"The Royal Tenenbaums" is the type of dramedy that looks really appealing in the previews, and the hype about it is top-notch, and the big name cast/crew is enticing enough to make you go see it. I assume that's the trick. Because once you see the movie, you see how the previews either showed all the funny scenes or skewered them to seem funnier (in this case, both), and the hype is just that--hype, and cast and crew end up being wasted by a weak storyline and not much material to work with.
It all starts well enough, as we get to know this strange family of Tenenbaums in a nameless city, with the heartless and thoughtless father, the oblivious and obsessive mother, and their three genius children, Chas, Margot, and Richie. They all grow up physically, but not mentally, at least in Royal's case, as he claims to be terminally ill to his now estranged wife and even more estranged children. He returns to live with Etheline, only after being kicked out of the hotel suite he was living in, and the children, now depressing, aged shells of their once capable minds, come home to be with him. Throw in Etheline's new love interest, Henry, the wannabe Tenenbaum, Eli, Margot's neurologist husband Raleigh, Chas's soon-to-be carbon copy sons Ari and Uzi, and a show-stealing Indian servant named Pagoda who seems to be the only one willing to stick by Royal's side (even though he's just as willing to stab him in the back...literally), and you get a story that doesn't really manage to go much further from there.
The movie quickly side-steps the guise by which it is marketed (this pseudo-"Golden Pond" reunion of a family), and the sad excuse for a plot falls apart. We find out what really goes on, and are left to wonder, "Wow, is that all?" But no, then the story pointlessly plods around for a while to, I suppose, a climax that is supposed to change everything and conclude it all, but only seems to mess things up even more, those these people don't seem to pick up on it.
Watching "Tenenbaums", you pretty much sit there waiting to laugh yourself to tears. You walk in the theatre expecting that. But it never really happens, and more often than not, you find yourself feigning a laugh just so the one other person in the theatre who liked a certain joke won't feel so lonely, and you can pretend you got it. I was almost, strangely enough, embarrassed during the moments of dead silence when there should have been people rolling in the aisles. I thought, "Jeez, this is really sad. Nobody finds that funny--not even me?" And the moments that did evoke a laugh were not shared by all, so it was but a sporadic giggling here and there.
The drama side of the movie is more dark comedy. There's a strange subplot of incest that really isn't, legally, but is still much too uncomfortable, and the early-on tensions between Royal and Henry, and of course, the issue of Royal's illness, and his children having to face the man who was never much of a father to them, are all dealt with as light-heartedly as possible, as one would expect. But they never come across as funny. Not that Wes Anderson (director/co-writer) should have felt any inclination to make this a very serious movie, but hell, the comedy never comes through, why not try another approach?
The one thing the movie does have going for it is the sometimes great but sometimes dreary music, and a few performances. Gene Hackman as Royal is the only saving grace, because he's just a terrific actor, and given the only good role in the movie, he does a lot with it, and he's great. I would expect at least an Oscar nomination. Maybe not a win, but at least a nomination. He was worthy of the Golden Globe win. Angelica Huston is decent as Etheline; she isn't given much of a part, and only gets really one good scene, with Royal as they go for a walk in the park, and only then is she able to really get a chance to be good. Other than that, she only has a few good lines, though I blame the script more than I blame her, because she's a very capable actress. Ben Stiller is another highlight of the movie as the over-acheiver Chas, and his typical right-on Ben Stiller delivery of good lines is here. He comes away with his dignity, and I thought he did well. Luke Wilson, on the other hand, as Richie, isn't particularly memorable, and is more depressing than anything else. Gwenyth Paltrow is good as Margot, barely cracking a smile and never particularly enthused about anything. But like the character of Etheline, she isn't given enough good scenes or good lines. Paltrow has a lot of talent, and the role should have been good for her, but once again, I more blame the script for the hand she's dealt. Owen Wilson as the pointless character of Eli is actually quite annoying, probably more so than anything because he helped write this damn movie, so maybe I more don't like Wilson as a writer, but his performance is only mediocre. Danny Glover isn't given enough to do as Henry, but he comes through with a good performance, and the scene where he falls in the hole is one of the only really funny scenes in the movie, and much needed after probably a half-hour of no laughs at all. The saddest case of all is the treatment of Bill Murray in the throw-away role of Raleigh St. Claire. Murray, in my opinion, has probably one of the best comedic deliveries of most actors of his time. He's always great and he's always a riot...except here. His role is small and pointless, but he seems to keep popping up for no other reason except, I suppose, to pad the movie out. He's never given a good "Bill Murray line." He's never given a chance to use the dry wit he often uses so well. I, of course, once again, blame the script, but I think anyone else could have done this role, and not have given so wasted a performance. Kumar Pallana is great as Pagoda, and was the source of some of the only comedy in the movie, in a "Simpsons"-style "laughing at the minority" sort of way. He was much needed. Alec Baldwin narrates; I thought it was Gene Hackman the entire time.
"The Royal Tenenbaums" lacks any real plot, and there are only a handful of good scenes. I liked when Henry fell in the hole, I thought the scenes between Royal and Etheline in the park were charming there was a lot of chemistry between them there, I loved the stabbing scene, I thought that was maybe the funniest scene in the movie next to the hole scene, and I liked the much-too-quick dinner scene between the Tenenbaums. It could have been longer. Actually, there were a lot of scenes not milked for their potential. What also comes to mind is when Royal takes Margot out for ice cream. That could have been a great scene, but the only highlight of it you'll probably see in the preview, and it's not that funny in the movie.
