What’s Your Favorite Film Directed by Wes Anderson?

10.15.12 |

Movie Trivia

View Results


To see a complete list of all movie polls, click here

  • RSDA

    DON’T LIKE ANY OF HIS MOVIES. THEY ARE PRETENTIOUS AND BORING

  • BernardS.

    Excuse me for living, who is Wes Anderson ?

    • John George

      Same here. I only voted for the “Tannenbaums” because it was the only title I recognized, and also was the only film of those listed that I had ever seen. I presume Wes Anderson was the director as indicated in the poll question….?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Daisy-Brambletoes/846520385 Daisy Brambletoes

        Same here – except I did watch The Life Aquatic, and found it weird and boring.

  • Frankiedc

    I have to agree with RSDA. His movies are pretentious and boring. I remember being all excited to see The Royal Tenenbaums. The reviews were outstanding, and the cast, including Gene Hackman and Angelica Houston, was impressive.My friends and I were numbed by the whole production. We all wanted to leave early but decided to see what the critical fuss was all about.  Once again, I was reminded that many film critics are attracted to the bizarre and the dull. The best measure of a movie is to check with friends whose opinions you value, and ignore what the so called erudite critics favor.

  • Blair Kramer

    Wes Anderson’s films get a great deal of attention in film schools.  But if I were a producer,  I would hope to make films that earn profits.  Which means that Wes Anderson and I would have little to do with each other! You see, some people think that motion pictures are something more than commerce (or at least they SHOULD be something more than commerce!).  Anderson is clearly one of those people.  Unfortunately,  Wes Anderson is wrong!  I never had any use for pretense!  One need not be pretentious to make a film that is a truly great work of art.  Ever heard of “Singin’ In The Rain?!”

    • Jason fleming

      Michael Bay is that you ?

      • Blair kramer

        Hey Jason…
        Please elaborate.  It’s easy to insult someone.  If you like Wes Anderson’s films,  well,  there’s nothing wrong with that.  But I certainly didn’t write anything that was illegitimate or incorrect.  When it comes to the notion of movies as works of art,  I often use the original  “King Kong” as an example.  RKO was in dire straits in the early 30′s.  Studio head Selznick desperately needed some profitable films.  “King Kong,”  a decidedly unpretentious adventure,  ultimately saved the studio.  You may be sure that everyone involved in its production were not trying to create a “work of art.”  Of course,  they wanted to make a good,  entertaining film.  But it was a matter of economics.  The better the film,  the greater the potential profit.  We know that the original “King Kong” has long been considered a classic film.  But the fact that it has stood the test of time (nearly 80 years as of this writing) simply proves the point I made in my initial post above. Yes indeed…  “King Kong” is very much a work of art.  Much more so than any film ever made by Wes Anderson.  Basically, it’s the best examole of the fact that,  over time, a given film may well prove to be a work of art.  But no matter what the film maker may have intended,  it NEVER starts out that way!   

        • Jason fleming

          I love the original King Kong but I don’t consider it a work of art. It is a very good film but that’s it. As for your last point I’d say Citizen Kane was designed to be a work of art and promoted as such from the very beginning. An if filmmaking is only a matter of economics than Michael Bay is the perfect example of that kind of thinking . A few of his films are entertaining in a so bad there good kind of way the rest are just so bad.

          • Blair kramer

            The original “King Kong” isn’t a work of art?!  Really?!  Wow!  I NEVER heard that before!  And by the way…  Orson Wells may well have been trying to make a “work of art” when he made “Citizen Kane,”  but I was simply trying to say that the public must embrace a film before it is viewed as a true work of art (“classic” essentially means the same as “work of art”).  Ed Wood undoubtedly thought he was making works of art!  The only reason “Citizen Kane” is considered a classic and a work of art is because critics and fans came to agree with Orson Wells’ intentions. As I say… It doesn’t matter what the film maker may have intended (which is to say:  Orson Wells may well have thought he was creating a work of art when he made “Citizen kane”), but NO film EVER truly starts out as a genuine work of art!

          • Jason fleming

            It DOES matter what the film maker intended that’s what separates an Artist from a craftsman. It’s what separates Alfred Hitchcock from Herbert I Leeds or Eugene Forde. As for Wes Anderson’s films they definitely are an acquired taste but as I’ve learned as I’ve gotten older most of the best things are.

          • Blair kramer

            I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.  Many people think they are artists when in fact they are not.  Many people think they create works of art when in fact they do not.  I mentioned Ed Wood.  In his case,  it certainly didn’t matter one whit what he may have intended. Regarding his films,  I said that he thought he was making works of art.  Of course,  no matter what he believed,  he plainly did no such thing.  I suppose the question is,  when it comes to films, what makes a film a “work of art?’  I submit that it must be more than the mere fact the film actually got made.  It must be more than the intentions, pretentious or otherwise,  of the people who made it.  Bottom line:  It only becomes a workd of art when the public ultimately embraces it.  When it becomes a “classic” film,  then, and only then,  does it become a work of art.  Ergo:  The original “King Kong” very definitely is an obvious work of art.

