User reviews

I can`t believe so many people have written so many positive comments on THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS , personally I absolutely hated this movie due to the simple reason it has a ridiculous script structure . If you`ve never seen the movie let me point out that the audience are subjected a very lengthy pre title sequence featuring character exposistion with a voice over that goes on and on . The opening credits come and go and then we`re subjected to more voice over . I can`t give a clear answer as to how long this narration lasts for but it seemed to go on for several life times . I`ve nothing against narration or voice over , indeed two of my all time favourite movies FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING and APOCALYPSE NOW feature this technique which leads me to believe that it`s handeled wrongly . Another fault of Owen Wilson`s script is the characters who are members of a very very rich family full of extremely gifted children . Is it just me or are poor little rich kids the least involving subject for a film ?

No doubt fans of THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS will counter act my criticisms by pointing out that the script was Oscar nominated . My reply to them would be so what ? The script was written by actor Owen Wilson and the academy voters are over represented by actors . Actor Colin Welland won a screenplay Oscar as did Emma Thompson and let us not forget Ben Affleck won an Oscar for writing GOOD WILL HUNTING . Likewise look at all the actors who have won Oscars for directing . If an actor writes down a shopping list and films their visit to the local supermarket they`d be in line for best screenplay and director . Come to think of it I`ve had more fun going to the shops than I had watching THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS

... so if you're a confirmed fan, "Tenenbaums" bears the hallmarks of a familiar style. Myself, I don't find it too accessible because his characters all decidedly inhabit their own particular universe. I found "Rushmore" and "The Life Aquatic" to be at the very least 'watchable' (I rate both 6/10... ) but I think the problem I had with TRT is that the two other films I mentioned had 'oddball' characters where you wouldn't expect to find them; a dysfunctional family unit is bound to have its unique members, because that's WHY they're dysfunctional! Family conflict isn't exactly a fresh theme, it's been done many times, so in the end it just felt like an excuse for the Wilsons to gather together their actor mates and get purposefully 'wacky'...

Why not try crafting some characters I can actually relate to, for a change? Anderson's films always seem far too willing to metaphorically pat themselves on the back at the earliest opportunity...

As this is an older movie, i won't waste my time too much with story line, but it's ok because this doesn't have much of a story anyway.

I don't understand all the praise this has been given, because honestly i found it poor at best.

As a comedy, it simply wasn't funny. I didn't laugh once. In fact i've found funnier thrillers and as a drama, it was slow and boring.

I get that the characters are the heart of the movie, but for me, even that doesn't work, because they are all wooden and expressionless.

The script is ok, with some human emotion thrown in, but the plot is poor too, with nothing exciting or interesting to watch. If i wanted to be bored stiff, i could have watched paint dry, instead i watched this, wish i hadn't bothered.

The thing that upset me the most about this movie was the fact that it was categorized as a comedy. When the hell was I suppose to laugh? It was like the entire movie was building up to a punch line that never happened. Even with an all star cast of comedians (Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Bill Murray, and Danny Glover), this movie ceased to make me laugh. Perhaps the man in the ticket booth had a chuckle at how much I paid to see this movie. Not only was it a poor comedy, it was also a boring drama. I wish I could somehow get those 110 min of my life back that I spent watching the movie (that which does not kill me makes me stronger). I gave the movie a 3 out of 10 only because of my respect for the actors in the movie.

I really looked forward to and wanted to like this film but it just didn't work for me. I thought the performances and acting were both mannered and flat---if that's possible---and I couldn't muster up any empathy for the characters. I couldn't believe in them, and, therefore, I couldn't care for them. Really liked the director's other two films.

I didn't like it. It was like a comic book. The characters who weren't caricatures were boring. The ones who weren't boring were caricatures. I could't find anyone in the movie to relate to. The story and the premise were basically stupid. Gene Hackman's performance, the best thing about it, wasn't that good anyway. And I am totally sick of the Wilson brothers. They have absolutely no range. They have no idea how to play anything other than their fantasies of the type of cool offbeat dudes that they wish they were in real life but probably aren't.

Everyone else in my family liked it, and I have no idea why. To me, the fact that this movie received any sort of acclaim at all is a sad commentary on the state of film goers in the 21st century.

While I realize that newer releases enjoy a bump in popularity, I cannot believe that this film is in the IMDb Top 250. It's categorized as a "comedy/drama," but the comedy parts are not funny and the dramatic parts are uninvolving. Being "quirky" is not enough to sustain a movie!