The movie has profanity (along with a lot of pointless, inconsequential dialogue, which I suppose should be an equal warning), drug use, and unnecessary nudity which seemed to only be there for the sake of nudity, and to beef up a very short flashback scene of Margot having a lesbian encounter (believe me, it sounds more enticing than it is). The plot bobs and weaves throughout the entire running time, and the actors seem to do the same with their parts. Skip this mess.
It all starts well enough, as we get to know this strange family of Tenenbaums in a nameless city, with the heartless and thoughtless father, the oblivious and obsessive mother, and their three genius children, Chas, Margot, and Richie. They all grow up physically, but not mentally, at least in Royal's case, as he claims to be terminally ill to his now estranged wife and even more estranged children. He returns to live with Etheline, only after being kicked out of the hotel suite he was living in, and the children, now depressing, aged shells of their once capable minds, come home to be with him. Throw in Etheline's new love interest, Henry, the wannabe Tenenbaum, Eli, Margot's neurologist husband Raleigh, Chas's soon-to-be carbon copy sons Ari and Uzi, and a show-stealing Indian servant named Pagoda who seems to be the only one willing to stick by Royal's side (even though he's just as willing to stab him in the back...literally), and you get a story that doesn't really manage to go much further from there.
The movie quickly side-steps the guise by which it is marketed (this pseudo-"Golden Pond" reunion of a family), and the sad excuse for a plot falls apart. We find out what really goes on, and are left to wonder, "Wow, is that all?" But no, then the story pointlessly plods around for a while to, I suppose, a climax that is supposed to change everything and conclude it all, but only seems to mess things up even more, those these people don't seem to pick up on it.
Watching "Tenenbaums", you pretty much sit there waiting to laugh yourself to tears. You walk in the theatre expecting that. But it never really happens, and more often than not, you find yourself feigning a laugh just so the one other person in the theatre who liked a certain joke won't feel so lonely, and you can pretend you got it. I was almost, strangely enough, embarrassed during the moments of dead silence when there should have been people rolling in the aisles. I thought, "Jeez, this is really sad. Nobody finds that funny--not even me?" And the moments that did evoke a laugh were not shared by all, so it was but a sporadic giggling here and there.
The drama side of the movie is more dark comedy. There's a strange subplot of incest that really isn't, legally, but is still much too uncomfortable, and the early-on tensions between Royal and Henry, and of course, the issue of Royal's illness, and his children having to face the man who was never much of a father to them, are all dealt with as light-heartedly as possible, as one would expect. But they never come across as funny. Not that Wes Anderson (director/co-writer) should have felt any inclination to make this a very serious movie, but hell, the comedy never comes through, why not try another approach?
The one thing the movie does have going for it is the sometimes great but sometimes dreary music, and a few performances. Gene Hackman as Royal is the only saving grace, because he's just a terrific actor, and given the only good role in the movie, he does a lot with it, and he's great. I would expect at least an Oscar nomination. Maybe not a win, but at least a nomination. He was worthy of the Golden Globe win. Angelica Huston is decent as Etheline; she isn't given much of a part, and only gets really one good scene, with Royal as they go for a walk in the park, and only then is she able to really get a chance to be good. Other than that, she only has a few good lines, though I blame the script more than I blame her, because she's a very capable actress. Ben Stiller is another highlight of the movie as the over-acheiver Chas, and his typical right-on Ben Stiller delivery of good lines is here. He comes away with his dignity, and I thought he did well. Luke Wilson, on the other hand, as Richie, isn't particularly memorable, and is more depressing than anything else. Gwenyth Paltrow is good as Margot, barely cracking a smile and never particularly enthused about anything. But like the character of Etheline, she isn't given enough good scenes or good lines. Paltrow has a lot of talent, and the role should have been good for her, but once again, I more blame the script for the hand she's dealt. Owen Wilson as the pointless character of Eli is actually quite annoying, probably more so than anything because he helped write this damn movie, so maybe I more don't like Wilson as a writer, but his performance is only mediocre. Danny Glover isn't given enough to do as Henry, but he comes through with a good performance, and the scene where he falls in the hole is one of the only really funny scenes in the movie, and much needed after probably a half-hour of no laughs at all. The saddest case of all is the treatment of Bill Murray in the throw-away role of Raleigh St. Claire. Murray, in my opinion, has probably one of the best comedic deliveries of most actors of his time. He's always great and he's always a riot...except here. His role is small and pointless, but he seems to keep popping up for no other reason except, I suppose, to pad the movie out. He's never given a good "Bill Murray line." He's never given a chance to use the dry wit he often uses so well. I, of course, once again, blame the script, but I think anyone else could have done this role, and not have given so wasted a performance. Kumar Pallana is great as Pagoda, and was the source of some of the only comedy in the movie, in a "Simpsons"-style "laughing at the minority" sort of way. He was much needed. Alec Baldwin narrates; I thought it was Gene Hackman the entire time.
"The Royal Tenenbaums" lacks any real plot, and there are only a handful of good scenes. I liked when Henry fell in the hole, I thought the scenes between Royal and Etheline in the park were charming there was a lot of chemistry between them there, I loved the stabbing scene, I thought that was maybe the funniest scene in the movie next to the hole scene, and I liked the much-too-quick dinner scene between the Tenenbaums. It could have been longer. Actually, there were a lot of scenes not milked for their potential. What also comes to mind is when Royal takes Margot out for ice cream. That could have been a great scene, but the only highlight of it you'll probably see in the preview, and it's not that funny in the movie.
The movie has profanity (along with a lot of pointless, inconsequential dialogue, which I suppose should be an equal warning), drug use, and unnecessary nudity which seemed to only be there for the sake of nudity, and to beef up a very short flashback scene of Margot having a lesbian encounter (believe me, it sounds more enticing than it is). The plot bobs and weaves throughout the entire running time, and the actors seem to do the same with their parts. Skip this mess.