The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004) User Reviews

A Strange Film Hard To Rate On One Viewng

[ccthemovieman-1 · 6/10 · 16 December 2006]

I find this a hard movie to rate. Maybe a second viewing would make it easier. It's a odd film: one of these low-key black humor films which is a mixture of drama and comedy. What set this apart were a few other shocking scenes of violence, something not normally in this type of movie. For a comedy, albeit a tongue-in-cheek one, that violence doesn't seem to fit, but it makes the film all the more intriguing.

At times I was totally bored with this movie and at other times fascinated. I know one thing: this is a bizarre story! That automatically means it's a good vehicle for Bill Murray, who excels at wacky characters, event he low-key ones as he sometimes plays (i.e. Lost In Translation, The Royal Tenebaums, etc.). Speaker of the latter, this movie was written and directed by Wes Anderson, the same man who did "Tenenbaums." If you saw that, you have an idea of what you might get here, although I thought Royal Tenenbaums was far funnier.

At 118 minutes, this a bit long for what it offers. I'd like to have seen it 15 minutes shorter with a tighter script. But it does offer some good photography in addition to the strange story. This movie, as they say, is not for all tastes.

Quirky but fun

[perica-43151 · 8/10 · 23 July 2018]

This Wes Anderson movie is very quirky but fans of Wes Anderson will not be disappointed. The movie is part a loving parody of Jacques Cousteau, part character study, with a lot of wit and understated acting. Beautifully shot, it is more complex and straightforward than some other Anderson movies, but still has a mesmerizing effect and grows on you upon repeated viewings. Justifiably a cult classic, it is perhaps not the best of Wes Anderson movies, but it is not the worst either, despite unjustly being panned by critics. If you have a functioning brain, give it a try.

I hope Wes Anderson returns to this style of filmmaking one day

[Jeremy_Urquhart · 8/10 · 30 May 2023]

I revisited this about a decade on from when I first watched it. Wes Anderson movies typically feel a little less interesting to me when I revisit them (so he's like the opposite of David Lynch or the Coen Brothers in that regard), so maybe that's why I had reservations about going back to this. But I'm happy to say that The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou worked even more for me a second time, and I think it's right up there as one of Anderson's best.

This might not be a popular opinion, but I feel like he's been pushing it with the artificiality too much in his recent films, to the point where I can't really engage with them emotionally. From a technical perspective, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Isle of Dogs, and The French Dispatch are all phenomenally well put together, meticulously crafted, and easy to appreciate when it comes to style/visuals. However, they just don't do it for me when it comes to feeling the film, or engaging with the characters. There's just a little too much detachment and/or too many characters. Maybe the films are too well put together. The human element that's apparent in his older films often feels missing.

With most of his stuff made before 2014, there's obviously that Wes Anderson style, but there's just a little more warmth and humanity. They're the right level of detached, to the point where they're not even really emotionally detached at the end of the day. His earlier films can be tremendously moving, and I think The Life Aquatic is a good example of that; the reality is heightened and the characters a little extreme, but not to the point where you detach emotionally. There's plenty of zaniness and quirky humour (not all of it perfect, but most of it works), but there's a heart to the whole thing, and I feel a similar way about The Royal Tenenbaums and maybe even Rushmore.

Maybe I miss the old Wes - I kind of love the old Wes, and I still appreciate the hell out of the new one, but something's missing. I fear the upcoming Asteroid City will be more new Wes than old Wes; it's like he keeps doubling down on it after it worked admittedly well in Grand Budapest Hotel.

Oh well. At least we'll always have Steve Zissou (the last 10-15 minutes of this also stands as the best sequence in Anderson's career so far, especially due to the perfect use of Sigur Ros).

Absolutely brilliant movie cleverly disguised as a mediocre movie

[rzajac · 20 December 2005]

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou is a work of genius, though you wouldn't know by the way it rambles. It took me to get to the end of the movie to realize it.

This is essentially a remake of Fellini's 8 1/2, perhaps done as outright farce, and with a touch of farcical brutality. 8 1/2's Guido has (and resolves) his crisis in the process of making a single movie, but we meet Zissou in the midst of a slow-motion train wreck crisis spanning the prior 10-to-15 years of his career; really, a life in the midst of being completely botched. Ouch. And there are other bumps and bruises along the way, such as the bit of seemingly opportunistic shadow sparing with Ned's life and character.

