dj3.jpg

Love Is Blind, and You Soon Will Find You’re Just a Boy Again

The Darjeeling Limited / Daniel Carlson

Film Reviews | October 25, 2007 | Comments (64)


It’s surely no coincidence that one of the things that first drew Wes Anderson and Owen Wilson together was the fact that they are both the middle children of three brothers. The heavy mantle of brotherhood is a theme that winds its way through Anderson’s c.v. with as much world-weary force as his complex patriarchal issues and his desire to use his heroes’ outcast status as a means for their transformation into a uniting force for their broken families. Bottle Rocket and The Royal Tenenbaums had Owen Wilson playing with/against brother Luke, but the casting makes even more sense and takes on a greater weight when you realize that Anderson isn’t just using them because they’re both talented comedic actors but because their real-life brotherhood is the very thing Anderson keeps trying to capture. Anderson’s films are always poignant and deeply personal, acts of exorcism that help him sort out what it is to be a man among brothers. But as he’s grown more obsessed with unearthing the fraternal bond, Anderson has also grown steadily more stylized, creating ornately detailed films in hypeerrealistic versions of the real world: Witness the transition from Bottle Rocket (suburban Dallas and Houston) to Rushmore (a private school, again in Texas) to The Royal Tenenbaums (a dark fantasy version of New York) to The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou (a series of dioramas masquerading as sets masquerading as reality). The two things are connected for Anderson: The deeper he gets into his own fetishistically realized world, the closer he comes to finally finding his way home again. In growing as a man, he’s becoming the ultimate boy.

All that to say: The Darjeeling Limited is a smart, nimble film, swinging from subtle wit to outright hilarity to devastating loss to the undying thing in all of us that keeps getting back up and walking with the pain life keeps offering. It’s funny, but not jokey; sad, but not despondent; hopeful, but not oblivious. After the slight misstep of The Life Aquatic, where Anderson’s gorgeous production attempted to hide a generally worthless and completely unlikable protagonist, Anderson returns to form by offering a moving story about the intricate chemistry between a set of three brothers — of course — that’s buoyant in its depiction of the main characters and almost sweeping in its examination of the human condition. The Darjeeling Limited might not be the best film Anderson’s done, but it’s certainly the grandest. Anderson has retreated far enough into his dreamworld that he’s come out the other side, back into reality, pulling with him everything he learned and saw along the way.

The film opens with a brief clip from Anderson’s Hotel Chevalier, a short film that serves as a prequel to The Darjeeling Limited but isn’t (entirely) necessary to understanding and enjoying the main story. It’s not that some of the film’s more direct references to the short don’t work on their own, merely that the added layer of resonance won’t be there. The short and the feature are both introduced with giant yellow text, set in the same big Futura typeface that’s one of Anderson’s hallmarks and the reinforcement of Anderson’s body of work as just that: a collection of individual chapters of similar design and style, all revolving around common themes and motifs. Even the title of the film itself is presented as an actual physical thing, in this case a sign on the back of a train — the Darjeeling Limited — pulling out of a station in India. Just as Rushmore was a sign on a gate, The Royal Tenenbaums was a book cover, and The Life Aquatic was a film strip, so too is the title of The Darjeeling Limited offered in a way that grounds it in weird reality while at the same time feeling like well-designed and -incorporated scenery. Peter Whitman (Adrien Brody) hops the Darjeeling Limited just as it’s making its way out of the station and across the desert. He eventually makes his way to his compartment and finds his brother, Jack (Jason Schwartzman), asleep but waiting for him. The men have been summoned to India by the third brother, Francis (Owen Wilson), who appears in the cabin wearing several bandages on his face that he later explains are the result of running his motorcycle into the side of a hill. Francis wants them to make a spiritual trek across India and to “be brothers like we used to be.” The brothers haven’t really spoken since their father’s funeral a year ago, and in addition to uniting them again, Francis is also secretly planning on taking them all to see their mother, who’s become a nun in the past year and was absent from their father’s funeral. And just to make sure you get Anderson’s point: The brothers are all using their father’s old luggage, tagged with his initials and featuring discreet patterns of wildlife illustrations. They are literally carrying around the memory of their father like baggage.

