I liked it a lot. Like others here, I rarely laughed out loud, but I found the film to be quirkily amusing and genuinely fascinating all the way through.
I was a bit disappointed. It never quite gelled for me. It played too farcical to take seriously and too seriously to take as a farce. It was in that undefined zone in between for me.
My best moment came after the movie, when I realized that Bud Cort (Harold of “Harold and Maude” fame) played the guy from the bank who got kidnapped by the pirates.
Holy crap, that was him, wasn’t it?
My friends love the work of Wes Anderson. So I went to see this.
I don’t agree with my friends.
SPOILERS TO FOLLOW:
Question:
What was the significance of the Dolphin on the flag with the “K” beneath? Willem Dafoe’s character Klaus was elated when Ned finally “got it”. Am I missing something, or is this just supposed to be a weird little aside that we’re not suposed to necessarily understand? Does Klaus sleep with the fishes or something?
I’m feeling a little whooshed…
I don’t think it was being associated with the dolphin specifically that elated him. Klaus thought of himself as Steve’s son, but (because Steve is a self-absorbed prick) never got any sort reciprication on that feeling. When Ned shows up, and Steve starts trying to act like a father to him, he became jealous. Ned incorporating Klaus into the flag made him feel “officially” part of the family, and Ned became, not a rival, but a brother to Klaus, at least in Klaus’ mind.
Anyway, I loved the shit out of this film. It was the funniest comedy I’ve ever seen that didn’t contiain any actual jokes. Steve Zissou was a brilliant character. Here’s this guy whose driving obsession in life is to have people like and admire him. Because of that, he’s in this slough of despond because his nature documentaries aren’t as succesful as they used to be. And yet, when he does something genuinely, amazingly heroic (fighting off the pirate attack singlehandedly) he seems totally unaware of the nature of his actions. He never tries to milk that for any sort of acclaim or celebrity. He never brags about it, or tries to use it to get Cate Blanchett’s character into his bed, or even mentions it to the rest of the crew unless it has some direct bearing on what they’re doing. The same with rescuing the Bond Stooge.
I also don’t think the issue of Ned’s paternity was actually settled, despite what his wife said about him shooting blanks. While she was, quite clearly, the “brains of team Zissou,” let’s face it: that doesn’t say a hell of a lot. The way she delivers the news about Steve’s infertility makes me question her conclusions. She says something like, “I’m a scientist, so I know these things.” Huh? What sort of scientist? What’s your degree in? Is it related to human fertility, or even human biology, in any way? And what the hell does spending so much time in the water have to do with it? Because nothing else is done with that scene, because there’s no resolution to the plot line about Ned’s patronage, I think that scene was included not to provide “the truth,” but to keep the issue cloudy.
Also, Klaus rocks my world. “Not if I don’t see you first!” Hee!
Thanks, Miller.
I pretty much assumed as much, but thought at the time that it seemed a little odd.
I, too, loved this movie. It’s no Rushmore but it was a great two hours of entertainment.
It would seem that many of the people who hated it don’t like Wes Anderson movies to begin with. Which begs the question why they went in the first place.
To make a comparison: My mother hates chinese food. Can’t stand to even have it in her house. Consequently she’s the last person I’d ask to review a Chinese restaurant for me.
Good movie, but not Anderson’s best. Rushmore was much better.
I think I agree with both of vibrotronica’s points, particularly the idea that the movie could have benefitted from Owen Wilson’s writing. I am not a big fan of Noah Baumbauch (I hated Kicking and Screaming), so I am inclined to suspect that it was his input bringing this film down.
I also like vibrotronica’s idea that the film might have benefited from a more over-the-top Murray performance. Murray seems to be in a groove of playing basically the same beaten-down character in his last four or five movies. That has worked pretty well in the prior films, but I agree that this role called for a little more oomph, and (dare I say it?) zaniness.
I should disclose that my moviegoing experience was dampened somewhat by the forced laugh of an art-house movie patron seated behind me. Every mildly amusing moment in the film was met with loud guffaws from this fellow, who was seemingly determined to prove to the entire audience that he “got” Anderson’s humor.
To elaborate a bit, I would have preferred to see a Steve Zissou not despondent because of his recent failures, but indomitable in spite of his failures. Maybe even a little arrogantly oblivious to his failures.
I would think that Mrs. Zissou would have a good idea if Steve “shot blanks” because they have a talk about why they didn’t have kids. Steve says that she was too old and she responds that she was only 34 when they married.
I am very glad I saw it.
I would not recommend it for everyone I knew – unlike** Bob T’s ** friends I would be very discriminating about who I would point towards this one – even then, I know it has every chance to get me the call: “You owe me $8.50 and 180 minutes of my life back Jimmmy” Fair enough, I know it is not everyone’s cup of tea. And That is OK (mighty big of you Jimmmy!) and why I would recommend a multiplex to a group of people going out.
Again though, flawed it was, still to me it was probably the top 10 films I have seen in the past year as far as moving me : IMO I think it is worthwhile
One peice I found esp. good
Murray falls down the steps and says basically is it rolling? Fine let them see me real this time just an old fool running around
That and “Klaus, Age 36 photographer” & the whole cheesy 1967-1981 feel to the thing which at times was very well done.
Hmm. Did you yell “cite?” 
I have one other question.
In the sub, Cate Blanchett says “in 12 years he’ll be 11 and a half” about her baby. Why does she say that? What else will happen in 12 years?
I think the number 12 was just arbitrarily chosen.
Honest, I really tried to like this movie. I thought parts of it were good, but I just didn’t like it as much as I hoped I would.
In twelve years her baby will be the same age that Ned was when he wrote the letter to Steve Zissou.
What I’m wondering is-- in the “shooting blanks” scene, after that conversation is over, the camera pulls back and we see Ned standing outside the window of the room, listening to the guy play guitar. Are we meant to conclude that Ned overheard this conversation? Also, just because Zissou was infertile at the time he married Eleanor, that doesn’t automatically mean he was infertile his entire life-- so there is still SOME chance that Ned could be his biological son.
Yep.
He was also “John Doe Jersey” (aka God) in Dogma.
He seems to have made a nice career for himself as a character actor. I especially get a chuckle out of the time he billed himself as Lord Hienrich ‘Binky’ Alcoa III, instead of Bud Cort.
I just saw this movie over the weekend on DVD, and I loved it. I agree Murray could have played Steve Zissou as more of a comedic/ironic/brash character, like Pete Venkman in Ghostbusters or any of his earlier comedy roles, but his quiet portrayal worked too. The cast was great, and the group scene in the sub was really powerful and touching. I loved Royal Tenenbaums as well, even though I disliked Rushmore and Bottle Rocket. Maybe I should give them another chance…
Yeah, that Will Ferrell guy cracks me up too.
I bought the DVD (of course), and I must say I enjoyed the movie more on the second viewing. I still haven’t had time to watch the extras, though, and I’m looking forward to it.