View Full Version : The Royal Tenenbaums
Tom Whitaker
25-02-2002, 15:36
Well, I wasn't a fan of Rushmore, but on this evidence I'll be going back to give it a second shot. Achingly funny, beautifully acted, sufficiently twisted and occasionally surreal, not to mention exquisitely designed and visually magnificent. Go see!
I saw this last night and Wes Anderson was there and did a talk afterwards. He even signed my Rushmore Criterion!!
I thought the film was very good, but not as good as Rushmore.
Originally posted by Raphph
I saw this last night and Wes Anderson was there and did a talk afterwards. He even signed my Rushmore Criterion!!
Where was this?! You don't fancy seeling yours do you?! :D
It was at the Screen On The Green in Islington
Ive now reviewed the film for DVD Times, check out the review link in my signature!
Just saw this tonight at a StellaScreen preview and thought it was very good. I knew very little about it beforehand and I haven't (yet) seen Rushmore, so I had no real expectations of the film. I loved the often surreal, visual humour (one of my favourite scenes was the conversation between two of the characters, each with a different and startlingly tacky paintings behind them as the camera cuts back and forth). Don't expect laugh-a-minute gagfest though - it's not that kind of comedy. I'm not sure everyone in the cinema appreciated the humour, as the room was a little quiet, but my friend and I certainly did. The acting was of uniformly high standard - Gene Hackman was very good and even Gwyneth Paltrow, of whom I'm not really a fan, manages to portray a sympathetic and convincing character.
Loved it, loved it, loved it, loved it.
Visually dazzling, gleefully eccentric (often I laughed at the plain absurdity of the situations), achingly poignant, brilliantly acted, incredibly written, delirious and delicious.
I absolutely loved this film. I'm going to see it again next week!
SO beautifully done by all concerned. As well as being poignantly humourous I found it really moving too.
I'm also going in the next week to see it again.
"I had a really rough year, Dad..." - this has got to be one of the most moving, heart-wrenching lines in cinema for many years.
The more I think about it, the more the smile grows on my face.
Let's hope Criterion really get their act together on this title ASAP - if Traffic, George Washington and In The Mood For Love belong in the collection, so does this (and that's not belittling any of those three).
Cap'n Al
17-03-2002, 16:22
Best film of the year so far, methinks, along with <i>Mulholland Drive</i>, <i>The Son's Room</i> and <i>From Hell</i>.
Originally posted by Cap'n Al
Best film of the year so far, methinks, along with <i>Mulholland Drive</i>, <i>The Son's Room</i> and <i>From Hell</i>.
...So which is it? :D
Morpheus2000
17-03-2002, 17:23
The Royal Tenenbaums is a comedy about Mr. Royal Tenenbaum (Gene Hackman) who has 3 children that have succeeded early in their lives. Thanks mainly to their mother Etheline (Anjelica Huston) making sure they got the right education. This occurred due to being separated from Royal and his infidelities.
Chas (Ben Stiller) became a real-estate agent, Richie (Luke Wilson) became a champion tennis player and their adopted sister Margot (Gwyneth Paltrow) was a playwright. 22 years later Royal Tenenbaum is dying from cancer and wants to reunite with his estranged family.
From the cinematography and production set designs the film looks excellent as if it was set in the 1970s. This along with the quirky subtle humour gives the film life from the almost deadpan but interesting characters. Director Wes Anderson (Rushmore) does an excellent job on obtaining great performances from all the cast. Overall the film is very good even if it's a bit slow, but this is made up from the strange humour and a great story that we don't see too often.
I agree with all the great reviews: I've seen this one three times so far, and I can't wait to see it again. From the moment in the intro where Hackman critiques his daughter's show, I was just thrilled with, and grateful for, its sheer class. Simply wonderful in every way, Wes Anderson's masterpiece. Every performance, line and piece of music is absolutely spot-on. Truly a life-affirming movie - it's surprising that Hackman wasn't given the Oscar nod for this film.
Disappearer
19-03-2002, 20:10
Good, but Rushmore was better.
Saw it last night and thought is was great. Not a huge fan of Rushmore, enjoyed this a lot more. But think I may give Ruchmore another try now.
Michael Brooke
20-03-2002, 11:22
My fiancee (who hadn’t seen <I>Rushmore</I>) liked it a lot more than I (who had) did, so you can draw your own conclusions from that!
I certainly enjoyed <I>The Royal Tenenbaums</I> up to a point, but it felt strangely bitty for a film with such evident ambition – I know it was an original screenplay, but it felt like a failed attempt at tackling a sprawling and unfilmable novel!
GrossePointeJack
21-03-2002, 16:31
I feel so sad for Gene Hackman though - no nominations for one of his best performances (second to 'The Conversation' IMO).
