What's so special about Wes Anderson movies?
-
Etxpeme — 9 years ago(June 15, 2016 11:16 AM)
To me the characters and dialogue have no depth, no relatability, and no resonance. His characters are quirky but never seem to develop. They're very one dimensional.
You might be right and you might be wrong. I believe the thing with Anderson's characters is that the viewer has to put the depth to them. They don't give you much information really, so you have to invent your own explanations, you have to analyse them and ask yourself: Why are they behaving like that? What do they mean? How do they feel?, etc. At least, that's what I personally do, but of course, you could be right and the characters could actually be intended to be one dimensional and I'd be the fool reading too much into things. But that's the beauty of cinema, isn't it?
Normally, I detest these kinds of films (the ones where the viewer has to take an active role of constantly analysing the characters without getting any help from the director) and that's why I despise David Lynch's and Terrence Malick's filmographies, not that I think they're bad directors, they're just not my cup of tea. But Anderson's much to my own surprise makes it work for me. -
Apophos — 11 years ago(September 16, 2014 03:35 PM)
I didn't realise it but I have nearly all of Wes Anderson's movies on DVD/Blu-Ray (except the shorts and Bottle Rocket). I bought them all as they were released and never clicked they were by the same guy.
-
alejandrodeleon559 — 11 years ago(January 31, 2015 07:50 AM)
Yes you are the only one. You don't have to be a hipster, you can be normal guy like me and love Wes Anderson because his films are beautiful and carry a lot of meaning. Often times he'll show you the truth of things in ways you never expected it to still remain truthful.
-
beresfordjd — 10 years ago(June 04, 2015 05:53 AM)
Have to agree, rather pretentious and the sort of film that actors love to be in. Hence the number of cameos in stuff like The Grand Budapest hotel. I loathed The Fantastic Mr Fox and have yet to see anything directed by WA that can be enjoyed. The films always look great but that is as far as it goes for me.
-
nep198567 — 11 years ago(October 28, 2014 11:35 PM)
One of the biggest aspects of WA films I appreciate is the writing. For me that why I try to see every one of his films in the theater. Its all subjective anyways. WA takes a lot of flack on here but there's a productive convo to be had. There's nothing to "get" in a WA film. Its not about being a snobby hipster. Its moments where Ned Plimpton asks Steve Zissou how come Zissou never contacted him as a child and Zissou says, "Because I hate fathers and I never wanted to be one."
-
ItsanAckbar — 11 years ago(November 02, 2014 10:35 AM)
They insist upon themselves and are therefore bad movies. They are not good movies at all.
http://bit.ly/126aKlX -
heyanerd — 11 years ago(November 22, 2014 06:15 AM)
It's a feeling.
Take the incredibly tight framing and mix it with rock music and ridiculously confident characters (despite their chaotic interiors), and there's a certain chemistry about it. It doesn't work EVERY time, that is, it doesn't work every DAY, meaning I can watch the movie and love it and then not want to see it for another few months, or a year. I'm not bulletproof in my love of what Wes brings to the table, but I didn't get what was great about Rushmore the first time I saw it, and then loved it watching it with friends a year later. Bottle Rocket is the most naturally enjoyable one without an intro to Wes' style.
Anyways. Like I said. It's a feeling.