Image by Jürgen Polle from Pixabay Despite being a fairly devout John Hughes fan, one of his films in the book “1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die” by Steven Jay Schneider that I thought I’d enjoy but did not is his 1986 comedy Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. And as today is the 35th anniversary of its release, I figured what better opportunity than today to share my thoughts on just disappointing this film was.
[NOTE: This blog will contain spoilers for “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.” You have been warned.] The History On February 25, 1985, writer-director John Hughes (The Breakfast Club, Planes, Trains and Automobiles) created a story outline and, the next day, pitched it to Paramount Studios (now Paramount Pictures) who liked his concept but were hesitant to greenlight it. Within a week, Hughes completed the screenplay for the project which Paul Hirsch, Hughes’s editor, was confident served as the shooting script. In creating the film’s protagonist, Hughes “wanted to create a character who could handle everyone and everything.” Several actors were considered for the part of Ferris Bueller, from frequent Hughes collaborator Anthony Michael Hall to then-emerging male leads Tom Cruise and Michael J. Fox. However, Hughes wrote the script with Matthew Broderick (Glory, The Lion King) in mind. Alan Ruck (Speed, Twister), who had auditioned for the role of Bender in Hughes’s previous film The Breakfast Club, was cast as Bueller’s best friend Cameron Frye in this film after Hughes remembered his audition. Conversely, Hughes was unsure of Mia Sara’s (Legend, Timecop) audition for the role of Bueller’s girlfriend Sloane Peterson until she revealed to Hughes that she was only 18 years old. In filming this project, Hughes essentially set out to make a love letter to the city of Chicago and its suburbs where Hughes spent his adolescent years. Principal photography kicked off in Chicago on September 9, 1985 and lasted for over a month before moving to Los Angeles, where it wrapped on November 22. Much of the movie was shot in downtown Chicago (specifically the Von Steuben Day Parade scene), while the sets around Cameron’s house and the high school were filmed in Highland Park and Northbrook, respectively (both suburbs of Chicago). Filmed on a five-million-dollar budget, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off ended up grossing in excess of 70 million dollars and received overall positive reception from critics. Many referred to the film as warmhearted escapism with great rewatch value. Notably, many conservative critics found the film to embody ideals of the desire for liberty and freedom that transcend adolescence. However, some critics lambasted the movie was self-indulgent and simply a mirror showing off the negative aspects of Reagan-era America. The film has left an indelible impression on American culture, from First Lady Barbara Bush quoting the script in a 1990 commencement speech to Ben Stein’s monotone phrase “Bueller?…Bueller?…Bueller?” becoming a lampooning favorite in popular movies and television shows. In 2014, the film was selected by the Library of Congress to be preserved in the National Film Registry for being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.” The Cons For me, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off falls flat more often than it exceeds expectations. After two viewings of this beloved-by-many John Hughes film, I believe my disappointment with it comes from the promise of its opening not being fulfilled by what follows. Ultimately, I found everything between the first twenty minutes and the last ten minutes to be intellectually devoid and lacking any gripping character moments. As Hughes has stated before, he wrote this film to be very character-driven as opposed to plot-driven. However, when what the characters are doing fails to engage me then what’s the point of having no plot? Sure, the trio of teenagers get up to some antics just for the hell of it but if their personalities or their chemistry with each other fails to keep me invested in their journeys than does the story have enough substance to justify its existence? For me and in the case of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, the answer is no. That’s the crux of my criticism of the movie. None of the performances stand out to me as appallingly bad or amazingly good, and the concept is something that I’ve enjoyed far more in films like Fast Times at Ridgemont High and Hughes’s very own The Breakfast Club (which were both done IN THE SAME DECADE!). Need I say more? The Pros Implied by my distaste for the middle hour of the film, my favorite parts of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off are the first twenty minutes and the last ten minutes. Hughes does a fantastic job introducing his protagonist by embracing Broderick’s inert charm by having him break the fourth wall to communicate his headspace and motivations directly to the audience. By doing so, Hughes wants the audience to not take this character and his journey seriously later on in the film (I never did, but I commend Hughes for trying). Meanwhile, the last ten minutes offers a great approach to having all the storylines in the film converge with Ferris trying to beat his parents home to avoid being caught, his sister Jeanie (Jennifer Grey) trying to beat Ferris him to expose him to his parents, and oppressive school administrator Ed Rooney (Jeffrey Jones) heading to Ferris’s house to confront him about his chronic truancy. This editing device can be effective in several contexts, from creating suspense and heightening tension in horror films to upping the drama in action movies. In the case of this movie, it makes the audience suddenly care about Ferris not getting caught (again, I didn’t care one way or the other for most of the movie but Hughes lands this on two feet overall). So, what are my final impressions of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off? All in all, it’s not a movie I care to rewatch because it does not match the sum of its parts. But it still has some parts that I thoroughly enjoy, so watch it I guess if you want to. But maybe live your life, too. Stop and look around once in a while or else you could miss it. 😊 What do you think about Ferris Bueller’s Day Off? Am I being too harsh on this popular teen comedy? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst
0 Comments
Image by Please Don't sell My Artwork AS IS from Pixabay Another film from the book “1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die” by Steven Jay Schneider that I expected to enjoy but ended up disappointing me is the 1973 coming-of-age comedy from George Lucas: American Graffiti.