It's cool: You are borne along by the barrage of postmodern yucks, and rewarded at the end by a wonderful--and wonderfully challenging--mythic payload: Are *you* ready to face your mortality, as did Zissou? Will you succeed? I think the film tries to offer a hope to those of us who may sometimes feel as lost as Zissou; he made it, and so can we. We're not hallucinating, and the Leopard Shark awaits us. Sure, it's deadly and dangerous, but it's also beautiful, and we just have to buck up and look into its maw. And the rewards of doing so are very, very real.

By the way, a clue that the filmmakers had Fellini in mind is the staircase scene at the end. I mean, it could just be a case of both films tapping the same archetype, but somehow I doubt it.

Enjoy! Your life, that is!

An enjoyable disaster of a film

[madpenguin41 · 6/10 · 29 December 2004]

"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

A real treat!

[syfer · 10/10 · 13 December 2004]

Although one person I was with at the pre-screen hated it, I absolutely loved it. I think it will just be one of those kinds of films (but hey, I also loved "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" which this reminded me of). Pure crazy fantastical stuff and I was completely taken with it.

It's a visually beautiful film with loads of odd little CG touches and subtle visual gags. The cutaway tour of the ship was a classic. Murray gives an amazing, energetic, yet deadpan performance and I also liked the richness of the smaller roles like "Klaus." The soundtrack was quirky and wonderful with unexpectedly hilarious Bowie covers and pounding, rocking tracks in the action scenes.

I think the gorgeous locations, sets and props nearly steal the show--kind of reminded me of "Brazil" in that way and I think it is destined to become a cult film in the same way "Brazil" has.

I can't wait to take some friends of mine and see what they think once it opens--this is one of those movies that's so different and off the wall that it will be interesting to see how it plays out. Although I realize it's getting mixed reviews, I'll stick my neck out and call it a masterpiece.

Being old enough to have grown up with Jacques Cousteau, I felt Anderson really captured the look and feel he was after with the the "movie within the movie" sequences and the yellow typographical stuff was spot-on.

If, like me, you're bored with the usual metroplex fare, this odd, unexpected movie is for you. What a blast! Wheeeeee!

Not Wes Anderson's Best

[mlg-2 · 6/10 · 30 December 2004]

First, as you can tell from the other comments, if you aren't a committed Wes Anderson fan, you should give this film a pass. I heard several "worst film ever" comments from my other movie goers, and I could I understand where they were coming from. I didn't agree (by a long shot), but the film lacks some key ingredients that his other films had. First, there wasn't a single character I cared anything about. Even Gene Hackman's twisted Royal managed to elicit at least a grudging fascination from me, whereas this collection of deadpanning oddballs did nothing. Also, where a number of reviewers mentioned "lots of plot," it wasn't in any kind of coherent narrative structure. Now, these things wouldn't matter so much (at least for me) if the film had been consistently clever, imaginative, funny, etc.--but I didn't find that it was. There was way too much capital Q Quirkiness (or quirkiness for its own sake) as well as too many flat sequences. In the past, Bill Murray has been the foil for the intense characters--here, he's not only the focus, but he's surrounded by others—Owen Wilson, Jeff Greenbaum and Anjelica Huston—who are all taking the same ironic, deadpan approach. That's why Willem Dafoe's wackily (and intensely) homoerotically- charged Klaus is so much fun. And for those who appreciate the concept of an apparently never-ending supply of David Bowie songs sung in Portuguese to a softly strummed classical guitar, there are plenty of very smart and inventive moments. They just don't add up to a satisfying whole. And if you aren't the kind to get off on the above-described Bowie tunes, stay far far away from this film.

My favorite small bit—a quick roller-coaster of a tracking shot as our heroes make their way up a beach in an action sequence reminiscent of the Beatles' Help.

A Beautiful Modern Fantasy

[brainofj72 · 10/10 · 27 August 2005]

"The Life Aquatic" is most certainly an unusual film. It's something of a collage of colorful imagery, fragmented shots, quirky music, strange characters, bizarre situations, and amusing montages. But if one had seen Wes Anderson's previous films, one would expect nothing less.

