Owen Wilson has a new film out called "Me, You and Dupree" that's doing fairly well over in the States. It's about an unwanted houseguest called Dupree, and, in a tongue in cheek letter to Owen's brother Luke, Steely Dan accused the former of basing the film on their song "Cousin Dupree," also about an unwanted houseguest. Owen Wilson promptly countered the accusation:



I tip my hat, sir.

Owen Wilson is hilarious. He plays one style of character, but he plays it brilliantly, and is great fun to watch. His brother, Luke, is about as dynamic and interesting as a plain piece of cardboard, and should move on to other things. Same goes for Drew Barrymore, who is of similar ilk and is it just the disproportionate pain of a bad memory, or did they act in more than one movie together?

Matt

Spot on.

1. he co-wrote Rushmore.
2. Wes Anderson tip: Rushmore, Tenembaums, Life Acquatic (effortlesly cool).
3. his is part of a rich seem of US comedy talent (along with Stiller and Vaughan): see Meet the Parents/Fockers; Zoolander; Dodgeball; the Wedding Crashers- all of which have made me laugh out loud (a tough thing to do).

Cooly watchable and understatedly funny.

Delridge - Drew Barrymore and Luke Wilson acted together in "Home Fries," both "Charlie's Angels" and "Best Men." I don't mind either of them, actually. I think Luke Wilson has made a career choice of playing the stoic, sensible sibling to Owen Wilson's loon. Though, admittedly, the latter has far greater range, and is infinitely funnier, too.

JC - Check out "Bottle Rocket" as well. And "Life Aquatic" was underwhelming. Despite the inimitable Bill Murray and the presence of one of my all-time favourite Joan Baez songs, "Here's to You."

Arikan, I would begrudge no man his appreciation of subpar actors, and I happily extend to you the benefit of the doubt on the Luke Wilson thing. Still, I can't help but think that where you forgivingly see "stoic" and "sensible", I see "cardboard-like".

Not that there's anything wrong with cardboard. If I could become wealthy and famous by impersonating kraft paper products, I would set aside my pride in a moment and take the first role that came my way.



Matt

And secondly, Arikan, Life Acquatic is wonderful. For "underwhelming" read "subtle".

I do not watch Wes Anderson for belly laughs, but for wit, surreal creativity and style he is in a league of his own. And Life Acquatic has this in abundance:

*quality characters (Steve, Ned, Claus, the bank stooge)
*lovely dialogue and one liners (the the underwater dislogue about "pappa Steve")
*some wonderfully stylish sequences (the shootout at the abandoned hotel, the tracking shot on the red carpet at the end)
*beautiful design (the ship design- including sauna and massive wine collection-; the animation of the underwater creatures)
*fine music (as well as Baez- the underwater electronica, Bowie in Portuguese etc.)

Its a little gem which I have in my collection. You should give it a second chance.

I hate condescending reinterpretations like that. No, I meant "underwhelming." To be read "underwhelming." If I meant "subtle," I would have written "subtle." There is a difference between the two. And not a subtle one, either.

I shall now dismount from my high horse.

The film is whimsical. But that's about it. But whimsy and weird do not a good film make. Just ask Leni Riefenstahl.

The under-sea sequences are fun enough, but they seem to belong in a different, more heartfelt film. Anderson's trademark pans, tilts and tracking shots are nothing we have not seen better versions of in his previous, much more accomplished movies. The characters are cold and unsympathetic, speaking pointless and weird dialogue that masquarades as witty. Spurious motives feigning kookiness lead them to equally ersatz actions, which serve the script in so far as to get from one page to the next. Anderson grinds his characters with his pestle of preposterous prosaic exposition in his mortar of jejune contrariety. The end result is indifference. In the part of both the audience, and Anderson.

PS. The "bond company stooge" is played by Bud Cort, by the way. Of "Harold and Maude" fame.

1. Woah (to your high horse)! Can we compromise on "understated"?

2. "Anderson grinds his characters with his pestle of preposterous prosaic exposition in his mortar of jejune contrariety": try saying that with a mouthfull of gobstoppers.

3. Entertainment does not have to come in big bangs. And Life Acquatic does not assume to be anything more than gentle, smile-inspiring entertainment. Whimsy sometimes works.

4. Weird can be wonderful. Especially when it opens up new worlds.

http://www.incwell.com/Biographies/Cousteau.html
http://www.cousteau.org/en/heritage/captain/man.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques-Yves_Cousteau

I keep telling my sexual partners that. They never buy it.



I champion all these sentiments (including the earlier one about "entertainment"). It's just that the whimsy in "Life Aquatic" does not work, its weirdness is anything but wonderful, and it does not open up any new worlds.