As the brothers travel through the desert, Anderson allows their distinct personalities to play off each other: Francis, the maternal one who’s always keeping everyone organized and planned; Peter, the moody one most affected by their father’s death; and Jack, a confused lothario who’d rather be left out of his family. The man-boys interact with the assumed comfort and occasional vulnerability of siblings that Anderson knows firsthand, and Brody, Wilson, and Schwartzman infuse the scenes with a real electricity, acting as foolish and selfish and loving as do real brothers.

I’m loath to go into greater detail about the brothers’ journey through the country because it’s their journey, as much as their destination, that shapes their gradually softening relationships and winds up pulling them together. Anderson co-wrote the script with Schwartzman and Roman Coppola, Schwartzman’s cousin, and the result is his most enjoyable tale since The Royal Tenenbaums. The jokes are sly and witty, flowing forth so easily and so firmly rooted in the specific characters that Anderson makes writing look like what it never is: Easy. I found myself often watching the action with an easy grin, content to be in the presence of such an assured, gifted filmmaker, whose humor and pathos blend to create something sweet, and sad, and wonderfully different.

In addition to Schwartzman and longtime collaborator Wilson, the rest of The Darjeeling Limited also unfolds with the same revolving door of actors and styles as Anderon’s work. The pleasantly clashing blue and yellow paint on the Darjeeling Limited can’t help but recall the color scheme of The Life Aquatic, and it’s of course no surprise that Jack’s Hotel Chevalier bathrobe is the precise shade of goldenrod used in the train’s signage. The chief steward on the train is played by Waris Ahluwalia, who also co-starred in The Life Aquatic, and Kumar Pallana — a favorite character actor from Anderson’s first three films — can be spotted on the train as well, as much a nod to fans as it is Anderson’s natural way of doing business.

Like Anderson’s heroes, Francis is working hard to uncover a version of his past that may have never even existed: In a prolonged flashback sequence late in the film dealing with their father’s funeral, the brothers appear to have the same basic dynamic as they will on their Indian trip. It’s possible they were never “brothers like (they) used to be,” but that doesn’t stop Francis from wanting to knit them together again. Anderson’s men are always trying to be something better than what they turned out to be, to walk their mistakes back before it’s too late, and to figure out just what the meaning of their lives might be. For Max Fischer, it was going to Rushmore Academy; for the brothers Whitman, it’s shaking the dust of their old lives from their feet and diving headfirst into personal redemption in the Indian desert. And for Anderson, it’s working at the convergence of where he came from and where he wants to go. When Jack, an aspiring writer, shares some of his short stories with his brothers, they compliment him on how well he portrays them all. Jack protests, “The characters are all fictional,” but he’s just fooling himself, and eventually comes to accept this. He’s been writing this whole time about his brothers, and realizes that this is a good thing, maybe the best thing he can do. Anderson would understand.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a low-level employee at a Hollywood industry magazine. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.


My Name Is Plain Jane Pajiba | I Am America, And So Can You





Comments

Doode, the Life Aquatic hate is really grating on my nerves.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at October 5, 2007 8:49 PM

Siiiigh... thank you. TO you, Pajiba, and to Wes.

Posted by: that bees chick at October 5, 2007 8:54 PM

Siiiigh... thank you. To you, Pajiba, and to Wes.

Posted by: that bees chick at October 5, 2007 8:54 PM

I'm glad to hear it's fantastic, now I just have to wait for it to come here.

Great review Dan, passionate, informed, and insightful.

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at October 5, 2007 9:08 PM

What I love about Wes Anderson's films is how they are like little perfect dioramas. Even his more uneven work (Life Aquatic. Yes, enjoyable but flawed.) is still really delightful to me because he's always sorta telling the same story in an obsessively-compulsively visual way. So it's like hanging out with your really great friend, who has daddy issues, in their awesome uncluttered apartment.
I'm glad this movie is good. Hotel Chevalier totally piqued my interest moreso, so my expectations are high.

Posted by: Laura at October 5, 2007 9:09 PM

Man I just need to get this off my chest. The Zissou character was in as much of a journey as the rest of Anderson's characters. He might have started out as a seemingly Grade A pompous jackass yet he was one who was willing to finish what his long time friend has started. Not only that, but he also wasn't willing, or able, to crush the dreams of the young man who mistakenly though he was his son.
He basically adopted him. If anything Zissou underwent more emotional growth than any previous Anderson character.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at October 5, 2007 9:09 PM

I completely agree, BarbadoSlim. I enjoy The Life Aquatic more with every viewing. I can't help but sympathize with Zissou despite his egoism due to his drastic emotional journey throughout the film.