[NOTE: This blog will contain spoilers for “American Graffiti.” You have been warned.] The History While making his directorial debut THX 1138, George Lucas (Star Wars) was convinced by fellow director Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather, Apocalypse Now) to try to make his next film appeal more to the mainstream. Lucas was even more persuaded by this proposition following the box-office flop that THX 1138 became, and was inspired by his teenage years cruising around with his friends in Modesto for his next screenplay. While writing the script with husband-and-wife duo Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz (Lucky Lady, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom), Lucas struggled to secure financing for the project as many studios worried about the costs of licensing music would cause the budget of the project to skyrocket. But when THX 1138 premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in 1971, Lucas met then-president of United Artists David Picker who was intrigued by Lucas’s pitch for American Graffiti and gave him ten thousand dollars to develop the screenplay. As Huyck and Katz shifted their focus to another project, Lucas hired Richard Walter to finish it. Upon returning to America, Lucas read Walter’s script and was dismayed by his exploitative approach to the subject finding the script to be oversexualized and ungrounded. Even though Walter rewrote his initial draft, Lucas fired him due to creative differences. Out of money, Lucas spent the next three weeks writing his own draft but United Artists rejected the script due to the potential music licensing costs and feeling that the film was too experimental. Lucas spent the next couple of years being turned away by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Paramount Pictures, and 20th Century Fox (to name a few) until Universal Pictures expressed interest. They also agreed to allow Lucas artistic control and final cut privilege over the film in exchange for Lucas shooting the film on a strict budget. While Universal involved themselves very little in the production process (largely due to its low-budget nature and the studio’s lack of faith in its potential success), they did suggest over 60 alternative titles due to their befuddlement over what the phrase “American Graffiti” meant. Ultimately, Lucas resisted any suggestions and kept the title as is. Initially hesitant to release Lucas’s coming-of-age film in theaters, Universal Pictures wanted to restrict it to television but eventually relented. American Graffiti received a wide domestic release in August of 1973, and ended up grossing 140 million dollars on a budget of less than 800,000 dollars. It also received universal acclaim critics, who lauded its lean narrative and capturing of a moment in culture through such a nostalgic lens. The Cons To be clear, I am a great admirer for the creative mind of George Lucas. The original Star Wars trilogy are three of my favorite films of all time (with the 1977 megahit being my absolute favorite). And knowing that he directed American Graffiti, I was cautiously optimistic when I sat down to watch it. I understood it to be one of the first modern looks at adolescence on film prior to the heyday of the flicks of John Hughes. That being said, the movie just did not work for me. I found it tedious, unengaging, and dripping with nostalgia for a time and place that I have absolutely no emotional attachment to. By the end, I forgot my optimism from before and was simply disappointed by how soulless American Graffiti felt. I wanted Lucas to successfully transport me to a specific time and place and, ultimately, force me to fall in love with the setting and characters. And he simply was unable to do that for me. Perhaps that’s my own fault, but I firmly believe that if American Graffiti was a great film that it would have succeeded at doing what it needed to do to make me care about what was going on. Maybe it is now disadvantaged by being the inaugural film in the “slacker” genre that later directors, from John Hughes to Richard Linklater, refined and made at least mildly more entertaining (if not far more so). The Pros For me, the only memorable aspect of American Graffiti was the appearance of Harrison Ford. I enjoyed his scenes with the other teenage characters, and it was kind of fun seeing a pre-Han Solo Ford on screen. But, that’s pretty much it. So, what are my final impressions of American Graffiti? If you are looking for a film that offers a narrow examination of adolescent cruising culture of the 1970s West Coast, then this film is for you. For me, however, I was sorely disappointed by my viewing and cannot offer any sort of recommendation to my fellow cinephiles. What do you think about American Graffiti? Do you think I am being too harsh on it? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst Image by cromaconceptovisual from Pixabay Today, I continue my reflection on films from “1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die” by Steven Jay Schneider by dissecting what I found surprisingly powerful about Paul Thomas Anderson’s 2007 epic historical drama film There Will Be Blood.
