No debate from me. I agree completely.

Slate wrote an article after Life Aquatic came out claiming that Anderson needs Owen Wilson as a screenwriting partner to keep him grounded. It's an interesting theory. I haven't seen Darjeeling Ltd yet--it just looks so damn precious.

OH god, Life Aquatic is the only movie I can remember just stopping, putting the dvd back in the case, and wanting to forget ever renting it, less than an hour in.

I read that Slate article a couple years ago and was inclined to agree with it. Wes Anderson really needs a writing partner to ground his idiosyncratic vision in some emotional reality.

But in the case of Darjeeling, I'm not sure it would have helped. IT's 20/20 hindsight, but now that we know Owen Wilson has not been doing well for a while, you can kind of see it in the movie. The plot hinges on his character, and his character needs to be a formerly detached, Type A, wealthy manipulator who has suddenly had a raggedy, emotional breakthrough and now has a new identity he doesn't know how to handle. None of this comes through at all; he's the same old space-surfer he always plays. And since the two brother characters absolutely need to play off the central character, they end up with nothing to work against, and ultimately, none of the relationships feel real.

It was beautiful to look at, though. You could almost enjoy it as much by watching it with the sound off, or with a soundtrack of Indian ragas playing.

It was beautiful to look at, though. You could almost enjoy it as much by watching it with the sound off, or with a soundtrack of Indian ragas playing.

For that alone I think I'll get it on DVD. I love the colors/visuals in his movies, especially Life Aquatic, and I had a feeling that the same would hold true for Darjeeling.

I saw it last weekend, and while it takes me a while to 'process' movies (unless they're, say, by the Farrely brothers).

I thought that the movie was gorgeous visually, as are most of Anderson's films (not Bottle Rocket, though!). I felt this film, like Life Aquatic, is taking him into a sort of 'auteur phase' where he's playing with his style and form, but the actual function of the film, to move and entertain us, falls a bit flat. Sure, there are a few good laughs, and the characters have decent chemistry.

For example, an Anderson trademark are characters who you want to hate but end up liking despite yourself. In this movie (like Life Aquatic), I really didn't like the characters that much, though I kind of wanted to (mostly because of all the long, swoony shots of their deep, soulful eyes. I love Angelica Houston no matter what she does, but her character was flat as a board, despite the halfhearted attempts to give her layers.

The theory that Mullacc and Miko point out is something I've heard before and I agree with it. He's like a little kid building one of his beloved dioramas - they're intricate and have great background, but unless he can get his friends to help give the characters voice, it's just a child's stage full of cardboard cutouts.

Reading that back, it sounds so harsh, but I don't really mean it to be. It's like how Woody Allen could put his characters on the moon or in the midst of an easter parade and it would still basically end up being the same film - a "Woody Allen Movie." There's nothing wrong with it, but when you work in that auteur school of thought, it's a lot harder to step away from yourself and break new ground.

"Give the audience SOMETHING, ANYTHING to give a shit about."

I've had the same feeling toward all his movies. In Tennenbaums, the lack of characterization almost worked.

Maybe you all are just getting older, ;-P.

I really liked Darjeeling if only for Adrien Brody's character, who I kind of fell in love with a little bit.

Wes Anderson is kind of hit-or-miss for me; I loved Rushmore, The Royal Tennenbaums is definitely a great movie, but... Bottle Rocket was really, really awkward and I really couldn't get into The Life Aquatic.

I definitely wouldn't mind living in his sets though. I like how timeless they are - they don't belong to any real specific era other than "not this one."

I didn't get to see it. The movie only played here for two weeks and I was sick the entire time. I love Wes Anderson's use of color and sets, though.

And Life Aquatic has been one of those movies for me that gets a little better every time I see it. There's something fulfilling about the movie in the way that it's not fulfilling at all and the way it disappoints.

*sigh*

I was worried that this would be the case. I'll see it anyway, just because I like his other work (or is that more reason to avoid it). By all accounts, a disappointing effort from someone whose other films have gone straight to The Criterion Collection.

**

Apparently, Southland Tales is much, much worse. Mark Kermode called it "a pile of pants" and "a strong contender for worst movie of the year".

Jonathan Ross refused to review it properly on Film 2007... basically saying that it wasn't worth his time.

I must disagree about tDL. To me it's the best movie he's made since Rushmore. The characters were not easily accessible and required discovery over time. The interplay between the brothers (and between the youngest and his lover in the very beginning) was engrossing to me; the backdrop of the "spiritual quest" through India (while swilling pain reliever) just made it a richer experience for me. I can understand that not everyone'll like this movie, but I loved it.