I kept thinking that it *had* to get better, there had to be *something* entertaining about this film, so I stuck it out to the very end; I was wrong. Do not be suckered in by the impressive cast; the writing doomed this film.

After watching "Rushmore" and "The Royal Tenenbaums" I've had it with Wes Anderson! And Owen Wilson's better off staying in front of the camera, because he's no use as a screenwriter. What is it about Wes Anderson's movies that critics and film buffs everywhere swoon over? There must be hypnotic rays emanating from the movie screen, because this guy seems to have as much talent as a modern artist who paints a canvas green and titles it "Grass." This movie is such a pretentious bore, so drab and lifeless. Even the all-star cast, full of great talents, can't bring life to this corpse of a film.

As far as I know, this is supposed to be a comedy. Comedy requires a setup and a punchline. This movie has no punchlines! We simply experience one quirky situation after another, and we're supposed to laugh at the mere fact that it's quirky! This is so weird! Ha ha freakin' ha! If this is the pinnacle of high-brow comedy, then bring on the gross-out flicks! The DVD should've came with a laugh track, so I would know which scenes I'm supposed to laugh at. I've seen a lot of lame comedies, but at least with most of the lame comedies I see, I know when I'm "supposed" to laugh. I mean, I can use any scene from this movie as an example. One was the scene where Luke Wilson is on the tennis court, playing a terrible game. What was the joke? He's losing! That's the joke! And then he takes off his shoes and socks on the court, as if that's supposed to add some humor. How 'bout he flings his tennis racket into the crowd? How 'bout he curses out his opponent like John McEnroe? There were some great comic opportunities in that scene, but apparently Wes Anderson and Owen Wilson don't know the first thing about writing comedy. Come on, when a person like me--an amateur screenwriter--is sitting in the audience thinking about 1,001 ways each scene could've been funnier, that's not a very good sign! Not a good sign at all!

The film's only 90 minutes, but it moves at the pace of a dying snail, so it gets more and more tedious by the minute. You know a director is conceited when he/she shoots a scene that has practically nothing to do with moving the film along, but simply shows off his ability as an "artiste." Why do we have to watch a 2-minute scene that lingers on a close-up of Luke Wilson as he shaves his head and face? The cast (amazingly) doesn't seem bored with the script and gives in spirited performances, especially Gene Hackman who really goes with the flow, but Anderson may as well have casted a bunch of apes, because there's no reason to waste the talent of A-class actors for this piece of garbage.

If I had a choice between watching "The Royal Tenenbaums" and "Corky Romano," I wouldn't know which movie to choose. But there is one thing I have to say--at least the makers of "Corky Romano" didn't intend to make a masterpiece. Anderson assumes he's making a new addition to "The Godfather Saga" and obviously the critics fell for his pretentious direction. Is this a human comedy or a farce? The characters are too wacky for it to be a human comedy and they're too dull for it to be farcical. Sure, the film's original. But the originality goes nowhere. Originality alone doesn't cut it.

For all those who found this movie hilarious, I want you to come to my house and watch it with me, so I'll observe which moments actually make you laugh and which moments I'm supposed to laugh at. 'Cause through my eyes this is just another lame comedy. So it has intelligence. So does a PBS documentary on uranium. But who the hell would wanna watch it? No matter what way you look at it, a comedy that's not funny is not a good comedy. This is not only a lousy comedy, but a lousy film altogether--in any genre.

My score: 3 (out of 10)

Wes Anderson pays attention to extraneous details and smothers his movies with cuteness. TRT hasn't evolved from the promise of "Rushmore". "Rushmore" was fun and promising but after two feature-length films, "The Royal Tanenbaums" and "Life Aquatic" he still hasn't developed past his high school autobiography. Obviously he commands a lot of star power and financing, more than is good for him. He wastes the talent. He doesn't know what to do with them, Gene Hackman, Angelica Huston, Michael Gambon and Bill Murray. Bill Murray jumped the shark (for me) in "Lost in Translation" a self-indulgent paean to Sofia Coppola's rich, spoiled and precious life. Wes Anderson falls into this category. The 3 points are for his dedication to set design and aesthetics. He clearly cares a great deal about cute details, dolphins with cameras following the boat etc. how these enhance the story and the audience experience, I don't know. But he is a professional set designer for sure. His stories and writing stinks.

Maybe Owen Wilson's idea was to present a "cocaine dream" instead of a tangible story line. The Royal Tennenbaums left me wondering what just happened. Nowhere in the story's weaving in and out of Royal Tennenbaum's life did I find a character that I actually cared for, which was the first flaw. And Royal's revelation that he's dying makes me wonder why I should care. His character has done nothing to make the audience feel endeared to him, so the news is met with more of a "hmmm" instead of an "oh no!". I left the theater laughing, but only because it was the most ridiculous thing I'd seen in a long time. And I was laughing at myself for plunking down 8 bucks to see it.