It makes me sad when people bash it.

Posted by: Claire at October 5, 2007 10:38 PM

Sooo happy to hear that this is good.

Posted by: TT at October 5, 2007 11:16 PM

I loved the Life Aquatic, and cannot wait to see this movie for myself!

Posted by: Rachel at October 6, 2007 12:11 AM

I LOVE LOVE LOVE Wes Anderson. I am so glad he makes movies, because not only are they so completely entertaining but there's just so much love and nostalgia in them that makes you almost tear up. I get that way every time I watch Rushmore or The Royal Tannenbaums. It's the very revelation of the bond that exists between family and friends that makes his movies so endearing, real and quirky without trying to hard to be that way. Thanks for the great review, I can't wait to see this one.

Posted by: ph at October 6, 2007 12:51 AM

Am I the only one who hates Wes Anderson movies? I think they are definitely an acquired taste, as it were. I tried to watch The Royal Tenenbaums but got bored about a half hour in, stopped watching, then came back to it about an hour later and started it up again and was STILL bored with it.

I tried watching the Life Aquatic. Silliness.

I hate anything that has that sort of hyper-reality look to it. All the weird angles; characters sitting all the way to the left of the lens or all the way to the right or dead center but nothing in between. Three apples on a table. WTF is the significance of showing something like that?

This makes me yearn to watch Alfred Hitchcock movies, especially Rear Window. Every shot in that movie has a purpose and says something.

Wes Anderson movies are so incredibly personal to him that I don't feel like I connect with the characters and his movies just feel like the types of movies people go see just to seem like they are "hipandcool" and not necessarily because they enjoy them.

Posted by: Alicia at October 6, 2007 1:38 AM

I cant wait to see this. I have been waiting for this movie to come out since the credits of the Life Aquatic. To all those who dislike his style, go watch a Pauly Shore movie. You deserve less.

Posted by: Tariq at October 6, 2007 2:50 AM

Alicia maybe you need to see them at a cinema instead of at home to appreciate the framing and cinematography.

There is no reason for another director re-doing what Hitchcock has already done.

Pajiba reviews are too long winded.

Posted by: rosie at October 6, 2007 5:24 AM

Sounds like a movie worth catching.



I also like Life Aquatic. Enough to go out and by the DVD. And I guess I should give Rushmore another try. It had the same effect on me that The Royal Tenenbaums had on Alicia.

Posted by: EricD at October 6, 2007 5:43 AM

This is totally not the place for it, but just so I can get, maybe, a little bit of understanding, why (not on this review, so far, but on almost every other one) do the folks who comment call the reviewers by their first name? Whatever happened to formality? Like, I dunno, Mister, Sir, Miss, Mrs., Ms.? I imagine that it's because some of the people who comment actually know the reviewer. Perhaps?
THEN, after a reviewer has been addressed like "Hey man! We go way back, even though you don't know it, so like, yeah and stuff..." then comes these compliments that are like love letters, hand-written the old fashioned way, but soaking wet with fake tears? Why not just say something like, "Thanks for taking the time to review this movie, Mr. Carlson. Keep up the good work." And let that be it? Why all of this "MY! Your life is an enviable one, Dan the man. Did I tell you about my dream to collect every other of your bowel movements and name them all Josephine? Anyways, tell mom and them I say hello and I hope Jenny gets over that cold soon. Man, you're the bees knees, did you know that? Lol!"

Why am I writing this? I'm just taking up too much space on the page (I left that wide open for a "yeah, and in life" retort.)?

Oh yeah, thanks for writing this review Mr. Carlson. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: 5-15-9 at October 6, 2007 9:08 AM

makes no sense how people can dislike the great anderson films (ruchmore, tennenbaum)and like ths crap (zissou).

Oh you whacky world, will you never caese to baffle me?

Posted by: mothy at October 6, 2007 11:03 AM

Laura - fantastic description. "he's always sorta telling the same story in an obsessively-compulsively visual way. So it's like hanging out with your really great friend, who has daddy issues, in their awesome uncluttered apartment." Love it.

This, like the Royal Tennenbaums, is going to cause a fight with my dear spouse. He is of the "I don't get Wes Anderson" camp and loathes everything he has made. I may have to quote some of you in my defense.

Wonderful review, as always.

