HTF REVIEW: "The Royal Tenenbaums" (CRITERION) (with screenshots) (1 Viewer)

[Carlo_M]

You know, it's not supposed to be subtle. The characters were wacky on purpose. They were typical stereotypes on purpose. He wasn't trying to write a Shakespearean tragedy.

Some people find Wes Anderson's humor funny, some don't. So if a critic is on the same page with Anderson and puts it on his top ten list, who are you to say he has a "weird way of judging a movie"? Are you implying that you're opinions are the norm and if others don't agree with you then they are weird?

 

[Sebastian_A]

Of course not, you're right. I changed that!

Seb

 

[Jon Robertson]

Could he do it ANY MORE SUBTLE???

Perhaps he could take a tip from you?
Besides, there is (ahem) TONS of subtlety and layering within the film that only becomes apparent on repeat viewings - it's incredibly touching when Ari gets down from his bunk to go to sleep alongside his dad on the floor.
And I'll say this - "Well, he's taken off his shoes, and...one of his socks...actually, I think he's crying" - I've never heard a line of dialogue that had me laughing at the start, then quietly moved me by the end.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I just lost it when Chaz's voice broke when Royal gave him the dog. Here's a character that was bitter, paranoid, and angry and he opens up for just that one short scene.

That's was perhaps the single most spectacular scene in film last year, IMO.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Seb,

I noticed no stereotypes, I thought Glover was better than he's been in years, and one other thing:

You thought the movie wasn't funny, but then you want the humor to be "subtler"? Nothing personal, man, but I think you're picking fly shit out of black pepper here. Accept the fact that you simply didn't enjoy a flick that several people did. It doesn't make you defective, and I'm not about to imply that you "didn't get it". You just didn't like it.

If everyone in the room was enjoying a chocolate cake, and you didn't like the taste...would you find something new to eat - or would you try and change all the cake-eaters opinions?

 

[Sebastian_A]

Scott, I think it is my right to express how I feel about the movie. (I was not the one criticizing Glover btw)

Using stereotypes does not refer to being funny. When I ask for subtlety, I don't talk about the jokes, I talk about the way the characters are portrayed, the way their feelings are expressed on the screen. Here, Anderson uses (FOR MY TASTE) too many stereotypes and that is what I criticize.

Of course, taste is something we shouldn't argue about - so let's quit it.

I do not hate RT, I just did not enjoy most of it - though I have to say that it is beautifully shot and Anderson's use of the widescreen picture is just outstanding. Form over content unfortunately - FOR ME!

I am not trying to change anyone's opinion, but if I think something is not done very well, I think I can point that out - of course, that's MY opinion, but maybe SOMEONE agrees. So, guess you don't, hehe.

Seb

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

Aspects of The Royal Tenenbaums might be over the top, but Anderson is one of the most subtle directors currently working. Going back and watching his films, I'm amazed to find what I missed on previous viewings. Maybe for some the problem with his sense of humor is that he is too subtle, that the jokes fly past some in the audience.

One of the best pieces I can recommend for anyone not terribly impressed with The Royal Tenenbaums, or Anderson in general, is the Film Comment essay in the insert booklet. That writer expresses why many love Anderson's films and probably points out why many loathe them.

 

[Marc Colella]

That was intentional... Anderson wanted to show every family member as really different from the others, almost like they're not related at all.

I understand that it was intentional, I just found it to be a way of spoonfeeding the audience instead of showing their differences through the characters dialogue.

 

[Scott-C]

One of the best pieces I can recommend for anyone not terribly impressed with The Royal Tenenbaums, or Anderson in general, is the Film Comment essay in the insert booklet. That writer expresses why many love Anderson's films and probably points out why many loathe them.

Good tip...I was very much impressed with TRT and I would still like to read this essay.

 

[PaulBoud]

Ok, this movie is definitely not for everyone, obviously. Sure I have a "different" sense of humor and I found this to be humorous. I also liked Rushmore quite a bit.

(Now standing on a soapbox)

BUT PLEASE, if you have not seen BOTTLE ROCKET, please do!!!! I recommend this movie to everyone, and most do enjoy it, although maybe not as deeply as I do. I think it is Anderson/Wilson's best film. Luke Wilson is great in it (he plays depression and innocence very well) and Owen as Dignan is one of the funniest/saddest characters ever. His scene on the mini-bike in his yellow jumpsuit is unbelievable. Do yourself a favor and check out this movie. If you feel you've wasted your time and money afterward I apologize, but I doubt you will.

"What's that thing of your nose?"
"Exactly!"

 

[John Stone]

"What's that thing of your nose?"
"Exactly!"

Come on man, get it right!
"What are you putting that tape on your nose for?"
"Exactly."

I have a few more here:
http://www.twowiresthin.com/greats/bottle_rocket.html

 

[PaulBoud]

Sorry, it's been awhile since I saw it, hehe

Cool website!

 

[Allen Skurow]

'Tenebaums: two aces - Royal flush.

It starts about the end of hour one of the Royal Tenebaums. Up until now, director Wes Anderson and cowriter Owen Wilson are at the top of their game with a very funny and skillfully laid out quirky comic tableau. But then it starts to hit you as these dweebs continue to wear these ridiculous 'movie character' outfits and their initial offkilter charm begins to seem a bit tired and contrived.

Anderson and Wilson just didn't have the chops to pull it off in the second reel. They left these actors at sea and they - and the film - just sinks. It's like they wanted these endearing accoutrements and costumes to actually make up for their own inability to flesh out the characters. They wanted the 'look' of these genius nerds to literally do the acting and provide substance for the leads; Paltro with her furs and smokes, Hackman with his goofy glasses and hairdo, Stiller with his sweatsuit and anger, Glover with his monkey suit and grey hair, Luke Wilson with his absurd headband and Fila sportshirt, and Owen Wilson with his laughable cowboy duds. They also predictably try to swing the tone into seriousville [spoilers] with a from-left-field suicide attempt, doomed, taboo love affair, and half-hearted drug addiction storyline. All of them just don't quite work.

There could have been a great movie here - and for quite a while there really is. It's just too bad they didn't let another keen eye into the process to keep them honest and to significantly tighten up the narrative focus down the stretch.