          • Jason fleming

            The public has embraced Michael Bay’s transformer films but they are not art never will be. Some of the best films I ever saw never made a dime at the box office and some of the worst were blockbusters.

          • Blair kramer

            When a film becomes a work of art,  a “classic” as it were, It means that the public has embraced it over a good deal of time. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a success when it was released.  And “Transformers” isn’t a work of art merely beacause it earned a big profit.  Is it a classic?  No.  Will it become a classic?  No.  Ergo: it is not, and never will be considered,  a “work of art.”  That’s because it won’t stand the test of time.  A number of great films from the past that didn’t earn a profit are now considered classic works of art specifically because the public has embraced them.  Which obviously means:  When he set about to make his film, it doesn’t matter one whit whether the film maker intended to earn a profit, create a work of art, or both. Once again I say:  If a film is ever to be considered a genuine work of art,  a “classic,”  It must ultimately stand the test of time! 

          • Wayne P.

            Hey, guys…hold on a minute…where does this debate leave “Plan 9 From Outer Space”?  I know weve been over this topic before: quality vs. box office and/or classic work of art vs. money making machine that was panned, but the cult fave status of this so bad its good clunker has elevated the poor to the status of rich (as in thats what it is, in more ways than one!) and has for a bit.

            Truly, beauty lies in the eyes of the many beholders and there are minimum quality standards to judge by but theyre still subjective-not objective-regarding most major art forms (as opposed to the sciences, which submit themselves to objective analysis much better); we do know what greatness is in film when we see it, and consequently its opposite, do we not? But, its still hard to convince someone who disagrees with the consensus opinion, in good faith!

            I like what Oz Rob said too, above, in that one could view film as art “moving pictures” was what the early films were first called & its not something thats frozen in time…it lives on for different audiences to interpret it again; much like music, photography, sculpture and ‘real’ art’ (paintings) do.

          • Blair kramer

            Of course you’re right, Wayne.  I don’t disagree with you regarding anything you wrote except for one thing… PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE is embraced by a tiny minority of movie geeks precisely because it IS the worst movie EVER made!  We like it ‘cuz it’s so plainly God-awful!  But we ARE, as I say, a tiny minority.  And we certainly recognize the fact that PLAN NINE is NOT a work of art!  The movie going public at large certainly has not embraced it!  Nor are they ever going to.  And since the overwhelming majority of the public at large refuses to sit through such incredible crap, well… I’m simply trying to say that it is not an undying classic in the minds of most people!  And to say the least, they’re absolutely right!  Therefore, obviously, PLAN NINE (and every other film directed by Ed Wood) sure as Hell is NOT a work of art!

          • Wayne P.

            Gotcha…I, for one, think the Mona Lisa is pretty ugly (the girl, not the portrait) but at least poor Ed Wood put some stock footage of the great Bela Lugosi in his picture…alas, that couldnt save it from the dustbin of history…but at least we know its there…so, he made a ‘name’ for himself, just not a very good one…if we didnt have bad works of art, the good ones might not look anything more than ordinary since comparing wins the day!

          • OZ ROB

            ” When Art can dramatize and hypnotize,entertain, educate, inspire and reveal,grip imagination and convey a sense of reality, play sacred emotions and interplay blinding colors that is Art in its purest form and that form is the film.”..Sam Fuller..

          • Blair kramer

            Regarding Sam Fuller…

            That quote could actually apply to EVERY movie EVER made,  including the work of Ed Wood and Michael Bay! And in fact,  Mr. Fuller probably DID mean to suggest that it truly applies to every movie ever made!  Well…  Assuming my interpretation of the quote is correct, I’m sorry but I have no choice but to vehemently disagree with it!  But more than that,  let us not forget the fact that it’s just ONE person’s viewpoint! 

          • OZ ROB

            From Funk & Wagnells.
            .ART,,” The skillful systematic arrangement or adaption of means for the attainment of some end, especially by human endeavor..works thus created.”.

          • Blair kramer

            OZ ROB…
            It may well be a definition of the word “art” in a dictionary,  but it’s much too simplistic. The work of a 3 year old with a crayon perfectly fits that very thin definition!  It’s nice that the kid tried his level best, but his work will not end up in an art museum!  The problem is that there is no legitimate way to define what truly constitutes “art.”  Well…  To MY mind,  whatever ART may be,  it’s surely more than the fact that someone made a movie…  ANY movie… or a kid did a drawing with crayons! 

  • http://www.facebook.com/lperiu Lorenzo A. Periu

    I think he’s the king of the boring movies of all times.

  • Ron

    Just like my normal voting patterns.

    None of the above.

  • http://twitter.com/Bryankr Bryan Ruffin

    Sorry, guys. This one is going to have to pass me by. Not a single movie on the list!