Movie Review

The Life Aquatic

Wes Anderson is a talented guy. He, Owen Wilson, and Luke Wilson broke onto the screen in 1996 with their independent heist comedy, Bottle Rocket (B). Anderson directed it, and he co-wrote with Owen, who also starred alongside his brother Luke. They followed that up with the cult classic, Rushmore (B+). The Royal Tenenbaums (B+) was their third film, a dark comedy with an ensemble cast, and like with Rushmore they won over critics (and some audiences). Audience reactions in general were not too strong (once it expanded out of limited release, some liked it and some hated it), but if you ask the average Wes Anderson fan it is a very well regarded film.

Almost every gifted filmmaker has his/her dark days, though, and unfortunately for Wes Anderson that time has come. The Life Aquatic, his third project with Bill Murray, falls short of what they were shooting for. This film is an attempt at deadpan comedy, the type in which characters do weird things with straight-faced expressions, with the seriousness being an attempt to be funny. This is a brand of comedy that Murray has mastered over the course of his career, and the problem here is not Murray but Anderson?s screenplay. The script places the actors in an awkward situation, as its story is not developed enough in order for us to care about them. As a result, the common reaction to many of these so-called funny moments is to stare, well, deadpan.

The Life Aquatic stars Bill Murray as Steve Zissou, an oceanographer whose partner/friend is eaten by a monstrous shark, and he sets out to get revenge by hunting down the shark and blowing it up with dynamite. Zissou gathers a team for this mission, including his wife Eleanor (Anjelica Huston), and Ned Plimpton (Owen Wilson), a rookie who wants to learn the ways of the seas. Cate Blanchett also stars as Jane, a journalist who Steve and Ned both fall for.

If you want to see an example of deadpan comedy, watch Rushmore ? when Murray is spying on the schoolteacher while on the basketball courts and ruins a kid?s attempt at scoring a basket, do you laugh? Murray does that antic in absolute seriousness, and for fans of this type of comedy it is very funny. That film has various moments like that, but they also work because the story is well established and is believable. If you like the story, you'll probably be willing to give in to these darkly funny bits because you like the characters.

The Life Aquatic isn?t such a case. The film is tailored for Bill Murray, to the point that Wes Anderson is solely relying on your love of the actor/comedian for you to sympathize with him. His character isn?t that likable and doesn?t smile at all (note: deadpan). This is a role of his that many people outside of the limited release areas are going to hate, and even some fans of his in the top theater markets are going to dislike him (where Anderson?s films usually get the best reactions). Some fans? tempers will ignite after this film, and then it will place Wes Anderson in a heated situation ? is he losing his steam as a filmmaker or is it just an accidental slip? Only time will tell.

It should be noted that Anderson co-wrote with Owen Wilson on the previous three films, and it has been said that Wilson?s cockeyed sense of humor is very evident in those films. Owen didn?t co-write The Life Aquatic, as Anderson collaborated with Noah Baumbach, an unknown talent. Why Wilson didn?t get the chance this time around is a good question, but his (temporary?) departure shows, for it seems like Anderson was struggling to make up for that void. There are a few moments in which Wilson-like humor is detectable and these few spots gel, but too often the comedy just misses the funny bone entirely.

But the film isn?t just simply a comedy. There is probably more drama than comedy, and the pieces just aren?t believable. While the setup works in regard to the hunting down of the shark, the production goes downhill from there. Right as Ned is introduced in the story (whom we?re supposed to like because he?s Owen), it transitions into a very boring and incredibly slow-moving film. Characters don?t have quirky qualities. You could say that Murray is quirky because he doesn?t crack a smile, that Cate Blanchett bares an odd facial expression throughout the film, and that Wilson carries an accent, but that?s about as close to quirky characters as this film gets.

Steve Zissou has a troubled marriage with Eleanor, but since she is given very limited screen time, do we care? I sure didn?t, and Anjelica Huston?s talent is wasted here. Ned gets attracted to Jane, but Steve also likes her too, and so romantic tension ensues. The subplot in Royal Tenenbaums in which Luke Wilson and Gwyneth Paltrow?s characters fall for each other worked because each portrayed very humanistic qualities that you could relate to. Their acting also showed a range that was endearing; they were depressed, but tolerably so. In Life Aquatic, Blanchett (though she masters that odd facial expression) doesn?t show much emotion, and it doesn?t help that nothing interesting about these three people is ever revealed. It?s as if Wes loves these three talents and wants to see them interact in anything, regardless of the material.

Anderson?s style was about the only redeeming factor about this film. Certain filmmakers have a style that you can recognize; the Coens, Paul Thomas Anderson, Tarantino, the late Kubrick, and Scorcese are amongst that list, and so is Wes. When you?re watching a film of his you know it because of the way it?s shot and by the look of the set pieces. His films are visually unique, and before this entry that was only a benefit alongside rich stories with appealing characters. Though I didn?t like The Life Aquatic, I liked its soundtrack, some of its cinematography, and the set design of various scenes; it?s visual eye candy, and that?s all it ever ends up being. Visual eye candy should only be a treasure amongst other treasures, as this film just lacks a story worth telling.

Could there have been a nice, interesting story in here somewhere? You bet. You?ve got a class act storyteller with three people who could?ve been fascinating to watch with the right material. And I like the simple, clear-cut story of a shark whose life needs to end, especially if the executor is Bill Murray; that could be a really fun/funny movie, and it could?ve had some nicely done serious touches as well. Wes and Noah started with the right idea, but the execution missed the mark. It?s just too bad that the story is insignificant, especially for a director who?s infamous for being meticulous about every factor in his films.

Lee's Grade: C+

A	0.4%
B	30.0%
C	61.7%
D	8.0%
F	0.0%