It can't really be helped that there be a certain amount of hype around Anderson's name, after all, his films "Rushmore" and "The Royal Tenenbaums" both generated vast critical acclaim and three of this young director's four films have already received the Criterion DVD treatment. Is the buzz warranted? I say, absolutely. Anderson has created some of the most vibrant, vivid, unique, and off-beat films of the last decade, and "The Life Aquatic" is no exception.

The film follows Steve Zissou (Murray), a formerly glorious oceanographer whose latest documentary, which is about his closest friend and colleague, Esteban, being eaten by a "Jaguar Shark", receives a less-than-glorious reception. Steve then announces he plans to set out on a voyage to film part two of his documentary, which will follow him and his crew as they attempt to track down the alleged "Jaguar Shark". Along for the ride is Ned (Wilson), someone who may or may not be Steve's son; Jane (Blanchett), an up-and-coming journalist doing a story on Zissou; Klaus (Dafoe), the eccentric German first mate; a Portugese, David Bowie-covering weapons expert; a no-nonsense tech expert; a usually semi-nude female crew-member; a band of unpaid interns; and several other quirky personalities. Other characters include Zissou's estranged wife, Eleanor (Huston), and her former husband, Alistair Hennessey (Goldblum). On the journey, the crew encounters money problems, relationship issues, and...pirates.

The film takes place in a vivid world that is somewhat inside Steve's head. A colorful world where the creatures are claymation and where Steve can single-handedly ward off kidnapping, gun-wielding pirates to beat of The Stooges' "Search and Destroy".

I do warn you though, if you are not a fan of dry humor, this one's most likely not for you. The movie's loaded with it, in all of its off-beat, tongue-in-cheek anti-glory.

There are some wonderful acting performances throughout, including an exuberant Bill Murray, who just loses himself in the character of Zissou, a subdued Anjelica Huston, whose subtle sly grins and deadpan delivery develop her character far more than anything else, and a spirited Willem Dafoe, who manages to make a German accent sound funnier than I ever imagined it could.

If you enjoyed "Rushmore", "The Royal Tenenbaums", "Punch-Drunk Love", or "I Heart Huckabees", then you most certainly should not let this charming, oddly beautiful little film pass beneath your radar.

9.5/10

Just ok movie not good.

[krmanirethnam · 6/10 · 29 November 2019]

"Only Wes Anderson movie fans like this and others may be don't like this. My point of view I'm a fan of Wes Anderson but this movie not good just ok movie.

In twelve years, the baby will be eleven and a half.

[film-critic · 9/10 · 12 January 2005]

What a stunning body of work Wes Anderson has created. I will be honest, when I first saw the previews to this film I was worried that Anderson may have gone the way of so many other directors who have developed their name in Hollywood. Art is replaced by money, which is replaced by angry fans. I saw the CGI fish and began to feel a sweat break with nervousness. Will he be able to continue the humor from Bottle Rocket, the darkness of Rushmore, as well as the ensemble connectedness from The Royal Tennanbaums? Well, folks, I am here to announce that he has taken the Hollywood money and has not veered too far off his signature course. I always imagine Anderson's work as a very dry martini. His humor, the most intelligent work I have seen in a long time, is like the liquid itself, creating this bold texture while packing a powerful emotional punch. The olives are the cast, giving just some extra to nibble on while you enjoy the entire drink. Place these elements together, the drink and olives, and you have The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou.