[NOTE: This blog will contain spoilers for “There Will Be Blood.” You have been warned.] The History Journalist Eric Schlosser (Fast Food Nation, Reefer Madness) became enamored by the 1927 novel Oil! by Upton Sinclair in the early 2000s. Convinced it would make a great basis for a movie, Schlosser intended to find a director that was equally passionate about the book and the topic of the early 20th century oil industry. Coincidentally, director and California native Paul Thomas Anderson (Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Punch-Drunk Love) discovered Sinclair’s book around the same time and became equally captivated by its subject matter. Since he was suffering writer’s block on another script, Anderson opted to draft a screenplay that adapted portions of Sinclair’s novel while also incorporating some of his own research about the turn-of-the-century oil barons of Bakersfield, California. Anderson wrote the screenplay for There Will Be Blood with Daniel Day-Lewis (My Left Foot, In the Name of the Father, Lincoln) in mind for the protagonist as he had always wanted to work with him. Upon hearing that Day-Lewis enjoyed Anderson’s previous movie, Punch-Drunk Love, he met with the Oscar-winning actor and gave him a copy of the nearly complete script. The rest was history, as Day-Lewis accepted the role after his first meeting with Anderson. In spite of having a solid script and star in Day-Lewis signed on to the project, the film’s producers found it initially difficult to finance the project because some studios thought the idea lacked the scope for a major motion picture. After two years, the money was acquired for principal photography to begin in Texas in June of 2006 and end three months later. Two weeks into shooting, Anderson’s original choice for Eli Sunday was replaced by Paul Dano (12 Years a Slave, Prisoners, Swiss Army Man) who was already playing the much smaller role of Paul Sunday, thus making the characters identical twins. Despite only having four days to prepare for his expanded role and begin reshoots, Anderson was confident in his ability to be up for the challenge. There Will Be Blood was released to theaters on December 26, 2007, grossing over 75 million dollars on a third of the budget and receiving virtually universal praise from critics and audiences alike. The film was listed in the top three on over two dozen critics’ top-ten lists that year, and was nominated for eight Academy Awards, winning two (Best Actor for Day-Lewis, and Best Cinematography). The Pros P.T. Anderson is hit or miss for me, to the point where I have failed to finish some of his films. But, there are a select few that I thoroughly enjoy and There Will Be Blood is one of them. There is a lot to like about it, so let’s dive in, shall we? What sticks out most to me about this film is how effective it is at slow, deliberate storytelling. Oft times, storytellers rely on a slow build in order to create dramatic tension but fail to captivate me as an audience member long enough to feel that the payoff of said tension was worth the wait. But Anderson pulls this off in There Will Be Blood, largely thanks to Day-Lewis’s central performance as ruthless oil tycoon Daniel Plainview. I was never bored, or even slightly disinterested, because the colorful cast of characters surrounding Plainview (and, of course, Plainview himself) and the world of greed and betrayal that they conceive remains evermore fascinating and engrossing. Thus, Anderson’s deliberate pace is both satisfyingly entertaining and thematically rich. Also, as a lover of not only history but specifically historical fiction (when done right), There Will Be Blood superbly captures the time and place that is its focus. As I am not intimately familiar with the rise of the American oil industry as I am with other periods of this nation’s history, the cast and crew provide a compelling look at a pivotal example of the rise of modern American capitalism both in terms of its causes and consequences. But beyond the film’s focus on the oil fields of California, the production design and examination of the characters’ everyday lives offer great insights into the development of early modern America. For anyone with an interest in either of these aspects of our past, There Will Be Blood is worth the watch for that alone. Arguably the best thing about the movie is its themes. I myself am a sucker for stories about the dark side of human nature. In the case of There Will Be Blood, we see the morally bare landscape of American greed, capitalism, and ambition through the eyes of oil baron Daniel Plainview. Furthermore, unlike some movies that attempt and fail to peel back the curtain in this way, P.T. Anderson and the rest of this film’s creative team excel at