Posted by: courtney at October 6, 2007 11:04 AM

You have a point. There's this one chick on here (can't remember her name) who compulsively reads all of that guy with the pregnant wife's reviews (either Dan or Dustin, can't recall that either), but she leaves all these creepy comments like "Utter and complete brilliance!" and "I hope genius is passed on through hereditary means!" and other compliments that would be considered weird if written by a guy to a girl. He's just a fuckin' film reviewer! No offense, but I respect McG and Uwe Boll a whole lot more than anyone whose sole job is to either go down on Wes Anderson or hock loogies at Brett Ratner. At least they're trying to show something, say something. They may not succeed, but they're out there putting their fragile egos on the line, not to mention the work they had to do to get to where they are.

Rant over.

And a big "fuck you" to anyone giving Alicia shit about not liking Wes Anderson movies. Pauly Shore? So, if someone doesn't like one self-conciously arty prick, they're automatically a mouthbreather who wants to have Larry the Cable Guy's babies? Gee, I wonder where the stereotype of pretentious hipster douchebags came from...

Posted by: 6-16-10 at October 6, 2007 11:04 AM

Troll alert! 5-15-19 and 6-16-10....you really need to get a life 'dood'.Troll posting once can add a little spice to a thread, but responding to your own post is just laughable.

Posted by: Brite at October 6, 2007 11:51 AM

I cannot wait.

Also, to all of the people saying they "don't like Wes Anderson movies" based on a partial viewing of Zissou (which I love), you should probably go meditate on Rushmore for a while before you make blanket statements.

great review, sir/mr. carlson!

Posted by: Eliza at October 6, 2007 11:56 AM

Let me just state my position 'cause I'm not in the mood to get started on that whole "internet thing":

1. I think Rushmore is funny and unique.

2. Not much of a fan of Royal Tenenenbaums(sp?). Not because I find it "flawed" or deficient or the standard "it SUCKS," it's just, not my thing.

3. I have no opinion on Wes Anderson, the man, because I don't know HIM, just his movies.

4. I DO have a problem with the Zissou negative criticism because, I don't think it's fair. It's always alluded to as: "being flawed" and I've yet to be shown what those supposed flaws are.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at October 6, 2007 11:57 AM

Can't get into this guy but there was an interesting Slate article about his racist tendencies in his movies. Anyone read it?

Posted by: Anne (in Reno) at October 6, 2007 12:23 PM

Brite,
I can assure you that I have never and will never troll post anything. If I were going to, why would I use a screen name that so closely resembles my own?
I use 5-15-9 as a numerical abbreviation for the letters E-O-I. It stands for End Of Information. I have no corresponding title to go along with 6-16-10.
I can't convince you of that, but hey, anonymity on the internet makes for strange company. Also, I'm big on grammar. I'd never use the word 'dood', spelled that way, especially without full quotation marks.

I imagine your response to this will be a big "yeah, whatever" but I don't care. I'll go to the grave knowing that one thing I don't do is puff myself up by troll posting.

I mean, double-u-tee-eff? El-oh-el!

Posted by: 5-15-9 at October 6, 2007 12:38 PM

Also, I don't use curse words in any post on the internet. I find it a sign of lazyness.

Posted by: 5-15-9 at October 6, 2007 12:39 PM

It's laziness.

Posted by: It's Laziness at October 6, 2007 12:55 PM

Anne, I read the Slate article and I think there is a lot of truth in it. I like Wes Anderson but I don't like how he uses "ethnic" people as if they were just part of his set pieces.

And about the Sir/Mr./Mrs. thing - uh, ok. Formality is nice and all but I was always under the impression that part of the charm of this site is the attempt to make some kind of community. I don't post very often but, for me at least, part of the fun of this website is reading the comments and interactions between posters and reviewers. I don't like the worship factor either, but at the same time I highly doubt any of the reviewers are feeling offended by our use of their first name.

Posted by: stacy at October 6, 2007 12:57 PM

Oh man, dood. You rilly are the pot calling the kettle black!

Haterz alert!

Seeing has how no one used the word dood, I find it odd that you would. Don't get mad at people making points far more important than your own.

Laterz, LOL!