"Oh i can talk Jive!"
Class.
He didn't get a nomination for "The Conversation" either - there is no justice.
I thought it was an extraordinary film, but I found it a lot more sad than funny; it touched on parts of my own life which I'd rather forget. Great soundtrack too - particularly the use of Dylan's music from "Pat Garratt And Billy The Kid" and the two Nico songs.
GrossePointeJack
21-03-2002, 19:18
Not to forget 'Me and Juilo Down By The SchoolYard' By Paul Simon and the great 'Judy Is A Punk' by the Ramones.
I did know that Hackman didnt get a nod for The Conversation but i just believe it's his best performance along with this one, and it's good to see Alec Baldwin and Danny Glover get some work.
wong fei hong
22-03-2002, 08:18
I dote on Bottle Rocket and Rushmore as if they were my own beautiful yet impressively eccentric children, and sitting down to watch The Royal Tenebaums last night I experienced what can only be described as a moment of parental anxiety. What if this one doesn't succeed? If it's not as perfect as the others? Of course... it does succeed - and how. It just edges out Mulholland Drive as the best film of the year so far, and if anything else comes close, I'll be surprised. It was funny, heartfelt, silly; intricate and yet loose; it was even shocking in parts.
I know that the attention, performance wise, has been directed toward Hackman - let me just say that he's superb, he holds the film together, he deserves every plaudit - but the rest of the cast is incredible too. They all, Hackman included, underplay their offbeat roles, infusing them with a sense of reality that is occasionally heartbreaking. It is such a great pleasure to see Ben Stiller channel all the sardonic, frustrated rage which fuel his performances into a believable, troubled character. He's a superb actor when given the chance, and as much as I love the goofy excesses of Zoolander, Mystery Men and Meet the Parents, it's the likes of this that let him really shine. The same goes for Owen Wilson, giving in Tenenbaums the same charisma-bomb performance as Bottle Rocket and Shanghai Noon... I love the guy, and knowing he co-wrote this masterpiece just makes me want to knock off his cowboy hat and just wrassle him onto the ground, man. (see what I did there?). Respect too to Danny Glover and Gwyneth Paltrow, turning in career bests where one might have expected them to be out of place.
Despite those, and the sterling work done by Bill Murray and Angelica Huston, the real star performance here was from Luke Wilson. Under the Bjorn Borg beard, sweatband and shades combo, his sad eyes communicate a lifetime of confusion and heartache compressed into a few short years. Compare his work in Bottle Rocket to The Royal Tenenbaums and it's clear how far he's come, using the same brooding uncertainty to far greater effect.
Wes Andersons direction is inspired - subtle tracking shots, letting the actors move in and out of frame with distinct naturalism, and yet imposing a definite and distinct world view. Check how he uses the same text font for titles, in-frame captions, credits and on signs and notices throughout the film; the way that he presents some of the characters: at one point we see Huston, an archaeologist, dusting an uncovered skeleton at her dig and telling a colleague to "notice the level of decomposition." It's an almost silly scene, a Max Fischer-esque piece of writing, betraying a romanticised standpoint which is all too lacking in most movies.
The Royal Tenenbaums isn't completely flawless - Huston is underused... but that's probably about it. Stylistically, it could be argued that Anderson hasn't really evolved as a director since Rushmore, using similar narrative chaptering and a similarly whimsical seventies soundtrack, but these were so perfectly judged in each instance that it seems churlish to criticise. In fact, the music is so good that I'm embarrassed to even bring it up. The biggest problem with the film is how Anderson and Wilson can hope to match it - but then, I thought exactly the same about their last film...
I disagree with most of that wong. Hackman looked great for two reasons. Firstly, he doesn't play a great variety of parts and this was something different from him. And secondly, it wasn't hard to shine against the rest of the cast.
Luke Wilson adopts a frown and holds it for 2 hours. Ditto with Paltrow. Huston and Glover turn up and deliver their lines. Has Bill Murray ever had less to do in a movie? My god, compare it to his turn in Rushmore and weep. Stiller and Owen Wilson are hardly breaking from type either. The former never manages to outperform his track suit. And the latter could still be in Shanghai Noon.
High on quirks and low on laughs or real feeling, I found it a huge disappointment after Rushmore. It seemed to be quirkiness for the sake of it at times. Some nice moments, sure, but it doesn't make my Top 15 of the year. It easily beats From Hell however!
Michael Brooke
22-03-2002, 16:36
Are you my ex-girlfriend posting under a pseudonym? That was pretty much word for word the verdict she gave me earlier today!
