who help you play up the contrast. the point of stiller's role is to be seething and resentful, not offering joie de vivre.

(X-post)

― miccio (miccio), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:41 (twenty years ago)

Owen's letter:

I read David Denby's piece on Ben Stiller with great interest (The
Current Cinema, January 24th & 31st). Not because it was good or fair
toward my friend but exactly because it wasn't. I've acted in two
hundred and thirty-seven buddy movies and, with that experience, I've
developed an almost preternatural feel for the beats that any good
buddy movie must have. And maybe the most crucial audience-rewarding
beat is where one buddy comes to the aid of the other guy to help
defeat a villain.

Or bully,. Or jerk. Someone the audience can really root against. And
in Denby I realized excitedly that I had hit the trifecta. How could
an audience not be dying for a real "Billy Jack" moment of reckoning
for Denby after her dismisses or diminishes or just plain insults
practically everything Stiller had ever worked on? And not letting it
rest there, in true bully fashion Denby moves on to take some shots at
the way Ben looks and even his Jewishness, describing him as the
"latest, and crudest, version of the urban Jewish male on the make."
The audience is practically howling for blood! I really wish I could
deliver for them—but that's Jackie Chan's role.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:41 (twenty years ago)

miccio if you really prefer alot of halfassed buster keatons you're gonna love wes anderson's next _____ movies!

― j blount (papa la bas), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:42 (twenty years ago)

Owen Wilson's character generates all my favorite moments in this movie.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 11 March 2005 18:43 (twenty years ago)

anjelica huston was a half-assed buster keaton, right

(X-post)

― miccio (miccio), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:43 (twenty years ago)

when everyone else in the movie is the straight man, i'm not going to get too excited about their performances! (xxxxxp)

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:43 (twenty years ago)

seriously at one point you could hope wes anderson might be another hal ashby and then you had to temper that to another coen bro and now we're at the 'another tim burton? is that too much to ask for?' stage.

― j blount (papa la bas), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:44 (twenty years ago)

i mean we're getting close to "the only reason gene hackman is good is because the rest of the movie is so boring" here

(which is half right)

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:44 (twenty years ago)

Hahaha that's great! 237!

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:44 (twenty years ago)

hey seymour cassel actually appears alive in tenenbaums too! maybe anderson didn't have enough time to figure out exactly what kind of barbie doll he wanted him to be though.

― j blount (papa la bas), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:46 (twenty years ago)

this is totally OTM

― miccio (miccio), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:46 (twenty years ago)

I love Gene as much as the next person (though y'all should watch Under Suspicion before you decide to swallow), but I wouldn't know he was at odds with Wes in a way the others weren't if I wasn't been told elsewhere.

― miccio (miccio), Friday, 11 March 2005 18:49 (twenty years ago)

Ha ha, a real "Billy Jack" moment of reckoning. That letter is great. Owen Wilson is really the brains behind the whole Wes Anderson operation isn't he?

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Friday, 11 March 2005 19:03 (twenty years ago)

ding ding ding!

― j blount (papa la bas), Friday, 11 March 2005 19:05 (twenty years ago)

well totally i think wilson, back when they wrote the scripts together, provided the same kind of balance that hackman does in tenenbaums. (this is just my impression but i think i'm right)

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 11 March 2005 19:06 (twenty years ago)

Didn't Wilson co-write the script to Tennebaums?

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 11 March 2005 19:08 (twenty years ago)

i think so, but i understand he contributed a lot less than in the two previous movies

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 11 March 2005 19:09 (twenty years ago)

there's so many choices in the tenenbaums that a good director might think up while writing but realize were extraneous to the final product. A really blatant one was when he had Baldwin underline that Hackman meant it when he tells his family he enjoyed the last few weeks with them. Hackman (being a good actor) conveyed his sincerity plenty, but Wes probably REALLY WANTED that moment in the script, lest we forget we're watching his vision.

― miccio (miccio), Friday, 11 March 2005 19:10 (twenty years ago)

part of the reason I haven't seen Life Aquatic is that he threw like 7 more ingredients to a pot that was already bubbling over with wasted flavor.

― miccio (miccio), Friday, 11 March 2005 19:11 (twenty years ago)

wasted flavor is miccio's new full-length joint. drops april 3, y'all.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Friday, 11 March 2005 19:15 (twenty years ago)

"i think so, but i understand he contributed a lot less than in the two previous movies"

Well I didn't like the two previous movies so apparently I like less Owen in my Wes.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 11 March 2005 19:16 (twenty years ago)

that's the mixtape, amst. the full-length is called Passion 4 Da Game

― miccio (miccio), Friday, 11 March 2005 19:17 (twenty years ago)

Rectilinear Mind Set

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Friday, 11 March 2005 19:18 (twenty years ago)

Trash And No Star

― miccio (miccio), Friday, 11 March 2005 19:19 (twenty years ago)

i think there is another thread somewhere where the "he realized it meant it" thing is discussed a lot.

anyway--i realize the other characters are supposed to be boring, but couldnt they be boring in less boring ways?

― ryan (ryan), Friday, 11 March 2005 19:30 (twenty years ago)

I'd have to find out what kind of supporting roles people consider "not boring"

― miccio (miccio), Friday, 11 March 2005 19:33 (twenty years ago)

http://www.soniguales.com/fotos/HarpoMarx.jpg

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Friday, 11 March 2005 19:35 (twenty years ago)

I like The Royal Tenenbaums well enough, but I prefer Rushmore and The Life Aquatic by a fair margin. I haven't seen TRT since it was first released, so I have no idea if my opinion would change, but I found it to be a little dull around the edges for me to embrace it completely.

― Gear! (can Jung shill it, Mu?) (Gear!), Friday, 11 March 2005 19:37 (twenty years ago)

Quick someone post a picture of Morgan Freeman STAT!

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 11 March 2005 19:37 (twenty years ago)

as far as story at least, since I thought the acting and characters were good throughout.

― Gear! (can Jung shill it, Mu?) (Gear!), Friday, 11 March 2005 19:37 (twenty years ago)

I remember being annoyed by The RTs when it came out but later, when I watched it again after I adjusted to its Young Adult Book Club view of things, I liked it a lot. Partly it was Gene Hackman's performance, partly it was a sort of numbed-out quality to the Gwyneth Paltrow and Luke Wilson characters that is difficult to get except in a certain type of arty French movie. I guess now that ILE has spoken I should watch it once more and dislike it again.

― Ken L (Ken L), Friday, 11 March 2005 19:42 (twenty years ago)

I also liked the tribute to Orson Welles's The Magnificent Ambersons as I probably already said on one thread or another.

― Ken L (Ken L), Friday, 11 March 2005 19:43 (twenty years ago)

I like RT and Wes in general, but none of his movies are among my favorites of all time. There's a distancing sense of irony at play, similar to Godard, of whom I also am not a big fan. I'm not saying that movies with that style can't be great, but they're just not my thing.

― polyphonic (polyphonic), Friday, 11 March 2005 20:23 (twenty years ago)

Margo/Paltrow is the best thing about Tenenbaums. She's the only supporting character whose blankness seems like an intentional choice rather than just being dead space. I love the early scene where Royal is critiquing her, it's one of the few times Anderson moves in close to the characters instead of trying to fit in as much of the art-directed surroundings as possible.

I'd watch a Margo/Royal buddy movie any time.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Friday, 11 March 2005 20:36 (twenty years ago)

With David Denby as the VILLAIN!

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 11 March 2005 20:50 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.