conceiving a grounded yet entertaining perspective on how far people will go to achieve success, the people they will abuse and backstab to do that, and how, ultimately, such an idea of success is barely success at all. On top of all of these positives, There Will Be Blood has a great cast, cinematography, score, production design…what’s NOT to like about this film?!? The Cons While there is virtually nothing that I dislike about There Will Be Blood, I can see why certain elements of the film would turn others off. First off, the two-and-a-half-hour runtime that worked for me could end up making other viewers feel burdened or put off. It does not feel slow to me, but viewers not captivated by Plainview’s greed-drive downward spiral to the brink of insanity will almost certainly feel otherwise. In addition, the film offers no optimistic take on human nature or American society at large. Again, for me this makes ground for interesting storytelling but other viewers really need some injection of hope into the world that Anderson creates in There Will Be Blood in order to enjoy it. And I can see how some people may find the film’s final scene to be both tonally chaotic and just downright pointless. Even though I feel satisfied by the time the credits roll, it is understandable for others to not be. Otherwise, this movie is technically impressive and rich with characterization and an exploration of complex ideas and emotions. I struggle to see how any of these elements could be despised by anyone except if you are someone who simply isn’t a fan of P.T. Anderson (which I do understand for most of his movies). So, what are my final impressions of There Will Be Blood? It is one of the few P.T. Anderson flicks that I find both entertaining and absorbing without being too ostentatious for my liking. And even though it is not my favorite of his films, it is one of the better small-budget, independent films of this century no question. What is your favorite P.T. Anderson film? Do you think There Will Be Blood is genuinely epic or too self-indulgent for its own good? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst Today, I finally enter the 21st century of “1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die” by Steven Jay Schneider by discussing one of the most unexpectedly entertaining Ang Lee films: the 2000 martial arts drama Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.
[NOTE: This blog will contain spoilers for “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.” You have been warned.] The History It was a childhood dream of Taiwanese director Ang Lee (The Wedding Banquet, Brokeback Mountain) to make a “wuxia” film in the tradition of Chinese martial arts movies. After finding source material for his movie in the five-part “Crane-Iron Series” of novels by Chinese author Wang Dulu, Lee went to work financing the project. He ended up securing production from studios in four different countries: CFGC in China; EDKO Film in Hong Kong; Zoom Hunt in Taiwan; and Columbia, Sony, and Good Machine in the United States. The film was shot throughout multiple provinces in East and North China, as well as in Beijing itself. Lee has reflected on how the harsh weather and intense shooting schedule forced him to not take a break for eight months straight. One of the issues he dealt with during principal photography was the differing accents of the four lead actors (only Zhang Ziyi spoke Mandarin in a native accent), often resulting in Lee forcing his performers to do dozens of takes to ensure the dialogue was culturally and phonetically accurate. Much of Lee’s motivation behind making the film was to create a “wuxia” flick that appealed to Western audiences. In addition to focusing on specific themes and aesthetics, he also personally edited the English subtitles to ensure they were sufficient for Western viewers. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon premiered in Taiwan, China and Hong Kong throughout the summer of 2000 before finally hitting U.S. theaters in December of that year. The film was a surprise critical and box-office hit in the West, becoming the first foreign-language film to gross over 100 million dollars in the United States. (To this day, it remains the highest-grossing foreign-language film in American history) At the Academy Awards the next year, the film received the most nominations for a non-English language film (Alfonso Cuarón’s film Roma tied this record in 2018) and won four, including Best Foreign Language Film. Critics and film historians today credit Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon with introducing Western audiences to Asian film genres, such as “wuxia,” as well as making Asian cinema in general more marketable to English speakers. The film’s