(She hadn’t seen <I>Rushmore</I>, though, so I’ll let you off)
wong fei hong
22-03-2002, 16:37
Originally posted by McD
Stiller... never manages to outperform his track suit.
You're wrong... but that really made me laugh. :D
Ol' Blue Eyes
22-03-2002, 17:12
Great film! I enjoyed Rushmore but found it a bit TOO self-consciously quirky - this is a much more satisfying movie, still offbeat but with more going on underneath.
PS - Has Bottle Rocket ever been released here? It's been classified for video but not for cinema and it's definitely not on DVD. Maybe they'll release it now.
Just back from seeing this and I loved it. I know it's not a film that will be appreciated by 'all'; one couple walked out not-even-mid-way through.... obviously Ali G in da House is more suited to their tastes.
The near-end-scene when Gene presents Ben with 'Sparkplug' and he says 'I've had a rough year, dad' was very touching.
Oh and I love the black tracksuit for the funeral!:)
theblairwitch
23-03-2002, 22:45
Watched it this afternoon and enjoyed it.
But...
Something was missing, can't put my finger on it yet, but I found it curiously heart-less, and didn't really find myself caring for the characters at all really !
Owen Wilson's character seemed bizarrely contrived and the wedding scene seemed a bit of a mess truth be told (and not intentionally so).
However it certainly can't be faulted for its originality and craftmanship.
Big Rushmore fan but thought Bottle Rocket was the Emperor's New Clothes for what its worth.
Saw it last night and thought it was excellent, the moment where the two Wilson brothers are talking and it keeps cutting between those two paintings was funny for no apparant reason
Caught this on the plane, and was a little underwhelmed by it. Not a bad film by any means, I think I had just built it up too much beforehand. As a previous poster said, it was just a little soul-less.
Michael Brooke
25-03-2002, 11:33
Just out of interest, did they respect the correct 2.35:1 aspect ratio on the plane? I'd have thought this was well-nigh essential with this film: the quirky visual compositions provide many of the greatest pleasures!
I know next to nothing about film ratio's (oh, the bliss of ignorance). However, before the film started, it did say that it had been resized for the plane - so I assume it was not in its original ratio. It certainly filled the entirity of the little screen on the back of the seat in front of me (does that make sense).
Don't get me wrong, the look of the film was great, and the visual stylings still come across on a *******ised ratio. However, it was the actual narrative (or lack thereof) that left me a little wanting. As I said, it's not a bad film as I did enjoy it a great deal. Certainly it was the best of the films I watched on my outward and return journeys - Royal Tenenbaums, K-Pax, The Heist (surprisingly good, if a little too Mamet and very twisty-turny at the end) and In The Bedroom (dull as dishwater - good performance from Wilkinson, but Spacek isn't THAT good in it). The Royal Tenebaums is the only film I wished that I had seen in a cinema after watching them. However, a 10 hour plane flight makes you want to watch anything.
Barney_Tabasco
25-03-2002, 14:33
I would be gutted if i thought that my first viewing of The Royal Tenenbaums was to be on a flight! I despise watching movies on planes at the best of times and hate it when all the films shown are decent - i look forward to catching up on my crap movie quota when flying.
It does indeed lack soul to a certain degree, much in the same way that Ali did (as does the majority of 'art'), but i don't necessarily think it damages the film in any way (and in fact, i did find it slightly moving in parts). It is clever, original, funny, quirky and marvellous to look at and the big screen certainly adds to this.
Similarly, In the Bedroom is the kind of film that, despite it's lack of special effects and action, will lose much when shown on the small screen. Yes, it is a very slow film, but this is the exact reason why it is so powerful and moving. To fully appreciate the power of the film, you need to be in a darkened auditorium with no other distractions whether it be the telephone ringing, the dinner to make or an air hostess offering you yet another weak tea.
K-Pax on the other hand i have not yet seen, but it certainly seems to be one for the flight to LA :)
Originally posted by Barney_Tabasco
Similarly, In the Bedroom is the kind of film that, despite it's lack of special effects and action, will lose much when shown on the small screen. To fully appreciate the power of the film, you need to be in a darkened room with no other distractions whether it be the telephone ringing, the dinner to make or an air hostess offering you yet another weak tea.
I would rather sit in a darkened room that is so dark because In the Bedroom wasn't showing. It was totally devoid of any sense of passion. It was a fairly straightforward tale that doesn't deserve the massive amounts of praise that it has been given.
I think the only problem with watching In the Bedroom on a plane was that I couldn't get up and leave, although I did seriously consider it at one point:D
I suppose that with each flight I take I must watch at least one banal film - previous efforts have been the lamentable "Enemy at the Gates" and Demi Moore's godawful "Passion of Mind" - that film actually had people fighting with the Stewardesses to open the doors.