Wes Anderson directs this quirky comedy about an estranged patriarch(Gene Hackman)of a slightly neurotic family trying to finagle his way back into their lives by announcing he is suffering a terminal illness. This family of eccentrics prove to be a motley brood. Whimsical, incestuous and drug induced antics evoke just part of the substance of this intellectual comedy. An assortment of talent make up this ensemble cast featuring:Luke Wilson, Gwyneth Paltrow, Danny Glover, Anjelica Huston, Owen Wilson and Ben Stiller. And yes, the narrator is Alec Baldwin. I have yet to determine if this is bone head or funny bone comedy.

I just saw the rating of this movie here in IMDb and having a look to the cast , i decided to watch it ... what a disappointment ...

First of all i didn't understand the real plot of the movie. In my opinion everything has no sense and in addition it's not funny in any way. I was all the time waiting for the film to end or just for happening something to make me put more interest on it.

Acting is not bad, although i didn't like at all the character of Owen Wilson. Gene Hackman is quite good as well as Gwyneth Paltrow, whose role really fits on her. Bill Murray and Angelica Houston have very small roles and there's not much to say about them. And Ben Stiller... well, he'll always be a comedy actor for me, and in this movie he didn't make me laugh ...

A waste of time ... i think ...

This movie is supposed to be funny and subtle and ironic, but just doesn't make it. Everything is just a bit 'off': Gwyneth Paltrow with her charcoaled eyes, Gene Hackman with his greasy hair, etc. etc. You are left feeling uncomfortable: a story and actors with excellent potential, but an end result that is mainly boring and often embarrassing. I had high expectations of this movie since it was recommended to me by a close friend as 'excellent and really, really funny'. I made a real effort to appreciate it and even sat through it twice. Alas, I just couldn't warm to it. At every step the director seems to say: 'Aren't I funny, aren't I subtle and intellectual?' Bottom line: NOT recommended!

This film has caused a lot of comment and discussion. It seems a person either likes it or hates it. I'm in neither camp, but don't wish to sit through it again, thank you very much. Tries, and succeeds, to be different, but that's all. With a cast such as this, it should have been brilliant. Hackman won awards for his performance?? He is playing, as, for me he always does, Gene Hackman, but just dressed up rather oddly.Bill Murray should have played the part. No character development anywhere in sight. Gwyneth was wasted, Stiller played himself. Filling a movie with actors and then making it look as though they were all playing their parts in different rooms,(and in some cases, different countries.)does not work for me. It looked as if the cast were embarrassed much of the movie. Murray in particular wondering,"What am I doing in this?" My verdict? A pretentious mess. Not the worst movie ever, as someone has suggested, just a bore!!( I would give the soundtrack the thumbs up, terrific stuff.)

Correct me if I'm wrong here. Please, someone, I beg you. I'd like to see the greatness of this movie. I tried. it completely missed me.

This movie features a band of excellent actors, who give a good performance each. Gene Hackman and Anjelica Huston play their roles magnificently. So do Ben Stiller and Gwyneth Paltrow. The rest of the cast are not bad either. The editing and cinematography are very nice, and so is the soundtrack. The narrator is a nice touch too.

But one thing is missing in this movie, which is the first and most important element of a movie: A STORY. Most movies try to tell a story, which is the centerpiece of what this art tries to communicate to the audience. This film seems to try, in vain. There's no story here! It was so boring to watch, and on top of that, the dialog is so lame! I expect that's a result of trying to fill 105 minutes with something other than music.

Film making is an art. I believe this art should tell a story, not just convey a still image of a reality. For failure to complete the most important role of a movie, The Royal Tenenbaums deserves a lower grade.

I had high hopes for this film, as the cast seemed very promising - but I soon found myself falling into a stupor of utter boredom. This is one of the few films that I've actually given up on watching through to the bitter end, preferring instead to watching something more exciting (like paint drying !).

This film was a big disappointment, I'm afraid...

The cast overflows with talent, the setting rich and dysfunctional, and the situations wrought with possibilities -- so why is this movie so bad? The molasses pace, coupled with cutesy extended non-funny jokes (like the Gypsy Cabs), and the self-referential caricatures suck the life out of many scenes. The silly situations like the car crash scene at the end are devoid of higher meaning or purpose, and the results and ending all too predictable. The cast plays one-dimensional characters and there's not much depth to anyone and the scenes play out in a laissez-faire who-cares manner. This movie should have been edited to 90 minutes max.