To begin with, this film would not have worked without anyone else in the lead than Bill Murray. His ability to contain himself while also giving us the emotional stress of being a first-time dad as well as loosing his best friend is Oscar worthy. He is the perfect guide for our trip, giving us that knowledgeable laugh as well as those sympathetic eyes that seem to shout, "Everything will work out". He is bold and smooth as both the Captain of the vessel as well as learning the tricks of being a father. His ability to deliver his lines was both crucial and beautifully timed giving us just enough to make us fall in love with him by the end of the film. Coupled with his amazing performances is the work of everyone else involved. Willem Dafoe proves that he can handle any role, big or small, and make it very memorable. My favorite character during this voyage was Cate Blanchett's role that nearly stole the show from Murray. Her multi-depth character gave us just the distraction that we needed to see the power of the father/son relationship. Her quirks take us deep into the human soul and give us a mother's perspective to this mission. It is a beautiful counter to Murray's passive/aggressive father figure. Goldblum is quickly becoming a favorite actor of mine, while Huston proves that she still has the ability inside of her. Both of these guys need to see more work. The rest of the eclectic cast ranges from the hilarious "interns" to the melancholy songs of David Bowie (see if you can spot them!). Even Noah Taylor (of Vanilla Sky fame) turned out a stunning performance. The cast shines through beautifully, playing off each other, giving us some of the best performances of the year.

I will admit, Anderson's comic narrative will leave this dry taste in your mouth, but for me it was a great experience. His humor is dry, his films are dry, but that is what makes him different than others in his field. He gives us those long pauses and obscure references that will either force you to think or create frustration because you do not understand his meaning. I have grown up on his films since seeing Bottle Rocket, and I love the way this man creates. One of my favorite lines and scenes in this film that I have raved to everyone as the epitome of an Anderson film was when Zissou first takes Ned to the island and Eleanor tells Steve that one of his cats died. After some banter, Ned asks what type of cat it was. Zissou replies "Who cares. A tabby I think…" which isn't funny at first, but then you realize that all he has on the island are Siamese cats, which only make me laugh harder in my seat. That is Wes Anderson humor, and it works perfectly for me. His ability to create these challenging characters and put them in situations that I never saw coming (the "pirates" scene being one of them) was outstanding. It felt as if he was throwing his crew into different troubles daily who in turn produced some of the best work ever. Only Wes Anderson could create beauty out of chaos.

My fear of the CGI was muted immediately when I saw that Anderson used the technique to create some of the most imaginative creatures ever to lurk in the sea impressed me. He didn't use it as a central focus of the film (until the end), and used it sporadically so that it really didn't feel as if it was being used. The creatures that he created are so bold and colorful that skillfully he uses them to counter the life of Zissou, which seems be getting darker by the day. This contrast allowed me to see deeper into Murray's character and root for his misadventures throughout the entire film.

Overall, I was very impressed. I know that not many enjoyed this picture as much as his previous works, but for me it was a fresh chapter with a stellar cast. Anderson is slowly changing the face of cinema, and soon others will follow trying to recreate his award winning voice, but will not succeed. This man is in the same boat as Gondry, Coppola, Jonez, and Kaufman. These are the imaginative thinkers of Hollywood that continually break the mold and open the doors to new possibilities.

Grade: ***** out of *****

Red caps, speedos & a 3 legged dog

[terryconway-69704 · 7/10 · 20 February 2022]

I watched this in the aftermath of storm Eunice on a wet and windy Sunday afternoon after lunch down the pub. (No I didn't imbibe). It has an amazing cast and I loved it's deadpan humour and chemistry. If you're into slapstick forget it move on nothing to see here but I found it strangely hypnotic and entertaining and kept awake which I don't always do. Bill Murray, Jeff Goldblum, Own Wilson. Cate Blanchett, Anjelica Huston, Willem Dafoe & Michael Gambon - Come on people enjoy the fantasy. The alternative Bowie soundtrack was good too.

Fun, Imaginative, Tragic, and Bowie...

[Oneohtrixxx · 10/10 · 15 December 2004]

I cannot express in words how many different styles of film making Wes Anderson combined into this masterpiece. At one point hilarious, sometimes even action-packed, while other times, you may feel a tear forming. Wes Anderson deserves major credit for this new addition to his excellent films.

The stop-motion animation, although underused, was extremely imaginative and is a lost art nowadays in movies that should be taken into consideration. The premise itself was great, but when you watch the film, you almost forget that the sole purpose of the film is to confront the jaguar shark, as you become connected with the characters emotionally.

Overall, Bill Murray, Willem Dafoe, Jeff Goldblum, Seu Jorge (whose Portuguese interpretation of "Space Oddity" nearly drew me to tears with laughter) Cate Blanchett, and Owen Wilson, I applaud them for making such a great film better, Wes Anderson as well.