Posted by: Not So Brite at October 6, 2007 12:58 PM

Anne & Stacy,

I also read the Slate article. (See Slate's Culturebox, "Unbearable Whiteness." It wouldn't let me post the link.) I found it interesting. I don't know if he uses people of color as "set pieces" any more than any other actors are "set pieces" but I do think he, like MANY other white artists, uses the lens of a foreign culture in inappropriate ways. Heart of Darkness or Uncle Tom's Cabin anyone? Doesn't make the art bad, per se, but it is necessary to recognize that lens itself.

As far as Wes Anderson goes, his movies are mildly enjoyable. I liked Rushmore and Tenanbaums and I haven't seen any others. I do think though that you can enjoy some of a director's movies and dislike others. I don't like every song by my favorite musical artists, and that's okay.

Posted by: Ariel at October 6, 2007 2:16 PM

*Sigh*
You win. I'll admit that I was the troll. Even though I wasn't. Game over. You win.

But, Brite said Dood. So did BarbadoSlim, though he or she added an E to the end. I didn't understand what Brite meant, but whatever.
I think it's safe to say that someone so sure that they are making a valid point (like calling me a troll when I'm not) must be taken seriously, especially at their own insistence. Why don't we just go the whole mile and start punching our monitors and make-believing it's each other. Deal?

But before all that, at what point made was I getting angry? People making more brown-nosed comments than mine? Calling people we don't know by their first or abbreviated names? I don't do that just because I assume that the reviewers MIGHT read my comments. How am I the pot calling the kettle black? I had read a fair deal of reviews on this site today (seeing as I haven't been on here in a while) and noticed that people like to play the suck-up. I was just wondering why? It seems to me a bit informal. Just like accusing me of being a troll. Just like wasting your time by letting everyone know that I'm a hater. I really don't see your point in all this, but to rest the matter (on my end at least) I'll just say that whatever stick you have stuck in your behind, please, for the love of those around you as well as people reading comments, pull it out, buy some ointment for it, and take a nap. It'll do you good. I mean, I might even do the same thing now, seeing as I've been wasting MY time. I could be playing games, taking a walk, or not talking to you.
It's so funny: We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We remove the organ and demand the function.

I'm not posting again, so feel free to drag my name all through the mud. It's not like it matters anyway. We're arguing on a movie/television review site! Big deal.

L8tRz.

Posted by: 5-15-9 at October 6, 2007 3:24 PM

I like the Harold and Maude-ish quality of Wes Anderson's movies. And how they're so dream-like.

Cannot wait to see this. And how life imitates art with Owen Wilson.

Posted by: Justine at October 6, 2007 3:39 PM

Editorial quibble: it's "loath," not "loathe."

So, I saw The Darjeeling Limited last night, and I was a little disappointed. Maybe it will grow on me.

Before you rabid Wes Anderson lovers attack me, I will state that The Royal Tenenbaums is one of my favorite films ever. It's probably in my top twenty. I relate to it, Hackman's performance is great, the music is wonderful, and the visual style is arresting but does not detract from the story. It manages to strike the perfect balance of pathos and humor for me, and that balancing act has always been the key dynamic of the success or failure of all of Anderson's films in my mind.

Darjeeling was a letdown for a few reasons. I did not think it was funny enough, and Anderson's visual style - while excellent as always - outshone the narrative. The three brothers did not feel as fully realized to me as previous Anderson characters. They very much seemed to be characters. I became too aware of beats in the dialogue that make sense in Anderson's universe (e.g., "To be continued...," "Mine died," etc.), and that awareness took away from their effectiveness and took me out of the story. I guess the bottom line was that I just didn't connect with this film as I did with Tenenbaums.

For the record, I'm not a big Rushmore fan,, but it has its merits. I enjoy Bottle Rocket. Although I did not love The Life Aquatic, I think it gets a bad rap.

Posted by: Darth Corleone at October 6, 2007 3:46 PM

Well, Wes Anderson seems to be in love with a certain idea of New York, a sophisticated place full of sensitive, self-involved souls where ethnic diversity only makes sense as a cliche.

the kind of people that reminds me of the opening paragraph in The Great Gatsby, when the narrator is talking about some advice his father gave him regarding the less lucky people (the poorer of course)in the world, a well intended advice full of condescending crap.

Don't get me wrong I love Wes Anderson, even The Life Aquatic

Posted by: goldend at October 6, 2007 4:01 PM

Wes Anderson makes movies for Starbucks customers and guys with closets full of snap-button "vintage" shirts. Count me out, for fuckin sure.