success also made Ang Lee one of the most recognizable names in directing in modern Hollywood. The Pros As someone who has, on many occasions, struggled to become invested in foreign language films, I went into Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon skeptically. Furthermore, I have never really been a fan of martial arts films, or fantasy films for that matter. In a way, this movie is both, so it did not have me bought in from the start. But within the first twenty minutes, I realized that Ang Lee had pulled off something I assumed to be near-impossible; he made Eastern storytelling appealing to a Western audience. Minus the language barrier (yes, I’m one of those Americans who’d prefer to not have to read subtitles when watching a movie), I found virtually everything else in the film to have Western, or at least Western-influenced, sensibilities. Perhaps what surprised me most was the story itself. Lee was able to balance melodrama with drama, and the more operatic aspects of the story with the more grounded ones. Despite being a story with martial arts masters and swordsmen (and women), at its heart this film is a character-driven drama about relationships between students and masters, as well as romances, and the conflicts between them in a society constricted by societal expectations and traditions. This is a story that, if stripped of the martial arts, could realistically take place anywhere and anytime. But, its unique blending of Eastern mythology and history with Western sensitivities makes Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon truly a one-of-a-kind when it first came out. Of course, one cannot discuss this film without addressing the action sequences. Which, much to my surprise, became my other favorite part of it. While it took some time to get used to watching thieves and warriors jumping from rooftops and over fortress walls, I eventually suspended my disbelief enough because the fight choreography was so damn fun to watch. I particularly enjoyed the three-way duel between Li Mu Bai (Chow Yun-fat) and his love interest Yu Shu Lien (Michelle Yeoh), who team up to fight against Jade Fox (Cheng Pei-pei), the master of the thief who stole Mu Bai’s “Green Destiny” sword from him. Overall, those are the main reasons that I thoroughly enjoyed Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. But, that is not to say that the movie doesn’t have issues. The Cons While much of the story worked for me, I found the romance subplot between Jade Fox’s pupil, Jen Yu (Zhang Ziyi), and Lo (Chang Chen) to be underwhelming and not as interesting as the drama between the other main characters. To be clear, I did enjoy Jen Yu’s fight sequences and her character in and of herself, but their romance was much more in-your-face than the nuanced subtlety of Mu Bai and Shu Lien’s unrequited love for each other. This subplot, in my humble opinion, adds too much to the runtime and I think by integrating it more naturally into the main story the movie could have benefitted greatly. Also, the more fantastical elements of the fight choreography (primarily the unbelievable feats of jumping and running up and around walls) can take some getting used to. And while I understand that these things are central to the visual style of wuxia films like this, I foresee that this slightly detracted from Ang Lee’s goal of making a Chinese martial arts film for Westerners. One of the more obvious drawbacks for many Western viewers (notably Americans) is that this is a foreign-language film, and thus is not in English. So, if you are averse to reading subtitles while watching the movie, this may detract from your viewing experience. It did not for me because the story was enticing enough, but I understand why some people will be turned off by this aspect. So, what are my final impressions of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon? Given the fact that I tend to avoid martial arts films and many foreign-language films, I found Ang Lee’s big-budget debut in the West to be more than satisfactory. Despite some of its drawbacks in storytelling, it is well worth the watch if you want to see an absorbing, character-driven drama with some fast-paced, well-conceived action sequences. What is your favorite Ang Lee film? Do you think Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is genuinely engrossing or a bit too over-the-top for your liking? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst Image by Pete Linforth from Pixabay To continue my journey delving into films from the book “1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die” by Steven Jay Schneider, I will be discussing one of my favorite Wes Anderson movies. None other than the off-beat, late-90s coming-of-age comedy Rushmore.