Excellent music, great acting, teary moments, and action-packed rescues make this a definite 9.5/10!

One of Anderson's few failures

[juantheroux · 6/10 · 14 December 2021]

It has all the usual features of Anderson's signature style - unpredictable dialogue, head on shots, droll humor, genre send ups, comic book characters and mostly plotless and pointless narrative...but it just doesn't hang together.

Some good lines but overall dull and contrived quirkiness

[hhfarm-1 · 4/10 · 23 June 2006]

Ever go to a family gathering, eg. a Thanksgiving, with someone you just met? The family thinks that they're really different and goes out of their way to prove it to you: there are a million inside jokes, none of which are ever explained to you; they laugh constantly at the simplest lines; everyone has a quirk or two which is revealed to you with great glee; they're forever saying how you'll "get it" if you manage to survive the holiday hahahahahahaha.

If you enjoy this kind of thing, you may like Wes Anderson. "Royal Tennenbaums" was just an extended version of a weird family. Much like most theatre, the characters speak in isolation from any plot or character development so that the fabric of the story is unnecessary. The author merely intends to grind his/her point home.

"Life Aquatic" is a variation on this theme: Bill Murray's extended family is on his boat and a quest for a killer shark. Various family problems/ issues surface and are worked out (or not). No one really interacts with any depth: it's as if they're each in a separate bubble that slightly rubs against other bubbles. There's no chemistry, depth, feeling, character development, consistency.

Anderson's defenders no doubt love this "quirky" feel as it's so like real families who don't actually interact. Yeah, OK, maybe on stage people are like this.

One of the tragedies here is Bill Murray. He's been sleepwalking through movies for 10+ years. He's always the same guy who mostly watches as the world goes by, occasionally delivering a funny line. Here it's just more of that, but sometimes in a scuba outfit.

Enjoy It For What It Is

[SnaporazJr · 7 December 2004]

This story is a lighthearted adventure comedy. I too am guilty of being one of those Wes Anderson fans who salivate over all the small details but while watching this I quickly detached myself from the director and his style and previous work and just let "The Life Aquatic" take me along. And that's what you have to do. It's different from his other stuff in that it's more plot driven. There are some wonderful characters but they have to deal more with outside complications than internal struggles. It is similar in tone and style to Robert Altman's "M*A*S*H," what with all the juggling of fighting and death (serious themes dealt with in an objective comedic manner). There's also some Fellini moments (it was mostly filmed at Cinecitta). I loved it. Don't go into this film as a biased hipster Wes Anderson fan, clean the slate and take it with an open mind. It's certainly sillier than Rushmore or Tenenbaums, but it's just as ambitious and exponentially courageous with shots and tone.

To reiterate: more action oriented, funny as all get out, and quite possibly the funnest I've had in a theater all year.

I was really excited about this...

[cass71898 · 6/10 · 7 December 2004]

I went to a screening last night (12/6) in LA. I'm not sure what I think about this exactly. I love Wes Anderson's movies, Rushmore is my fave of all time, but this was different. There's no doubt about Bill Murray's genius, and I laughed out loud quite a few times, but I'm not so excited about this story. It didn't seem to go anywhere interesting, and things weren't connecting. I'm sort of feeling as though there was too much talent up on that screen and too much going on, and the vision suffered. Maybe I expect more of Wes because, to me, Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums were two of the greatest films ever made. I will probably see The Life Aquatic again, to make sure I didn't miss something. Maybe I'll like it a little more after a second take. I did think Cate Blanchett did a great job and was gorgeous. Bill Murray was also fantastic, it's a shame the movie didn't come together completely.

This is a Great Movie in a Sea of Mediocrity

[zaitsev_2007 · 9/10 · 28 January 2006]

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou is a beautiful film. I'm ashamed to say that the first time I rented it I popped it out of the player after only a couple of minutes. I must have been in the mood for an action flick at the time. I gave the movie a second chance recently and was impressed by this film.

The actors are at the top of their form. Cate Blanchett's character is beautiful, pregnant, fiercely independent, and yet vulnerable. Murray is revealing how broad his range is once again. He shocked me with his talent in the remake of Hamlet, impressed me with Lost in Translation, and now somehow has combined the putz he often plays with an extremely complicated character that few other actors could manage.

