The Life Aquatic is a film that seems to either be loved or hated, which is mostly due to Wes Anderson's meticulously arranged world. There doesn't seem to be any detail that he doesn't have some elaborate backstory for, and while that is interesting, if it is too apparent it can kill a film. Life aquatic walked the line.
The first review focused mostly on the complex web of relationships, accidentally built by the characters, especially the relationship between steve and the man who might be his son. I think relationships are a good thing to look at when it comes to the Life Aquatic because most of Anderson's charm is shown through how he has characters interact, while the cinematography is important, the life aquatic is an emotional, relational movie. Ultimately the movie is an emotional journey for the main characters, and the easiest way to chart that journey is how they interact with each other.
The second review briefly touches on the relational side of the film, but spends most of its time on the style of shooting. The life aquatic is essentially a series of very long, and very static shots, which fits the feel of the film. Being out at sea is overwhelming, but this style of shooting forces the viewer to appreciate small details or Zissou's ship, and the quirky creatures and colors. The 2nd reviewer also mentioned how 'The life Aquatic' is similar in style to many other of Anderson's films, I think this is an important thing to notice. Obviously different directors are going to put their own twist on just about every story, but Anderson's seem to run dangerously parallel. He even uses many of the same actors, such as Bill Murray or Owen Wilson. Creating a distinctive style is one thing, but wearing that style out is another.
The third reviewer answers many peoples doubts about the unreal feeling world that Anderson created, saying that it was an intentional choice, so that the complex relationships and emotions between characters wouldn't be lost in rationality. He talks about Anderson's characters being forgivably flawed, a important detail the first two reviewers missed. Everyone has some amount of scars, some deep, some minor. Anderson uses these hurts as a vehicle to carry his awkward humor and develop these complex relationships even further. The third reviewer disliked the few action scenes in the film, and I would have to disagree, while Wes Anderson is certainly not an action director, the action shots or oddly calming, loveably awkward.
The fourth review is ripe with language about the mood, and shifts of the film, another factor the previous three forgot to mention. It explores how a comedy can be as full of death and pain as 'The Life Aquatic' is. The fourth reviewer almost has a tone of exasperation due to the unreal tone of the movie. Obviously a fan of Anderson's previous films, the reviewer seems detached from the life aquatic.
The fifth review is the most negative of all, lambasting the film as unrealistic, emotionally, relationally, in generally all aspects, the only concession the writer makes is that it is funny in certain points, but on the whole a unrealistic, botch of a film.
I agree with just about all of the reviewers in some way or form. I seemed to find less flaws about the film as they did, but then again I am more passive in my movie watching and less likely to catch a detail that a professional film reviewer would catch. On the whole I thought 'The Life Aquatic"'s flaws far outweighed its shortcomings, I thought Bill Murray fit his role fantastically and helped to give the film its tragically awkward humor.
-Mark