[NOTE: This blog will contain spoilers for “Rushmore.” You have been warned.] The History Longtime Wes Anderson-collaborator, Owen Wilson (Wedding Crashers, Midnight in Paris), has not only acted in several of Anderson’s films but has co-written three of them. Starting with Anderson’s 1996 directorial debut Bottle Rocket, Wilson went on to co-write two more of Anderson’s films: 1998’s Rushmore and 2001’s The Royal Tenenbaums. Regarding Rushmore, Anderson and Wilson wanted to create a “heightened reality” in the spirit of Roald Dahl’s fiction for children but set in an elite prep school (both of them had attended private schools as kids). Both of them injected elements of their own life into the screenplay, specifically projecting them onto the film’s protagonist (i.e. Wilson was expelled from his private school, Anderson lacked motivation in school and fell in love with an older woman). Anderson has also cited films like Chinatown, The Graduate, and Harold and Maude as influences on this movie. Despite writing the screenplay with Bill Murray (Ghostbusters, Groundhog Day, Lost in Translation) in mind for the character of Herman Blume, the middle-aged man who befriends the film’s adolescent protagonist Max Fischer, Anderson and Wilson doubted they would ever manage to get him to read it. Alas, Murray was so impressed with the script he agreed to take the role for what amounted to approximately nine-thousand dollars. This has really paid off for Anderson, who has gone on to direct Bill Murray in several more of his films from The Royal Tenenbaums to Isle of Dogs. After seeing the auditions of 1,800 teenagers from across North America and the United Kingdom, Anderson nearly gave up on discovering a teenage actor to play Max Fischer. That is, until he discovered the 17-year-old Jason Schwartzman (The Darjeeling Limited, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World), who Anderson believed could keep the audience sympathizing with him in spite of all of the “crummy” things that the character did in the story. After filming in and around Houston, Texas (Anderson’s hometown), Rushmore premiered in the winter of 1998 to mostly positive reviews and ended up grossing nearly double its budget. More importantly, however, this film came to define Anderson’s unique cinematic style and made him a household name in the independent film world. Rushmore also inspired a renaissance for Murray’s career, who went on to become identified with independent films all the way up to today with his most recent role in Sofia Coppola’s On the Rocks. The Pros The first Wes Anderson film that I ever saw was Moonrise Kingdom, and I was really impressed. I was under the notion that his films were too pretentious and artsy for my tastes, but this film caught me by surprise. So, I was excited to watch some more of his work. Unfortunately, I found that my notion about many of his films ended up being true. One by one, I was less and less entertained by Anderson’s style and aesthetic and was convinced that I would not end up liking any of his movies nearly as much as Moonrise Kingdom. But then I saw Rushmore, and it remains my second-favorite film of Anderson’s. I think what I gravitated most to in this film is the quirky world established through the eyes of its protagonist, Max Fischer (Jason Schwartzman). The story of this eccentric teenager who becomes embroiled in a faux-love triangle with the first-grade teacher he has a crush on (Olivia Williams) and the middle-aged, lonely businessman that he befriends (Bill Murray) is shockingly endearing. In fact, when you boil this film down to its essential bits, it is Anderson’s characters that make it so damn tantalizing to watch. Despite being a despicable human being, Max’s youth and ignorance make him empathetic and someone that we hope learns from his mistakes by the end. Despite being a pompous businessman, Herman’s deep-seated loneliness makes him a sympathetic character who we hope can find happiness and come to good terms with his teenage friend. And both of these characters’ chemistry with Rosemary is somehow strange yet refreshing. Besides the characters, Anderson’s signature aesthetic is still in its infancy stages in Rushmore. While there are elements of his unique cinematography (due to the work of Robert Yeoman) evident in this film, Anderson has not yet fully embraced what would become his look as showcased in films like The Royal Tenenbaums and The Grand Budapest Hotel. So, if you are turned off by the look of those films, you should not have much issue with Rushmore. The other thing that I really enjoyed about this film was its dry sense of humor. While I struggled to connect with the dry, sardonic wit of other Wes Anderson films, I found it to work very well here. Perhaps it had to do with my admiration for the characters relative to those in his other movies, but I think it works best when the characters are not only likeable but when the journeys that they go on are both entertaining and satisfying. The Cons Much of what I like about Rushmore can certainly be reasons why other people do not like it. In my humble opinion, this can be said for pretty much any Wes Anderson film. From one movie to another, you either connect with it or you don’t. So, you might find the characters to be annoying, pretentious, and absurdly unrealistic. Or, you might find the humor of the film either unnatural or it may escape you altogether. Either way, Rushmore is very much a “love it or hate it” kind of flick. So, what are my final impressions of Rushmore? Whatever your reaction to this film, Anderson’s quirky characters, odd world, and cynical sense of humor will stick with you. For me, it remains one of my favorite Wes Anderson films and one of the better comedies of the last thirty years. What is your favorite Wes Anderson film? Do you think Rushmore is one of his best or worst features, or somewhere in the middle? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst |
Austin McManusI have no academic or professional background in film production or criticism; I simply love watching and talking about movies. Archives
July 2024
Categories
All
|