The New Yorker (2021)

goldenhound32 said:man, what do you mean five?

The New York Times

Revisions to a Manifesto

The Oval Office

Did you forget about the bike messenger? If you ask me, I'd say it was 4. But honestly, there's a chance I missed another one during that half-hour nap I took.🍿

And look, I haven't forgotten that those things exist, just as I haven't forgotten the various absurdities going on over at the magazine headquarters, but I simply cannot compare that mess to these three prices—each of which is its own distinct entity from start to finish.

goldenhound32 said:Wait, what do you mean five?

The New York Times

Revisions to a Manifesto

The White House

Look, there’s this one segment about the newspaper itself and its editor—where Owen Wilson introduces us to the city while riding a bike—and then you have those three stories with their own subheadings. So, really, we're looking at five distinct parts, three of which actually have titles.

That movie is just pure, pretentious overindulgence.

I mean, seriously, who gave him that kind of massive budget to make this thing?

God help the poor souls $30 who wasted their money on two tickets for this mess.👎

A director whose career seems to be losing its way with every passing year—his absolute best work was actually his debut, and now he’s basically just coasting on pure aesthetics. Honestly, that visual style is the only consistent thing about his entire filmography.

I have a lot of respect for the acting, the aesthetic, the locations, and the cinematography. I also love dialogue that actually demands your full attention. But for me, this movie just feels too slow-paced.

vividmarlin11 said:this director’s career just seems to lose its way more and more as he gets older—his best work was basically his debut, and now he’s mostly just coasting on this specific aesthetic that's pretty much the only consistent thing left in his entire filmography.

Hmm, I don't think his first movie was The Kennedys, which is actually his best one.

I honestly thought this movie was beautiful, though—the first story was definitely the standout, then the third one, while the second felt kind of like the weak link.

Wes decided to take a swing at his own penchant for stylistic excess, which serves as a rather obvious example of his signature flair.

The film is fine, I suppose—visually striking enough—but isn't his animated work still his crowning achievement? Is there any point in even debating which animal he captures best?

frozenskipper12 said:The film is alright—it looks great, sure—but his best animated work still holds the crown. Pick an animal.

I caught an interview with a director of photography recently—he mentioned that after *Mr. Fox*, the CIA doesn't even bother with standard storyboards for their live-action features. Instead, they shoot the entire thing in rough claymation first, then film the actual actors to ensure everything mirrors that clay version as closely as possible.

northerncrane4 said:I caught an interview a while back with a director of photography who mentioned that after Mr. Fox, the CIA doesn't even bother with traditional storyboards for their live-action projects; instead, they shoot the entire thing in rough claymation first, then film the actual actors to ensure every frame mimics that clay aesthetic as closely as possible.

It actually makes sense when you think about it, doesn't it? Setting those scenes in stone before anything happens—isn't it far simpler to sculpt a figurine than to struggle with a drawing?

I haven't decided yet, though I feel a certain pull toward giving this another fresh viewing, something that hasn't happened in quite some time. So, I suppose I am rather satisfied, in my own way.

Grace Sanchez50 said:Actually, his debut isn't The Kennedys—it's his best work.

Sure, fair enough—but for me, Bottle Rocket still has the most soul and the most tangible characters. Once the budgets grew, he pivoted toward set design and mise-en-scène.

frozenskipper12 said:Wes decided to just poke fun at himself and that whole pretentious, self-indulgent style he's known for.

To me, it feels more like he’s making fun of us... people like us who were foolish enough to actually pay for a ticket to watch his "artistic" posturing.

Grace Sanchez50 said:Actually, his debut isn't The Kennedys, which is his best movie.

I thought this one was beautiful. The first segment was the strongest, then the third, while the second felt kind of weak.

That wasn't his debut. 🍿

It’s been a while since I’ve actually turned off a movie halfway through. To be honest, I almost shut it down during the opening credits because I thought I knew exactly where this was headed, but I really did try to push through to the end.

Visually, the thing is gorgeous—it’s stunning, really. The acting is top-tier and the characters have some genuine depth, too. But that’s where the trouble starts, because all of that combined just makes for an unwatchable experience. There isn't a single hook to grab onto, mostly because a movie shouldn't just be a showcase for camera work, set design, costumes, and acting. A film actually needs to be engaging, and this one just fails at that.
It feels like the exact opposite of a Michael Bay production; with him, you get frantic action and explosions front and center, with the plot basically just serving the spectacle. Here, it feels like everything exists solely to prove how beautiful a film can look, focusing entirely on how great the costumes, scenery, and cast can perform. At the end of the day, both styles are equally tedious and hard to sit through for me.

frozenskipper12 said:Wes decided to just poke fun at himself and that whole quirky aesthetic he’s known for.

The movie was alright. Looks great, sure, but his animated stuff is still his peak. Pick an animal.

Lady Gaga is my favorite too.

Just pretentious garbage.

What exactly counts as being pretentious?

vivideagle7 said:What exactly is pretentious about it?

Just a heads-up—before this debate goes any further—you might want to reconsider discussing a Wes Anderson film with someone whose entire brand is "Taylor Swift lies the second she steps on stage."

northerncrane4 said:Just a quick heads-up before this debate gets too heated—you might want to rethink discussing a Wes Anderson film with someone whose whole vibe is "Taylor Swift is a total fraud."

Lol.

I honestly love this level of snobbery and the blatant ad hominem attacks🤣—as if having Taylor Swift in my bio somehow disqualifies me from having an opinion on Wes Anderson movies.

Who says I don't enjoy his other work? Honestly, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Isle of Dogs, and The Grand Budapest Hotel are all top-tier for me.

This whole thing is just exhausting—it’s basically "art for art's sake" without actually saying anything meaningful.

Gary Patel said:Because—apparently—having Taylor Swift in my signature means I’ve lost all rights to have an opinion on Wes Anderson films.

I wasn't talking about having an opinion—I was talking about the discussion itself.