The comedy is fantastically funny and is a fresh change from the 'Oh no, I plugged up the toilet' humor that has been so prevalent recently. It's still ludicrous at times and yet the viewer welcomes it and enjoys it.

Overall, I gave it a 9 out of 10. I highly recommend it and wait to see how Bill Murray will impress us in the future.

Billy Mintsopoulos

Hey, Paint Your House

[daveisit · 7/10 · 22 April 2005]

The Life Aquatic spends a lot of time setting up an adventure which ultimately gives closure but takes a long time coming. While we are waiting, a fantastic character comedy takes place. A slightly off beat and quirky script allows the audience a refreshing change from the usual Hollywood dribble. Writers Wes Anderson and Noah Baumbach should be applauded.

The entire cast without any exceptions are absolutely brilliant. Bill Murray has to be one of the most underrated actors going around. This is not to say he is not recognised as a talent. More that he has an ability to be convincing in both a serious and comical role.

Perhaps the biggest highlight from the movie are the sounds of the scuba diving and battle sequence tracks, reminiscent of the early 80's video games.

meaning of this movie

[jiribel · 10/10 · 21 April 2006]

Of course I cannot say the meaning of this movie but I want to offer you a view you can look at this movie again and I am sure most of you will be surprised by this perspective.

Do you remember (especially you boys)when you were small? When you guys had your "gang" with leader (Steve), when you got a new boy (Ned) to your gang and some guy was very jealous on him? (Klaus) I am sure one of your rivals was decent boy from a rich family (Hennessey). Maybe you got very smart girl among you who could solve everything (Eleanor). You could fight with other gangs with guns that could shoot sparkles again and again and nobody got hurt. And when you jump over small pond (sorry huge swamp) there were plenty of leeches on you? Oh, I love that movie, now I know why I felt so sentimental when I watched that movie first time - it reminds me my childhood so so much. Our "gang" had secret plan - to get big boat somewhere, load it with food, guns and go to Cuba. We didn't have scientific dreams :-)

I am sure that in this movie Wes Anderson tries to picture his adventurous dreams when he was small. Now I understand why there is an old man asking for signature of child's sci-fi books, why there is a letter from small boy, why Cate Blanchett is saying at the end of the movie: he will be twelve in eleven and half and Steve responds: that's my favorite age. That was my favorite age, too Steve... I take this movies as a wonderful tribute to childhood (mostly boyish I guess) where great adventure was all around us.

Do not get me wrong: I did not discover this idea, I was told about it and for me it perfectly fits together and I love this movie even more!

By the way: very similar movie tricks made Czech director Karel Zeman 40 years ago in B&W. Highly recommended

Quirky just for quirky sake, does not a film make.

[mintyrich · 6/10 · 17 November 2004]

I've been a fan of Wes Anderson since Bottle Rockets so maybe my expectations were too high, but I just didn't get into this movie. I think the main difference between this film and his others is that while the characters in his other films were quirky and eccentric, they also seemed to have their own individual point of view with some passionate wants and needs. The characters in, "The Life Aquatic" while funny and quirky at times came off as caricatures with no real believable drive behind them. As a spoof of Jacque Cousteau and Johnny Quest there are definitely some funny moments but the story comes off as flat and turns into a bunch of "Oh, isn't that odd" moments. Bill Murray, Cate Blanchett, Owen Wilson and Willem Dafoe have a great chemistry together (Dafoe steals a lot of the movie and Cate Blanchett is an amazing actress and needs to be doing more comedy) I guess with this incredible cast and with Wes's history, I was just expecting so much more.

Brilliant, unpretentious, charming

[daniel-mkatz · 10/10 · 23 July 2005]

Well exactly as my summary says, this is a very well made straight-out unpretentious movie about a fading wildlife-film director's attempt to re-create his past success that made him some sort of cult phenomenon. Reading a few of the other reviews, I think this is evidently a "hate it or love it" film, however a lot of people seem to have missed the point-I don't think this film was really intended as a comdey, to me it was more just about the relationships and interactions between the various characters and maybe even an exploration of the human spirit.