Don't ever call this film "funny". It would be an insult to the work of Billy Wilder and Woody Allen. This film seemed to have good potential at first glance: a solid cast and a bunch of weirdo characters. But it all failed to come to anything. The supposedly interesting situations just don't happen. Just a tasteless, insipid script. I just don't feel for the characters. What's special about them is just their peculiarities. I always try to find something likeable in every movie I see, even bad ones. But this time I really get nothing from it. Not at all impressed by the soundtrack either. The songs just slow down the film. I read other reviews and my conclusion is you either love or hate this film! There's no middle ground.

What a horrible film, just horrible. How could this film get a 7.6. It had all the actors that were really funny in their past films but now coming to this, it was just horrible. We rented it and I can't believe I watched through the whole film not even puking. Why do people like this film, it was so bad. I mean I love Bill Murray and Ben Stiller but they were not funny at all. It had everybody in it. Just whatever you do, don't rent this movie. Who cares if it has a 7.6 rating, avoid it even if your a Bill Murray, Ben Stiller, or Gene Hackman fan, just don't see it at all. The only good thing I could say about this film was that it had good drama, but that's it!!!

3/10

What can you say about a comedy that's not funny? There's just nothing particularly interesting about the entire movie. The highly untalented Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson are playing their usual characters, in their usual way. Gweneth Paltrow and Luke Wilson are of no particular interest. Even Bill Murray is a stiff. He looks like Robert Fulghum, but isn't nearly as interesting.

It has the appearance of being an adapted novel. Lots of scenes that don't really make any sense and aren't necessary to drive the plot. Seems that they just needed to be thrown in somewhere.

And some unnecessary nudity just tossed in for no particular reason, except perhaps that the director wanted to look at some nekkid chicks.

I call it a three, but writing about it makes that seem generous. It's not in "Manos, The Hands of Fate" class (which actually would have been more entertaining), but it certainly was a waste of two hours and NetFlix pick.

The most important thing to note about this film is that the plot and characters lack focus, direction, and passion. By presenting such a wide mosaic of eccentric characters, any focus on a certain one is lost. All actors in this film have only about twenty minutes screen time as they try to share the lack of plot with everyone else. Every character is bereft of most emotions, and instead exists only as a specific scenario. With a few exceptions, all that was required of the actors in this movie was blank, vacant, disconnected stares, and deadpan dialogue. Through the first half of the movie I kept thinking that it was just about to get to the good stuff, but it never did. The movie has no plot direction except for in Gene Hackman's character trying to regain a place in his family, everyone else is just simply thrown at us, as if a mere character's presence was reason enough to make a movie.

You know the feeling - you've been watching a movie for 30 minutes and you're still waiting for it to start. I rented "Bottle Rocket" and thought it was kind of funny, mostly due to Owen Wilson. So I rented another by this supposed genius Wes Anderson: "Rushmore". Not very good. And now this movie. All I saw was a bunch of people doing and talking about boring things. I never was absorbed into the movie. I always knew I was watching a bunch of actors and actresses saying their lines. Why was the Ben Stiller character so angry with his Dad? Was this supposed to be funny or sad or what? I didn't care. Gwyneth Paltrow spent 95% of her time on screen silently and sullenly smoking a cigarette. Is this entertainment, or what? I've only quit watching a handful of movies in my life, but I had to fast forward through this one to see if anything interesting happens (it didn't). I guess I just don't understand the genius of Anderson.

Recommended by a fan of Wes Anderson, I was surprised to find how wildly incoherent this slice of life film is.

Not really understanding the basic grasp of how to structure itself, the film delves in and out of itself with erratic disrespect. It's always in a desperate attempt be humorous yet sincere but it ultimately feels like a troll, and at times is just disgusting.

The biggest major contributor is the unlikeable family themselves. None of them really feel connected to each in a realistic manner, and many scenes are shot with only themselves instead of interacting with each other. Also there are a lack of interesting outside influences meaning that everyone is so introverted and monologued that there are barely any interactions here concrete to actually remember.

Slow.

Boring.

Hardly a smile, let alone a laugh.

Such a great cast and such a waste of time.

If I had seen this in the theatre, or paid money to rent it, I would have been annoyed.

I expect a lot from a comedy and can't say I've enjoyed too many. They are either dumb or simply not funny. While this film was not particularly dumb, it was simply not funny.

It is not very often that I disagree with an IMDb rating, but this is one of those times. 3 out of 10