While I guess I could see how one might form that opinion, I really, really don't think that it's at all racist. Lost in Translation is probably more offensive. I also think that calling it shallow may be a result of a few too many college film classes. I really liked how after they left the airport their "baggage" was further away from them, and eventually tossed completely at the end of the film. Like you said it's a Wes Anderson film, so I would think you were expecting a story about characters healing wounded relationships more than it being a metaphor of Western culture's effect on Indian culture. One thing that's bugged me about a lot of the bad reviews is that they say it's much too typical Wes Anderson, but I think it's rather unfair to fault a director for having such a distinct style of his own.

fwiw, I don't believe makeshift is a film student, so i'm doubtful he's taken a ''few'' film classes, much less a ''few too many''. Could be totally off base though.

Maybe you're right, but if so he sure does have a commendable amount more knowledge about film terminology than most.

Shallow is hardly a film-school term...I only mentioned it cuz I thought your comment was negative. So often people make such comments, like somehow "film school" molds the mind to find mainstream comedy 'shallow'. Go to 'film school', suddenly lose your enjoyment of films. It's just so lame, and boring. I realize it was playful in either case, and it sounds like I misinterpreted anyway...just one of those things. My bad...I'll shut up now.

For clarity's sake, I still don't really know how I feel about this movie. It's so weird. I'll look out for it on dvd, tho. try again then.

On a completely different note I really hope "Zidane: A 21st Century Portrait" comes out in the USA because when I was watching it I was thinking Kypade and Makeshift would adore this film.

Random I know.

Incredibly. :O

I've never heard of the film and am not the biggest fan of soccer, but it does sound intriguing. I'd watch it, if it ever comes out on dvd or whatever.

Aw gawd, I was really hoping you weren't going to use the fucking luggage scene as an example of this movies depth! That is probably the single most obtuse, ham-fisted use of symbolism I've seen in a movie this year. It's really actually pathetic. I'm pretty sure a mentally challenged five year old could pick up on that bullshit.

The movie is racist because the Indians are being used by the three brothers around every corner - used to tote their luggage, used to satisfy them sexually, used for their spiritual enlightenment, used for humor because they do silly things with their funny little religion. The line "I couldn't save mine..." is shockingly racist and narcissistic, and it sums up the entire outlook of the movie. They were using those three boys. They saved them not because they felt an inherit urge to rescue them, but because they felt an inherit urge to justify their existence to each other.

A filmmaker having their own distinct style is not a bad thing (I think I've made that quite clear over my history here), but when their style actually starts to regress, and starts to lead to shit movies, there is a problem. Bottle Rocket, Rushmore and Tenenbaums all have synchronicity with each other. They build logically off one another, and they share aesthetic hallmarks (both visually and thematically, though there is no difference). They are three amazing movies that together build an almost impenetrable argument for auteur theory. Life Aquatic started to branch off from these three. It is more free-form, less restricted. It is an example of a filmmaker evolving his aesthetics, and it's a pretty great movie.

Darjeeling, however, is like driving into a brick wall and then reversing and hitting the brick wall again and again. Not only was there no growth (not a bad thing in of itself, despite the fact that Life Aquatic told us it was occurring), but there is regression in certain key areas.

EDIT: and kypade is correct, I've never been to a film school.

For the record, my film class comment was meant as a light jab, not a low blow. If anything, I really enjoy reading makeshift's reviews, whether I agree with them or not, if only because he seems to have an understanding of films beyong the usual plot synopsis/this actor was good/whatever everyone else says reviews on here.



See I think this is the fundamental difference in our views. You view the film as Anderson devolving and going back to basics. I view it as him, having endured the supposedly hellish shoot that was The Life Aquatic, making a more concise, streamlined story. I thought it worked, you didn't.

It starts out with a bang with the fantastic Hotel Chevalier short... Great atmosphere, great soundtrack, surprisingly great chemistry between Portman(who needs more roles away from ultra small stuff like Goya's Ghosts and My Blueberry Nights, I feel like I haven't seen her in forever) and Schwartzmen. I also liked the Darjeeling itself early on, Murray's cameo is great and the early stuff on the train manages to survive as charming Anderson material.

For me though, the main problem is that the film gets tired very quickly. Whether or not them being obnoxious is the point, I just can't handle people that grating for a film's running length. By the halfway point they're just repetitive and annoying, the Anderson-ness is just too much. Additionally, once the film loses the Darjeeling itself, the screwball captain, and his stewardess, the movie loses a lot of its fun. It's as if Anderson wants his characters to burst through the obnoxious surface and reveal themselves as secretly touching, but unlike Tenembaums, he just can't pull it off here, the task is too hard. There's no way in hell I end up caring for these people.

The movie's only 91 minutes long but it feels like 140(I was shocked when I discovered it wasn't at least 2 hours). When they rip up the tickets at the airport, it felt like Anderson was saying "Ha! You thought it was over! You have to sit through another 40 minutes, suckers!" and it made me groan. Thus I didn't really care for the Huston scenes as a result, I just wanted the movie to be done with by that point.

I don't know. It's still a well made film, but that's as far as it goes for me. I didn't really enjoy myself or laugh along with the characters, and it was one of the few movies this year I was wishing would end a lot sooner than it did.

1.5/5

PS Makeshift, I don't think the film itself is racist as much as the characters are. I mean they're clearly the ugly white Americans. In reality I thought the captain and stewardess came off pretty well, they had kind of a silly charm and the movie lost something when they were left behind. I can't really criticize a film for having a negative thinking character, that's just who they are.

7/10 -> B-

First of all, Hotel Chevalier was awkward. It had great little moments, but they didn't seem properly pieced together. I really don't see why this wasn't implemented in the movie itself, because its integral for some parts of the movie. And considering that it was required to be played before The Darjeeling Limited it just baffles me.

Considering this is a movie about spiritual finding its strange that the first half hour is so spiritless. There are great little moments, just like in Hotel Chevalier (Bill Murray cameo, Germans...), but it also suffers from being very awkward. The characters feel too offbeat and everything feels a bit too far fetched.

But then when the story is completely set up the movie picks up a bit when characters start to explore the train, the spiritual journey and themselves.

The best part for me was actually when they were kicked from The Darjeeling Limited. The movie lost probably the most interesting characters, but it finally gained all the right ingredients in comedy and tragedy that made previous Wes Anderson movies work so well and what actually makes it a Wes Anderson movie.

So what movie did you all watch? I caught a sharp, odd, moving little film that has improved each time I watched it the last week. I'm crazy about it.

Anderson outdoes himself when he ends the movie with "Les Champs Elysees." I always liked that damn song, and it's used flawlessly.

I watched the same movie you did it seems.

Yeah I totally lost it when the song started to play. It's one of my favorite songs...

I was thinking that Wes Anderson was going for a "spiritual movie" when I discovered that the film was about brothers going on a "spiritual journey," and I was right in that regard. Although the movie was never as emotionally potent as I expected from the trailers, its three leads each give surprisingly strong performances, their chemistry is strong, and the story is nice enough to go along with them. Not to mention, the opening scene was hilarious.

I'm really glad that after all the praise he's received as a director, he's still willing to make small movies like this. I thought "The Life Aquatic" was the first step in a horrible direction for his future (I thought the film itself was decent).

B+