Very well executed

That was an excellent one.

best movie i've ever seen.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

The Royal Tenenbaums received Oscar recognition in one category, that for Director Wes Anderson's original screenplay. It didn't win, but no one can ever say this wasn't original.Title character Gene Hackman is the estranged patriarch of the Tenenbaum clan and his baptismal name is Royal. He was a lawyer along the lines of Clarence Darrow back in the day, but has fallen on hard times. Back in his prime he walked out on wife Angelica Huston and the children who grew up to be Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, and Gwyneth Paltrow. Now with no place to go he decides to resume the role of dad.Problem is that Huston has decided after all these she wants a husband and man she picked out is Danny Glover. As he's already lied his way into the house with a false terminal cancer story, Hackman will have to work triple overtime to accomplish his goal.If you like quirky characters than The Royal Tenenbaums will fill your bill. I can bet that players were clamoring for these roles because there's nothing ordinary in what we see of the people in this film. Any actor would love to be in this because the writer gives them so much to work with and your imagination can sore.If you like unorothodox than The Royal Tenenbaums is your film. And whatever you think the ending will be I guarantee you will be wrong.

I first saw "The Royal Tenenbaums" when it came out in the theater. It has some very funny parts, and I laughed at those. After a while though, I noticed that very few other people were laughing. I've seen the film twice since then, and while I know some of the funny scenes to watch for, with each viewing it has seemed less funny. Which leads me to conclude that the comedy of this movie is good the first time around, but it's not something that can continue to tickle one's funny bone. Or, it may be dated – funny in a culture around the turn of the 21st century, but not so much so a few years alter. After that first time, I wondered about the diverse reactions. Maybe some viewers didn't get the comedy. Some probably did, but it wasn't funny enough to make them laugh. But, there likely were others for whom some of the film got too close to home, too close for comfort. For them it wasn't funny at all. In my second and third viewings of the film, I became more aware of that. There surely are people who have had some of these experiences in their families. To them, it may not funny to watch something like they've experienced on film. Some people still may suffer or have bad memories. An adopted child whose father would embarrass her by always noting the she wasn't his "real" daughter. A self-centered, selfish father (or mother) who seldom paid attention to a son or daughter. An absent parent for much of one's life. Drug use in the family, other dysfunctional relationships. That gets to the point that the humor in this film is not the type that everyone can laugh about. It can be crass or hurtful to some. People who have grown up in highly dysfunctional families may smart at some things in this movie. The movie is about a terribly dysfunctional family. So, those who haven't seen this movie yet and may be considering it – be forewarned. For others though, there are some very funny scenes and a few instances of hilarious dialog. The cast all are quite good. Gene Hackman does a great job as the manipulative, selfish lout, Royal Tenenbaum. Anjelica Huston was exemplary as the almost dour separated Etheline Tenenbaum. The rest of the cast of mostly dysfunctional geniuses are all very good. People who are prone to despair or depression should not watch this movie. But adults with a keen sense for wit and far out humor should enjoy this movie – but probably only one time around.

So I think it is safe to say that I am not a Wes Anderson fan. I believe his bizarre take on his films can sometimes cause confusion and also give a nauseating effect on the viewer. I understand one can have an artistic approach to define yourself and separate your work from others, but I believe sometimes you have to know how your audience will react. Many film buffs love Andersons work. I don't understand why but then again whatever floats their boat. I will say one positive note about Anderson. I believe he has mastered the ability to reach into his inner creativeness and imagination to produce work that is different from anything else on a film reel. His uniqueness has reminded me of other great filmmakers like Darren Aronofsky, Quinten Tarantino, Steven Soderbergh, or Sofia Coppola. These filmmakers create an environment or Mise en Scene that gives its unique element to the film. Although I don't like the film The Royal Tenenbaums, I will give the director credit where its due. He does a well job providing the viewer with an exquisite Mise en Scene that helps give his character's complexity, depth, and personality. My character that I decided to choose is Chas Tenenbaum (played by Ben Stiller). I know a lot of people will choose Chas but he is an easy and fun character to write about. Chas Tenenbaum can easily be described by just viewing his apartment or appearance. With out hearing him speak one can already know that he is a very complex character. From the moment the film starts introducing the Tenenbaum children, you can already see what kind of a prick Chas really is. As a child his room was basically like a tax office. He had a jail style bunk flanking the wall in between large filing cabinets. Although he was a child prodigy, his ego took the best of him. His fight or flight mode was never really turned off as an adult ever since his wife had passed away. The image of his home as an adult shows the type of wealth or class that Chas embodies. His tier 1 personality shows as he is always wearing a red Adidas jumpsuit similar to what you would find in a Run-D.M.C. video. He even has his children dressing just like him with the curly hair. I see his character can have some form of narcissism being that he hates his father and its all about Chas. Ben Stiller does a fantastic job bringing the depth to life in Chas. The "daddy problems" is a vital issue that really demonstrates the mental issues that Chas has and postulates the true for of his inner character. This guy seriously has issues. I believe the colors used in the introduction scene of Chas as a child were important because the bland non colorful pastels helps set up the character's personality with out giving much details. Basically with out spelling it out for the viewer. It is similar to a horror film. When the villain is about to ill someone, the dark and ominous music plays to help give the scene its dramatic effect. Like I have previously stated on Wes Anderson as a director. Anderson loves to use the same actors in his films, like Jason Schwartzman and Bill Murray. He is not my favorite cup of tea, but his creativity is un-matched at this moment. And for that I applaud him. It is very difficult to be your own person when it comes to Hollywood. Nonetheless it is difficult to put your own image into something before it becomes "white washed" or "revised". Anderson has managed to craft his own followers and fans when it comes to his pictures. I honestly try to avoid his films. If I want to be confused I will watch Aronofsky's Requiem for a Dream or The Fountain. But to each their own.

Wes Anderson's idiosyncratic films create very individual reactions. I've had more than a few good-natured arguments about which are his best films. So the opinions below should be taken with that grain of salt.For me, while this is not quite as brilliant and original as Anderson's classic 'Rushmore', it's a terrific movie, full of wonderful performances, great cinematic flourishes, Anderson's trademark terrific use of songs as score, and lots of very funny and occasionally deeply touching moments. He continues to create deeply dysfunctional, wildly screwed characters you still care for. What 'Rushmore' did for adolescence, this does for family, wealth, and the confusing weirdness of young adulthood.It just didn't stay with me quite the same way 'Rushmore' did, and some of the Anderson techniques that were shockingly new and refreshing the first time, feel more familiar here. But this his is one of the very brightest, most original voices on the US film scene of his generation -- a film-maker who creates oddball worlds and characters that somehow you can still always relate to. This is a film well worth seeing out, and seeing more than once.