I know this has one of the most mixed receptions for an Anderson film but I think the very qualities that lead to a mixed reception are why I like it so much. This film is Anderson at his most extreme. The deadpan, the whimsey, the manufactured reality, the discordant mise-en-scene are all turned up to 11 in this film. I didn't really appreciate Anderson's style until I saw this film-I use to greatly dislike The Royal Tenenbaums for example. So that's a big reason why I am so fond of it.

On its own terms this is odd film -I imagine many might find it too twee-but it's funny because it is so odd. There's a great silliness to this film that makes it very pleasant to stay with this world. The pathos moments-esp. Ned's fate-really work by being so serious in juxtaposed to the silliness. Mileage will differ on this point-many will find the tone swings grating.

Best of all are the design and color schemes of the film. This has such a soft visual style that is utterly whimsical. A lot of films of the aughts have harsh and overly sharp cinematography. Here the film has a pastel scheme that is both pretty and really works for the tone of the film.

I find this a hard movie to rate. Maybe a second viewing would make it easier. It's a odd film: one of these low-key black humor films which is a mixture of drama and comedy. What set this apart were a few other shocking scenes of violence, something not normally in this type of movie. For a comedy, albeit a tongue-in-cheek one, that violence doesn't seem to fit, but it makes the film all the more intriguing.

At times I was totally bored with this movie and at other times fascinated. I know one thing: this is a bizarre story! That automatically means it's a good vehicle for Bill Murray, who excels at wacky characters, event he low-key ones as he sometimes plays (i.e. Lost In Translation, The Royal Tenebaums, etc.). Speaker of the latter, this movie was written and directed by Wes Anderson, the same man who did "Tenenbaums." If you saw that, you have an idea of what you might get here, although I thought Royal Tenenbaums was far funnier.

At 118 minutes, this a bit long for what it offers. I'd like to have seen it 15 minutes shorter with a tighter script. But it does offer some good photography in addition to the strange story. This movie, as they say, is not for all tastes.

Have you ever seen a film that you expected to love but instead found yourself stumped at how bland the movie was? Well, this is certainly true for me when it comes to this movie. Considering it featured Bill Murray, I was expecting magic and a lot of laughs--the same ones I'd seen in THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO LITTLE, GROUNDHOG DAY or WHAT ABOUT BOB?. Well, I think a lot of the problem may have been that while parts of the film were good, the total package just didn't gel. So despite this film marking the return of Bud Cort and an excellent performance by Willem Defoe, it just was a big disappointment.

Murray is "Steve Zissou"--a Jacques Cousteau-like underwater explorer who is down on his luck. Most of the time, Murray played the part somewhat reminiscent of a zombie--with very little energy. I was thrilled when he "went berserk" a couple times in the movie when dealing with the pesky pirates, but these scenes only represented about 2% of the film. An interesting experiment, yes, as the film certainly is original. But, overall not terribly compelling or funny. The film could have definitely benefited from a re-write to punch up a script that just seemed to drag once too often.