The motivation for this project is revenge on the "leopard shark" that killed his best friend/long-standing partner and there is a lot of emotion on the way, including an inspiring relationship between him and his long lost son, whom he has never met but was a huge fan of his as a boy, and the constant drama between him and his wife, who's father's money has payed for his entire career.

Wes Anderson has excellent cinematography, with some great CGI, depicting marine life in a very retro fashion, and beautiful landscapes, as well as a very well put-together soundtrack including Sigur Ros, The Stooges and Ziggy Stardust era Bowie played in Portuguese with a classical guitar accompaniment. We also see Bill Murray at his best as well as a heart-warming performance by Owen Wilson, who I am not normally a fan of. The script is also very well written and the story is so well put-together that even an attack by pirates or looting a large scientific institution seem plausible in a serious movie about an oceanographer! Overall, this is a brilliant film and there isn't a lot more I can say.

Can't really see what people like so much about this film

[nikteslamodernwonder · 6/10 · 1 January 2005]

Yeah, I really don't understand the current (7.4) rating for this movie. Who knows, maybe this rating will change as more people have seen the film.

I mean, don't get me wrong. It wasn't one of those movies where I felt afterward, "like wow, I'm about 88 minutes closer to my inevitable demise." It held my attention. I even thought some of it was funny. But still.

It's not like it was bad, because it wasn't. Everyone involved did their jobs properly, except for whoever wrote the script/endless-string-of-clichés.

Seriously. Could this possibly be more of a "Let's get the team back together for one last game against our hometown rivals" type of movie? And it would be one thing if it stopped there.

It doesn't. Throw in one relationship on the rocks, a paternity subplot, the ever popular "cute silly foriegner," and, you know what, I really don't have the patience to list all of the clichés. To give you an idea, about 1/3 of the way through, there is, very much, a non-ironic montage. Yes, that's right. A montage.

Fact is, Murray is best in the following two types of movies: A) Films (such as Caddyshack, Groundhog Day, and Ghostbusters) which are just sidesplittingly hilarious and B) Ones that are serious and/or sweet without pretension (Royal Tennenbaums, Lost in Translation)

Unfortunately, this movie was neither one.

6/10

More than a comedy

[vegetarianhealth · 10/10 · 26 April 2006]

I went into this movie thinking it would be hilarious. I believe this is how the movie was marketed, and would explain the poor box office showing of this movie.

However, this is more a story about life than a comedy. Sure it has a comedy wrapper, but a wrapper is usually thin and inedible compared to the candy inside. This is not your typical candy, but it is fruitful in many ways. This movie is a fabric, not a two dimensional piece of characatured tissue paper as the many signs would have you believe.

This movie is for deep thinking people and those with a heart.

See it.

Not Anderson's Best

[kodave · 6/10 · 26 December 2004]

I enjoyed Anderson's three previous movies, so expectations were high for this new one. Therefore, I have to say it's slightly disappointing. It takes awhile to warm up to the characters, although the acting for the most part is great, and the first 45 minutes seem choppy.

One problem is that there are two main plot points: the search for the Jaguar shark and the father-son relationship between Murray and Wilson. However, neither are that convincing and I believe Anderson's quirky, dry style actually gets in the way of developing the characters and their relationships.

The Bowie songs are done in an inventive way, but they don't seem to be in the film for any good reason. Contrast this with Rushmore, where the songs and music fit with the movie.

The performances are good. Murray is funny as always and it's hilarious to watch him as some sort of quasi-action hero in some scenes. Maybe it gets better on second viewing, but for the first time around, the film was kinda letdown considering Anderson's previous movies.

6/10

What the heck?

[artlofty · 1/10 · 9 January 2005]

This movie is so slow and pointless it was painful. I love David Bowie, but his music has been RUINED for me. How is it that all these wonderful actors can come together to make such a painfully slow and meaningless film. The story is caught, no, LOST, somewhere between the yellow submarine and PBS on PCP. Maybe downers. This story is slow, and never did gel. Who was the son, why did he come, what was the point of their relationship? Is this an insult to Jacques Cousteau? What inspired this film and why was it made? It is so disappointing to see filmmakers make one smart film and think they have more clever stories in them to tell...there is nothing clever about this one. his worse film even. In the end, I had to walk out.