And before you all instruct me to lay off the Hater-ade, I gave Rushmore and Tenenbaums an honest chance. I found them hipsterish and abrasive.

We GET it, Anderson! You're "quirky" and "literate!" Big effing deal!!!!

Posted by: Amanda H. at October 6, 2007 5:57 PM

Anyone else get the feeling 5-15-9 is spamming the web with essays waiting to get discovered?

Posted by: EricD at October 6, 2007 8:17 PM

Daniel, that was exquisite.

Thank you for a great review.

Posted by: ian at October 6, 2007 9:17 PM

i was so happy this was a good movie. it was like an a really good friend you hadnt seen in several years. im going to have to disagree with the "slight misstep" of life aquatic. i felt it was a stumble down a gigantic cliff while machine guns riddled its body and it hit water and was devoured by 30000 ravenous sharks. so i thought it sucked, and i thought anderson would never recover. now you can understand why i was so glad i loved this movie.

Posted by: jordan at October 7, 2007 1:16 AM

that's so weird somebody else feels like wes anderson is an old friend. huh. put that on the dvd cover- "its like that guy you havent seen in a really long time but you're so glad he came by and you dont really want him to leave but he will anyways, ah man!" by the way, fantastic review mr. carlson.

Posted by: jordan at October 7, 2007 1:30 AM

I thought both Life Aquatic & Royal T were crap-lavish sets,dazzling in their loyalty to details.But OTT,unrealistic & loathful characters-I will never want to see Gywneth Paltrow taking on such a stupendous role again.Life Aquatic was charming at first,& I'm a huge Murray fan but then it tattered on to the pointless,contrived & without a trace of emotion to be found on it's gleefully colourful & glossy surface.

Posted by: daniel at October 7, 2007 3:47 AM

pretty white people with problems

Posted by: nikab at October 7, 2007 3:48 PM

Never seen "The Life Aquatic", but I enjoy Anderson's films very much. However, as I've posted before, I absolutely see why some have issues with his "use" of race - and it is use and nothing more. I'd add to that my observation that the females is in movies are more often muses than anything else. I don't mind movies that are dudefests - loved The Departed, that kind of thing. It seems in Anderson's world women are either worship-worthy or nonexistent.

Admittedly, I haven't seen "The Life Aquatic."

Posted by: Samantha T at October 7, 2007 8:38 PM

Self aware satire can be great, in the hands of greatness (see Woody Allen).

Unfortunatly if not executed perfectly, it becomes nothing more than an unwelcome drop in on a filmmakers therapy session, a two hour meandering of his or her weaknesses and personal hang ups. (see The Life Atrocious)

Rushmore still takes the prize for best Wes Anderson flick. His following films haven't enough material to support the investment in giving a shit about why being a man child is so gosh damn dissapointing.

Sigh (in slow motion, sipping a sad martini)

Posted by: Jazzy Jeff at October 7, 2007 9:40 PM

very glad to hear that you liked it, as every review i've read so far has been less than postive. thanks

Posted by: maxpurr9 at October 7, 2007 11:38 PM

I just returned from seeing The Darjeeling Limited and I was very, very entertained.

I had that same easy smile on my face nearly the entire movie and will definitely look forward to seeing it again later.

Wes Anderson makes me want to write films. I think his talent is enormous and I can honestly say I don't look forward to another film maker's films the way I do his.

Bravo and WONDERFUL, spot on review of this film.

Posted by: Elon at October 8, 2007 3:42 AM

Fox Searchlight needs to quit fucking around and release a movie that is "released." Didn't Fox also botch Borat when they plugged it so fucking much 2 months up to the release, then did a limited release and it sold out, then a wider release and it still sold out?

Why create films? To make money. Why release films, but not release them to theaters outside of NY??? Especially when you're showing previews and all the buzz is currently going on right now.

Go ahead and release it where I live in a month, but I'll already forget about it, thus you won't make any money from me.

If you're going to make movies, Fox Searchlight, release them so Americans (not just New Yorkers) can actually watch them, fuckers.

(/rant)

Posted by: Ian at October 8, 2007 12:10 PM

Anderson's movies are amusing, but I must agree with the Slate article. Ethnic people take a back seat to the "big problems" of the white, male main character. Or they are the magical person of color who helps the white man see the light.

The Royal Tannenbaums: My friend said it best, "A lot of chewing but for meat."
Why was everyone so in love with Margot? Dark and moody is boring, not sexy. Save the Nico impression for Halloween.

