2004 / 118 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

I love Wes Anderson. Why? Because he’s a complete original. You never know quite what you’re going to get when you walk into one of his movies, but you know that it’s not quite going to be like anything you’ve ever seen. The stories he tells are quirky, but fundamentally human. They’re funny and sad, often at the same time, concerning idiosyncratic characters and odd situations that, somehow, seem completely believable because of Anderson’s writing and directorial skill, not to mention his sterling ability to choose background music that beautifully fits each scene.

While “The Life Aquatic”, Anderson’s latest work, does not quite reach the heights of his best films (like “Rushmore” and “The Royal Tenenbaums” which, in my opinion, are nearly equal in greatness) it’s still riveting entertainment. The subject of “The Life Aquatic” is titular deep-sea explorer Steve Zissou, played beautifully by Bill Murray. Zissou bears more than a passing resemblance to famous deep-sea explorer Jacques Coustau: he makes documentaries about oceanic creatures, he has a devoted crew of explorers at his aide, even the names of his ships are comparable (Cousteau’s ship was named The Calypso, Zissou’s is named The Belafonte, after Harry Belafonte, who excelled at making calypso music). Zissou, however, has some problems that we’ve never heard mention in connection with Jacques. He’s something of a womanizer (or, at least, he attempts to be a womanizer, but the women aren’t as cooperative as he’d like), he smokes pot, and, most importantly, his glory days seem to be behind him. As the film opens, he is unveiling his latest, unfinished film at a museum in order to get financial backing. In the film, his longtime friend (Seymour Cassel, veteran of both “Tenenbaums” and “Rushmore”) has been eaten by a previously undiscovered species of shark. Zissou wants the financial backing to track down the shark, destroy it (possibly with dynamite) and make a documentary about the process. The film does not get a favorable reaction. Shortly after the screening, Zissou meets a young man (Owen Wilson) who claims to be his son.

Soon, Zissou and the young man are on the open sea, tracking down the shark with a modest budget (most of which has been donated by his illegitimate son), equipment stolen from a longtime rival (played with droll aplomb by Jeff Goldblum), his devoted crew (which includes Willem Dafoe as the insecure Klaus and Bud Cort as the “bond company stooge”), and a very pregnant journalist writing an article that might increase his cachet of fame, but might also lay him open to world, warts and all. Let the fun begin.

Though essentially about a man finding himself very late in life (or, at the very least, rediscovering what made him great in the first place) and connecting with a son he didn’t know he had (or did he?) the film is ostensibly Wes Anderson’s version of an adventure film. Yes, it’s got a soundtrack filled with Portugese versions of David Bowie songs. Sure, it’s about family and friends and the things that really matter in life. But it’s also got pirates, dynamite, shark attacks and daring rescues. It’s got moments of true emotion and it’s got that weird, charming and bittersweet tone and affection for characters (no matter how screwed up) that sets Anderson apart from his peers and, for that matter, from most of the filmmakers in cinema history. It’s got some very adult themes, but it’s also got a childlike curiosity, wonder and zest to it. It’s almost like a Roald Dahl fantasy/adventure for grown-ups. Wes seems to make movies that are sadly lacking from today’s cineplexes: bizarre, hand-crafted confections that entertain fabulously but also manage to nourish the soul. They’re fun, but they’re also good for you. The film is bursting with a wealth of detail and care that will take a dozen or more viewings to truly appreciate (like any of Anderson’s other films).

However, it’s not quite as wonderful as it could be. I understood Anderson’s motivations for rendering the aquatic creatures with old-fashioned, stop-motion animation techniques (and the techniques are quaint, by the people who brought you the wonderful worlds of “The Nightmare Before Christmas” and “James and the Giant Peach”) but the animation doesn’t quite jibe with the rest of the picture. Another small problem I had was the film’s editing. It seems a bit jerky and jarring at times. The editing seems to find a groove and flow by the halfway point, but the first half of the film still felt like it could use a bit of tweaking and manipulation. These may be minor problems, but I noticed them enough that they disrupted my enjoyment of an otherwise wonderful picture, so they are worth noting.

Though I must also note the wealth of great performances on display here: Murray is in top form, better perhaps than I have ever seen him (and remarkably better than his over-heralded performance in last year’s “Lost in Translation”), Owen Wilson gives a fine performance that isn’t the least bit showy, Cate Blanchett does wonderful work, Anjelica Huston is magnificent with limited screen time and Willem Dafoe, in particular, is absolutely great. The musical score is eccentric but perfectly suited to the film…perhaps it’s perfect for the film because it’s so eccentric. And the script is, for the most part, fascinating. If not for the editing and the odd choice of special effects, this would be a nearly perfect movie.

As is, it’s simply one of the year’s best.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 5th, 2005 at 8:21 pm and is filed under Dale's Reviews. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.