|
by Oh SNAP guy 01/15/2005, 10:16am PST |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Fussbett wrote:
We all react differently, and I rarely laugh at movies, so yeah, it actually IS a certificate of greatness that I found 120 minutes of Life Aquatic purely enjoyable while other movies have occasional punchlines. If laughter is the barometer, Mitch Hedberg MP3s are the funniest movie of 2004. This is why your empirical "well I laughed" is valuable only to you, and why I had a beef with it as a movie debate style. Also, "I" is the bulk of your argument. I had high expectations. I was disappointed. I didn't laugh as much as with previous Wes Anderson movies. I can extract what you think are flaws in the movie by reading your reactions to the screen (Needs to be funnier, more like Rushmore), but you make me do the extra work.
We're agreeing here, which is why I talked about my "empirical" method of determining the greatness of a movie. I just don't think your justifications for greatness are any more objective than my justifications for not-greatness, and I figure, in terms of recommending a movie generally billed as a comedy, laugh-out-loud funniness is probably as useful a measure of quality as anything you've put forth. Otherwise, we're just stuck over-intellectually arguing the movie on particular merits of taste.
BUT, if we're going to over-intellectually argue Wes Anderson movies, you'll also recall that I didn't just classify Rushmore great because it made me laugh out loud, which is why you boiling my argument for the weaknesses of Life Aquatic down to "Glocks vs. Calderon" seemed like a cheap tactic. You neatly deleted all the other examples I gave, like the relationship between Max and his dad contrasted with Herman Blume's dysfunctional relationship with his kids, the non-caricature of Miss Cross, the Thanksgiving/Christmas montages of loneliness and isolation. In contrast, the Life Aquatic is filled with cartoon characters, most of whom aren't really memorable except as jokes (surprising, for a movie that doesn't really make people laugh). Anderson seems to know this, when he had Bond Company Stooge say, "I'm a human being, too" -- the best way to silence criticism is to pre-empt it. Now, that's just "I" talking, because obviously you didn't feel that these people were caricatures, but I personally think Wes Anderson's stylizing, whether in the characters or in the production design or conscious homage to other films, is putting obstacles in the way of the story and simultaneously moving him into the realm of self-parody. You pointed out to Zseni how great you thought it was that the Life Aquatic was a movie about a job and its effect on identity. The problem was that the job was a cartoon. I can't connect the goofy, pleasure-boat absurdities of the "oceanography" practiced in Life Aquatic with all the realistic turmoil and angst that Zissou apparently has. I suppose the people who can are the ones who prefer the Royal Tenenbaums, too. Ultimately, both films left me cold, except the Royal Tenenbaums made me laugh (we eloped). |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
GALLAGHER ATTACKS by Fussbett 01/12/2005, 8:59pm PST 
Gallagher apologetics. by Senor Barborito 01/12/2005, 9:12pm PST 
Yes, if only we could see the real wit and political satire in Gallagher shows. NT by Creexul :( 01/12/2005, 9:23pm PST 
Re: Gallagher apologetics. by Choson 01/12/2005, 9:32pm PST 
Gallagher begat Carrot Top. by And this I do not forgive. 01/12/2005, 9:49pm PST 
Re: Gallagher apologetics. by Ray of Light 01/12/2005, 10:04pm PST 
No, dude, I'm calling bullshit on this. by Senor Barborito 01/13/2005, 8:04am PST 
Re: No, dude, I'm calling bullshit on this. by Debate Fan 01/13/2005, 8:40am PST 
Re: No, dude, I'm calling bullshit on this. by Ray of Light 01/13/2005, 12:06pm PST 
Except I did see Life Aquatic Tuesday night. by Senor Barborito 01/13/2005, 4:59pm PST 
You're INSANE NT by INSANE 01/13/2005, 6:01pm PST 
You should write a count-review. I'll argue for days. NT by Fussbett 01/13/2005, 6:17pm PST 
Counter-review. NT by Fussbett 01/13/2005, 6:17pm PST 
Re: Counter-review. by Senor Barborito 01/14/2005, 4:06am PST 
Notice that I deleted all refs to other movies. by Fussbett 01/14/2005, 9:29pm PST 
Compelling. by Ray of Light 01/13/2005, 6:55pm PST 
Napoleon Dynamite: movie of the year. NT by Creexul :( 01/13/2005, 6:56pm PST 
Re: Compelling. by Choson 01/13/2005, 8:46pm PST 
That's exactly what many people would think. by Ray of Light 01/13/2005, 11:23pm PST 
Re: That's exactly what many people would think. by Senor Barborito 01/14/2005, 3:38am PST 
content, spoilers by Ray of Light 01/14/2005, 11:30am PST 
This thread is exposing my own rock-bottom self-esteem by Zseni 01/14/2005, 11:47am PST 
Broken record and all, but Zseni still hasn't seen The Office. NT by Mysterio 01/14/2005, 6:12pm PST 
Re: That's exactly what many people would think. by Choson 01/14/2005, 7:30am PST 
Aren't you the one afraid of sex? NT by OPINION INVALIDATED 01/14/2005, 7:39am PST 
To me, the definition of scary is posting under a regular nick. NT by Senor Barborito 01/14/2005, 7:42am PST 
WHICH IS WHY YOU POST UNDER A CAJILLION? NT by ROFL-Meister 01/14/2005, 8:22am PST 
You mean your opinion? NT by Choson 01/14/2005, 8:38am PST 
*After school* Nu-uh! You! by Bill Dungsrom 01/14/2005, 5:36pm PST 
Most appropriate nick ever? NT by Mysterio 01/14/2005, 8:41am PST 
Re: That's exactly what many people would think. by Ray of Light 01/14/2005, 11:39am PST 
The Life Aquatic is no Bottle Rocket! by Fussbett 01/14/2005, 5:23pm PST 
Re: The Life Aquatic is no Bottle Rocket! by Choson 01/14/2005, 5:50pm PST 
So have you married The Royal Tenenbaums yet? (why don't you?) by Fussbett 01/14/2005, 8:56pm PST 
Zseni says your, OJECTIVELY, the coolest poster here! by Burble 01/15/2005, 4:50am PST 
Re: So have you married The Royal Tenenbaums yet? (why don't you?) by Oh SNAP guy 01/15/2005, 10:16am PST 
Re: So have you married The Royal Tenenbaums yet? (why don't you?) by Choson 01/15/2005, 10:17am PST 
O SNAP, GUY! NT by whydirt 01/15/2005, 10:26am PST 
Re: O SNAP, GUY! by Choson 01/15/2005, 10:42am PST 
Truely bizzarre footnote by laudablepuss 05/18/2005, 8:59pm PDT 
Gallagher has been perfectly judged. by Fussbett 01/12/2005, 10:55pm PST 
Re: GALLAGHER ATTACKS by Bill Dungsroman 01/13/2005, 11:34am PST 
|
|