The Life Aquatic: Pretty good, loved the David Bowie songs, but why did Steve have to be such an asshole? No real reason for it; he was being an asshole for the sake of being...well, an asshole.

Posted by: wavemaven at October 8, 2007 2:29 PM

This film reduced an entire country to the role of "magical Negro" Dead children, women with burns and bruises that don't even get addressed, poverty and people living with killer tigers -- all these pale in the face of fortysomething white guys with $3000 loafers and Daddy issues who drive their motorcycles into hills ON PURPOSE like they were overwrough 16-year-olds. The women don't even get their problems explored, and nobody even cares -- they are props. What's the deal with Natalie Portman? Who cares. Why is "Sweet Lime" crying? Whatever. What is "Sweel Lime's" damned NAME? We find out -- in passing. The camera was more concerned with these grown-men-childred doing their Abbey Road slo mo walk than with the attendees of the funeral of a dead child, just attractive fluttering set pieces. Irfan Khan acted circles around all three leads and didn't have a single English line. Only touching moment AT ALL was Adrian Brody going "I didn't save mine." And the luggage, "daddy's baggage" was the most ponderous anvil of a metaphor I've ever seen outside of children's television. I've seen subtler Nickelodeon shows. HAAAAAATE. Enough with making Asia the freaking magical enlightenment land for Western dudes, okay? It's a land, with people in it. "Smells kinda spicy" -- OH MY FREAKING GOD.

The film was too damn mellow for its own good. SOMEBODY'S problems should have touched me, but they didn't take the time to explain anybody's damn problems. Just spent all there time being bloody "quirky." The screening audience didn't laugh ONCE. Not once.

I'll take any any any other Anderson film over this one -- I'll take "Life Aquatic" -- this one just crossed the line.

Posted by: Mac at October 8, 2007 8:06 PM

Er, sorry about the spelling issues there -- I got emotional. ;-)

And also, bleah.

Posted by: Mac at October 8, 2007 8:08 PM

I'm sorry- maybe it's just my attention span today, but I found myself wishing for a machete to hack away some of the verbage in this review!

"I'm loath to go into greater detail..." Really?! I had starting skimming whole paragraphs to try to get to the crux of this article when that jumps out at me. But unfortunately the rambling goes on, yes- in greater detail, but I'm still not sure what the point of the review was. It seemed more like an Anderson Analysis.

This just doesn't seem like a typical Pajiba review. I normally love this site.

Posted by: meandering at October 9, 2007 11:53 AM

Royal Tannenbaums... could watch it over and over just for Gene Hackman who, even in the absolute worst commercial roles, is the most captivating and watchable actor in movies. The one sure test of a good movie: have you seen it before? If you're bored like Alicia, you aren't paying attention.

Posted by: Pops at October 9, 2007 2:12 PM

I watched this movie last night and loved it.

If you don't like Wes Anderson movies then I don't know what to say because they are beautiful to me.

Why do women have to have detailed stories? This story wasn't about an Indian woman on a train or an Indian village in mourning or a women coming to terms with loss and mortality. They are all characters that underline the theme of the story in different ways.

I can personally see some validity to wes anderson keeping minorities at an arms distance: he is a american white male. He is not pretending to understand what any of them are going through and I beleive there is an ode of respect in that. In Darjeeling most of the time the locals are laughing at the westerners bastardizing their rituals but, like innocent children, neither side intentionally condiscends to the other.

I beleive the truly racist veiw would have been to focus on their lives being harder or in need of help from white tourists.

Good review, hard to understand it unless you've seen the movie though. I would enjoy a more academic look at some of the better movies out there. But your strengh is making me laugh at bad ones and allowing me make my mind on the good stuff. So kudos.

Posted by: bobbytron at October 9, 2007 4:31 PM

I've so far liked all the Anderson stuff I've seen (though I didn't like the Life Aquatic quite so well as the others, because for me, I didn't feel Zissou had enough of a character change to get me past how hateful he was so often), and so am excited to see this one, too. Thanks for a pretty review.

Posted by: Kiku at October 9, 2007 5:49 PM

I would have seen it regardless of what you said about it, but gosh damn it, this was a really sweet review.

Posted by: Ann at October 10, 2007 10:30 PM

I didn't see this movie...but the comment thread was pretty entertaining.

