madpenguin41

"The Life Aquatic" is a righteous mess of a movie. Less a coherent piece, and more a series of vignettes loosely tied together by a rough sketch of a plot, the film is so hit-and-miss that it is nearly impossible to give a basic opinion on it. In the end though, it holds ones interest, (mostly) justifies its length, and is overall entertaining and charming, almost in spite of itself.

This is certainly the weakest of Anderson's films. Yet, a bad Wes Anderson film is still better than a lot of filmmakers' best films. And "Life Aquatic" isn't by any means BAD. What sets this one apart from his other three gems is that while his films very much create their own world, they contain characters and events that keep them just this side of total inaccessibility. That really isn't the case with "Life Aquatic"... it's a major plunge off the deep end. In addition, the artistry of his trademark melancholic humor is lost here; where his films have previously managed to explore the humorous aspects of the tragic ("Royal Tennenbaums" really perfected this), "Life Aquatic" just alternates between tragedy and comedy without ever finding any real balance or sense of congruency.

The comedy definitely works better than the tragedy in this film. At times, it even seems that incredibly dark plot twists are included only to reach a punch line. For example, a violent pirate attack puts Steve's entire crew in great peril, yet the scene turns outright hilarious when Steve grabs a gun and goes on a rampage shooting all the pirates, all the while wearing a Speedo. Other highlights include the goofy keyboard music piped into the diving helmets, the albino scout dolphins which Steve can't manage to ever get to go scout, and the theft of all the on-board equipment of a colleague. Another humorous element is how unbelievably ridiculous all the computer-generated sea creatures look. Seriously, it looks like they were designed in MS Paint, printed off, then pasted on top of the film. I don't mean this as a criticism... I'm sure the effect is intentional, and it is definitely amusing.

I'll be honest: thematically, I have no clue what is trying to be expressed with this film. Perhaps Anderson means this as a commentary on film-making in general. Maybe knowing there was no real way to follow up a masterpiece like "Tennenbaums" he just decided to make a film so insular that it only has meaning to him. Maybe the entire meaning of life is being revealed in this movie. Regardless what the idea is, I'm missing it. And ultimately, the movie didn't really make me want to care. Many elements of the plot indicate that some profound message is trying to come through: the death of people near and dear to Steve, the wrangling with the idea of a father/son relationship that begins when the son is 30, the mid-life loss of former glories. Yet, the presentation of all these elements is so totally incoherent that it doesn't really encourage the viewer to sort through this mess to discover the meaning.

I also have not figured out exactly how the music choices even remotely fit with the film. Much of the soundtrack consists of glam-era Bowie classics played on acoustic guitar and sung in Portugese... no, I'm not kidding. Why? I have no clue, but it is sort of fun to hear, and a nice testament to the talent of David Bowie that all these melodies are instantly identifiable even in such radically reworked form.

Ultimately, "The Life Aquatic" fails to really accomplish much of anything other than be bizarrely quirky and hilarious, which it is frequently. There's nothing wrong with making a film that is only these things, it's just that much more is clearly intended, and those elements unfortunately fall flat. Nonetheless, it is a quality piece of entertainment, well worth the cost of admission, and is certainly unique. In short, it is neither as good or as bad as anyone says it is.

Score: 6/10

So it was with much trepidation and even utter fear in my heart that I went to see this movie. After all, the last time I went to see a full-length adaptation of a favorite Christmas story, what I got was Ron Howard's absolutely God-awful "The Grinch". Having grown up with the book "The Polar Express" (according to my mom, I cited it as my favorite Christmas present when I was seven), I did not want to see this story bastardized in any way. Honestly, I was prepared for "Polar Express" to be a complete wreck. But instead…

It soared. Completely. What makes the film such a success is not so much even the story itself, but an execution which somehow manages to inject every frame of the film with a feeling of childlike wonder and exuberance. In addition, there are so many clever touches and details added throughout that a feeling of mystery and excitement just fills the viewer. Among these are the waiters dancing and singing while serving hot chocolate to the kids on the train (a very funny scene, as well), the factory where the presents are prepared, and a ghost-like hobo who is never really explained, but is incredibly crucial to the feel of the film. At one point, three of the children wander lost through the empty streets of Santa's North Pole town. As they wander, various old Christmas recordings are heard playing on phonographs throughout the town. The music provides a pleasant and nostalgic ambiance to the scene. It's touches like this that absolutely make the film.