Michael Brooke
25-03-2002, 15:58
<B>I know next to nothing about film ratio's (oh, the bliss of ignorance). However, before the film started, it did say that it had been resized for the plane - so I assume it was not in its original ratio. It certainly filled the entirity of the little screen on the back of the seat in front of me (does that make sense). </B>
Perfect sense – this sounds like 4:3 to me!
<B>Don't get me wrong, the look of the film was great, and the visual stylings still come across on a *******ised ratio.</B>
With the greatest respect, how can you possibly be certain of this unless you’ve actually seen the 2.35:1 original?
The problem with Wes Anderson’s visual style (at least as displayed in <I>Rushmore</I> and <I>The Royal Tenenbaums</I>) is that it looks deceptively easy to crop to 4:3 – he tends to bunch the action together while leaving the rest of the frame apparently “empty” – but this cropping eliminates most of the visual quirkiness, the unexpected symmetries and so on. His films have some of the most pedantically precise compositions outside Peter Greenaway’s work – and I suspect much of this evaporates when nearly half the picture is cropped off.
Arch Stanton
25-03-2002, 16:13
Going off on a tangent a bit...I first saw Rushmore on a plane. 4:3 crappy sound through those awful airline headphones and all the swear words dubbed out very badly.
needless to say i wasn't over impressed.
Infact it wasn't till about 18 months later that i could be botherd to watch it again. Now i love the film.
You should never ever watch a film on a plane that you haven't already seen. Ever.
Originally posted by MARKMAN
I know next to nothing about film ratio's (oh, the bliss of ignorance). However, before the film started, it did say that it had been resized for the plane - so I assume it was not in its original ratio. It certainly filled the entirity of the little screen on the back of the seat in front of me (does that make sense).
Don't get me wrong, the look of the film was great, and the visual stylings still come across on a *******ised ratio. However, it was the actual narrative (or lack thereof) that left me a little wanting. As I said, it's not a bad film as I did enjoy it a great deal. Certainly it was the best of the films I watched on my outward and return journeys - Royal Tenenbaums, K-Pax, The Heist (surprisingly good, if a little too Mamet and very twisty-turny at the end) and In The Bedroom (dull as dishwater - good performance from Wilkinson, but Spacek isn't THAT good in it). The Royal Tenebaums is the only film I wished that I had seen in a cinema after watching them. However, a 10 hour plane flight makes you want to watch anything.
I guess you were on a BA flight to LA. I enjoyed it more than Rushmore, and considering I watched this on a plane is very high praise indeed! But do not expect a comedy. It iis basically a drama with occasional black humour. I cannot wait for the DVD, so I can give it a proper viewing.
richie99
25-03-2002, 18:46
Finally got round to seeing this yesterday, and my initial impression was one of enjoyment.
I'll be honest and say I enjoyed Rushmore much more, but then that's just my opinion. I felt Hackman's performance was the best, Paltrow just annoyed me, with everyone else doing well.
Just the sheer quirkyness and un-hollywood style of filmmaking was a joy to watch, but at the end, I was left unfulfilled.
I also thought Bill Murray's was under-used and was maybe in it because of his previous work with Wes Anderson.
Still, saying all that, give me 10 films like this every year, than 10 Pearl Harbors....
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
With the greatest respect, how can you possibly be certain of this unless you’ve actually seen the 2.35:1 original?
Of course I can't be certain, however, the film still looked good cropped to 4:3 on a 6" x 4" screen. The look of a film does have an affect on the overall enjoyment, and even in such a ratio on such a screen I could appreciate enough the visual stylings - but still the narrative has to drive the picture. It is a damn good looking film - no matter what the format.
I still say, as I have previously, that I enjoyed the film, I enjoyed it a great deal - I just don't think that it will make it into my top 10 for the year. I found it just a little "cold" - a flaw rather than a bad movie.
Originally posted by McD
You should never ever watch a film on a plane that you haven't already seen. Ever.
Generally agreed - but the prospect of a 10 hour flight in economy on British Airways makes you do strange things.
Originally posted by nc
I guess you were on a BA flight to LA.
Not quite - a BA flight to Havana
Originally posted by richie99
Still, saying all that, give me 10 films like this every year, than 10 Pearl Harbors....
Amen to that!
I suppose that (ratio and screen size apart) my problem was building this film up too much. Having never seen Rushmore (I know, I know - the shame:() I expected GREAT things from this film and only got VERY GOOD. I will re-visit it at a later date, just not right now.
Cirrus888
26-03-2002, 11:18
Originally posted by McD
You should never ever watch a film on a plane that you haven't already seen. Ever.
I watched Amelie and full time killer on the plane for the first time ... both were *****
I will never do it again.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.