I do think its pretty silly that folks get upset that other folks don't like this Wes Anderson person's films...different strokes, people. Personally, I tried to watch "The Life Aquatic" and found it oppressingly boring. Surprised me too, given the caliber of actors in the cast. "The Royal Tenenbaums" was....ok, I guess. I've heard of "Rushmore", never seen it though. Since pretty much everyone bills it was this guy's best work, maybe I should watch it and then go back and try again to see if I can make some sense out of the other two movies.

But I never miss a chance to ogle Adrien Brody (I have a HUGE crush on that funny-looking man)...so maybe I better Netflix "Rushmore" right now.

Posted by: Ginger at October 10, 2007 11:36 PM

Everyone really should stop jumping the bandwagon on bashing Wes Anderson for Life Aquatic and just see the Darjeeling Limited. It's starting to show in most theaters now.

I watched it last night, it was wonderful. I think I'm going to go watch it again in a week or two. It's been a while since I've seen a good new movie like this.

Posted by: Vi at October 13, 2007 12:34 PM

I can understand why people like Wes Anderson - I do appreciate him as a filmmaker. But, I think the folks who worship at his alter fail to realize that his films appeal to a certain often pandered to demographic (the middle class white male), and the rest of us might not find their struggles as profound.

I like his movies, but I don't really relate to his characters. So, for those of you who don't get people who aren't completely blown away by the guy, mystery solved!

Posted by: Megs at October 27, 2007 2:52 AM

Ha, all this controversy and labeling! Why do people have to bash others for having different opinions?

I for one love Anderson's stuff. Not only for the beautiful cinemawhatsits, but he takes comedy to a whole new level. He's hilarious.

Posted by: Jane Irie at October 27, 2007 3:19 AM

Megs,
To be fair, I'm far, far from a middle-class white male =)

Posted by: Jane Irie at October 27, 2007 3:22 AM

Great review Daniel! I really can't wait to see this, I love Anderson's every movie, and I know you all mention The Royal Tenenmbaums and Life Aquatic (whic are just great) but people, please watch Bottle Rocket, it's where it all started. I just watched it again today and loved it. I think I never saw a better performance by Luke Wilson.

Posted by: Gaby at October 27, 2007 5:05 PM

Great review Daniel! I really can't wait to see this, I love Anderson's every movie, and I know you all mention The Royal Tenembaums and Life Aquatic (whic are just great) but people, please watch Bottle Rocket, it's where it all started. I just watched it again today and loved it. I think I never saw a better performance by Luke Wilson.

Posted by: Gaby at October 27, 2007 5:06 PM

I saw this movie earlier tonight with no expectations and no idea of what it was about. I'm really glad we decided on this instead of that Tyler Perry movie that's out now.

Darjeeling was fantastic.

My dad died earlier this year, so watching the Whitman brothers was like watching my brother, sister and I relate to each other as we deal with life after his death.

Posted by: joann marie at October 28, 2007 12:31 AM

OK, late to the party, but DL just opened here and I saw it last night. Suffice to say, I adore all things Wes Anderson. From the futura font to the cray-pas color schemes, to the character development and story arcs- I love it all. What captivates me and thrills me the most, however, is the amazing graphic work I've noticed- I think the credited artist is Eric Anderson. LOVE IT

Posted by: Go Big Red at October 31, 2007 1:41 PM

I saw Darjeeling the other night, when it finally got wide release. IT WAS ***TERRIBLE***

For the record. Rushmore is one of my favorite all-times. RT was very enjoyable. Aquatic wasn't too shabby (didn't really like Bottle Rocket, though).

But this movie was bad, bad, bad, bad. Almost walked out, even.

The absurd mock-seriousness of Anderson's movies is what always appealed to me -- but I felt that was totally missing int his movie. With the exception of a few ridiculous things (like buying a poisonous cobra for no apparent reason), the movie was not that far off from what might be expected in reality of any odd group of three brothers with daddy issues.

Posted by: Leaf at November 4, 2007 5:30 PM

It SUCKED!!!!

Posted by: so at November 5, 2007 8:19 AM

i too am a lover of Rushmore and The 'Baums. But Lordy Lordy how I hated this movie. there was no life to it! too pretentious. obtuse. i feel worried for wes anderson.

Posted by: amanda at November 30, 2007 10:08 AM





Video ads popping up after each page view? Try clearing your browser's cookies.