My favorites are probably Bottle Rocket and Rushmore, both of those movies (and most of his films) have a certain darkness to them. They all deal with very flawed and unique people (particularly his first 3 films, but all of them contain them). I can see why some people may think his films are too stylized or they don't enjoy the type of characters he creates. Personally, I love his films and find them very re-watchable.

I think it's because he is able to create new worlds in all of his movies, all of which are familiar but slightly removed from reality.
And needless to say, there's a certain whimsical tone.

I'd say class, is what you are missing.

Mind your own taste, pal!
"You cannot threaten the dead with death,5b4 my friend. Only with life, eternal life!"

He did not succeed, however, in growing old. Perhaps just one line (in Grand Budapest) that sums up why his movies are so enjoyed by me and many others

As Wes I believe has stated as much, I'll add that his films don't really have villains either. I think that's where some of the accessibility & comfo2000rt food if you will comes into play.
Sure there are some impeding ppl, like the sea pirates, yet they're more blips on the screen than story movers. Mr. Henry was a con artist, & yet that didn't play much into Bottle Rocket other than a unique payoff.
top 50 http://www.imdb.com/list/ls056413299/

Comfort food for me. They're safe without ever playing it safe. There's an infinite greatness to that.
top 50 http://www.imdb.com/list/ls056413299/

I feel that Wes's style of filming is very unique and this can add to the humour, I also find that his use of central shots is very quirky and gives him a very distinct, house style. The type of dry humour is also very distinct to Wes and his work.

not your cup of tea, that's all. it's called different tastes. no need to ask why.
i find it amusing whenever people talk about tarantino films, for example, & they are usually ordinary movies, nothing special, but many enjoy people enjoy them. i don't ask why. if they enjoy it, they enjoy it, nothing much to it.
Let's go get a drink & smoke a cigarette

I enjoyed your post.
The Grand Budapest Hotel
-This is BY FAR the best he uses the flat camera shot technique. He uses it so brilliantly here, BECAUSE HE DOESN'T ALWAYS USE IT!
Also, Grand Budapest was the first time that I know of that he messed with the aspect ratio of the movie itself (He shot the film in three aspect ratios, 1.37, 1.85, and 2.35:1, one for each timeline).
I've never seen that done before.
I remember thinking in the theater that there might be something wrong with the projector.

Exactly! Even better, when he reuses the same aesthetic he doesn't do it in a "Tim Burton manner" as I call it.
With Tim Burton, his movies stopped being good because he uses the same aesthetic in each film. As a director, you have to develop a unique aesthetic with each film, you can't just recycle the same one over and over. Hence, only his really early films from the 1990s are truly great as this was when he first used that aesthetic.
With Wes Anderson, it's different. He uses the same aesthetic, but he finds a new and completely original way to use it with each film he uses it in (and that's the thing, he doesn't use it with every film, just the ones it's best for!) Here's how!

1. The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou
   -He makes the flat shots resemble an aquarium miniature or model you would see at a museum
2. Fantastic Mr. Fox
   -He makes the whole thing look like sculptures
3. Moonrise Kingdom
   -He makes the whole thing look like the simple sets you'd see in a stageplay, which is ultimately how small the scale for this story is! He even goes as far as to have two sets on at once in most shots, something I haven't seen in most films PERIOD.
4. The Grand Budapest Hotel
   -This is BY FAR the best he uses the flat camera shot technique. He uses it so brilliantly here, BECAUSE HE DOESN'T ALWAYS USE IT!
   -This one works in conjunction with the narrative structure! You'll notice the scenes in the film set in 1968, 1986, and 2014 are surprisingly more logically written (minus the joke with the kid and the joke with the choking dude) but then it doesn't get into the weird looking flat camera shots that look fake until Zero starts telling the story that's set in 1932! It makes it feel more like a delightful story being told than actual transpiring events, which is a really cool way to do it! Then, when the story is over, it goes back to a more logical, realistic narrative because it's no longer a story being told by a storyteller but the actual events!
   -If you're just going to talk about the flat shots themselves, however, they are designed in this film so that each shot looks like a postcard, like you'd find in fancy hotels!
   As you can see, unlike a "Tim Burton manner" of re-using the same aesthetic in exactly the same manner, he uses his aesthetic in such a different manner specific to serve each film individually rather than each film serving the aesthetic; hence, it still feels as if he's creating a completely different aesthetic for each of his films!
   ~NW~

Me too.
I like the detail and the way he frames his shots so they're almost always 2D like a painting.
Dry humor in absurd situations Silly good times.

. I thought the humour was pretty wacky he filmed them in a really unnatural way.
I'd say those are two reasons why I like his films so much.
Can't stop the signal.

This message has been deleted.