I'll never understand why films seem to be required to be at least 90 minutes long. I would pay money to see a 40-minute film, as long as it were good. And even if it sucked, I would have at least wasted less time. What I'm getting at is I have no idea why a 32-page picture book needed to be a 99-minute movie. What this means is that the original story is VASTLY expanded upon. However, what is added in actually fits quite well with the essence and spirit of the book. Some of it is just sheer entertainment; the train track is like a roller coaster, characters ski on top of the cars, danger lurks around every step of the journey to the North Pole (but admittedly fun danger). Other aspects further illuminate and expand upon the book's basic theme of the virtue of belief in the implausible. So I have no idea why this was made into a full-length, but in the end, I'm glad it was. It didn't even feel too long (and I think everything is too long).

Much criticism has fallen on the look of the characters in the movie. I can agree to a point. While there is incredible visual detail in the faces, they usually seem void of expression. In general, a lot of the motion seems rather wooden, as well. The scenery, on the other hand, is gorgeous. Overall, the minor problems in animation (which really boil down to a matter of taste anyway) are certainly not enough to diminish what is an overwhelmingly successful movie. Score: 8/10

Okay, so let's get the bad news out of the way first. 'The Incredibles' does not touch 'Finding Nemo' in terms of greatness. The sheer beauty and ingenuity of that film is the type that comes along about once every fifty years, so perhaps it's unfair to compare. One of the key differences is that while 'Nemo' is very much a timeless tale with universal themes, 'The Incredibles' is very much of a particular time and place, that being modern America.

Indeed, Pixar has surprisingly managed to create one of the most socially relevant films in a year where nearly every film released attempts to be socially relevant. 'What?' you ask. 'Isn't this a cartoon and aren't cartoons for kids?' Actually, this cartoon isn't so much for kids, at least not very young ones. Excessive violence abounds and the villainy is actually threatening in a life-or-death kind of way. There has certainly never been another animated film with Disney's name on it that was as violent or as dark as this. Besides the content, the ideas and themes of the film really suggest an adult target audience.

So yeah, the kids sort of get left out here, but man, are the older folk in for a treat. At its core, 'The Incredibles' is a well-pointed satire of mainstream American life and the cultural standards that are imposed upon this nation's citizens. Within the first ten minutes, the film is depicting a man in midlife crisis and a family filled with discontent and dysfunction. As I said, this IS satire, so these problems are greatly amplified by the fact that this entire family consists of natural-born superheroes. What makes the film so poignant however, is that it not only depicts the problem, but delves deep into examining why it exists. Bob Parr sits at a cubicle all day and is forced to deny insurance claims to as many people as possible. This is what he spends his time doing, yet he is capable of not only being a truly productive member of society, but of achieving great good in the world. Hits a bit too close to home, doesn't it? In fact, the film shows each of its main characters shoved into a role of mediocrity where their real talents and potential go unused. This is bad for them, and it's bad for society as well. They are unable to give back to the world via the gifts they've been born with and they are unhappy in being forced to simply live standard lives. Indeed, 'The Incredibles' more than any other film in recent memory addresses the problem of a culture that tends to look down upon any individual talent, unless that talent involves the exploitation of someone for economic gain (see Bob's insurance job).

Greatness isn't allowed in this society. In fact, it is so forbidden that superheroes are outlawed altogether, after a rash of lawsuits over collateral damages… the most hilarious of which is from a man who sues over a broken leg which is incurred while he is rescued from a suicide attempt. So all superheroes are forced to live the normal, domestic lives that bore all the rest of us to tears. Of course, 'The Incredibles' isn't necessarily a dark film. In fact, once the members of this family are allowed to embrace their talents, the bonds between them rapidly flourish. So is the root of family dysfunction found in the decision to do what society seems to approve of rather than what natural talent dictates? It's an interesting question to ponder, and one which will certainly be pondered by anyone who sees this film.

Outside of theme, the execution of the movie in general, is quite excellent. Pixar has an incredible knack for picking up extraordinarily well-written scripts, and this is certainly no exception. The satire never gets in the way of an exciting story (which is all the more exciting due to the depth of the characters). In fact, I would go so far as to say this is one of the better action films I've seen. The vocal talents are great… all of them, so I won't bother mentioning just one or two names. And of course, the animation is absolutely first-rate. Even if someone could somehow hate everything else about this movie, he would have to admire it for the sheer brilliance of its visuals. Seriously, wow!

Of course, 'The Incredibles' is not without its flaws. The latter third of the film consists entirely of the family struggling and battling super-villain Syndrome. It's not that this section is poorly done; it just seems a bit incongruous with the rest of the film, as much of the satire is lost here. Syndrome himself is a problem, due to an overall lack of originality… he and his giant volcano hideout feel way too copped from about every James Bond film. While we're at it, the final battle of the Incredibles against Syndrome's giant evil robot seems to go on much longer than necessary, perhaps because we see Mr. Incredible battle the exact same robot an hour earlier.

Of course, these are nit-picks in what is overwhelmingly a very funny, exciting, and even poignant film. Score: 8/10