Imagine that a fictional newspaper in 1970s Kansas published a regular
supplement prepared in an obscure city in France. Now, if you stop to
wonder *why* you should imagine such a thing, then Wes Anderson's THE
FRENCH DISPATCH may not be for you, as it comprises a sampling of
articles from that imaginary weekly along with other Anderson-ville odds
and ends. Like his other offerings, its visuals are both kooky and
arresting, and there's the added pastime of spotting the big names in
his cast. But, while I don't begrudge my time spent with his flick, I'd
have to call its A.D.D. charms "specialized". Somewhat recommended.

moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> Imagine that a fictional newspaper in 1970s Kansas published a regular
> supplement prepared in an obscure city in France. Now, if you stop to
> wonder *why* you should imagine such a thing, then Wes Anderson's THE
> FRENCH DISPATCH may not be for you, as it comprises a sampling of
> articles from that imaginary weekly along with other Anderson-ville odds
> and ends. Like his other offerings, its visuals are both kooky and
> arresting, and there's the added pastime of spotting the big names in
> his cast. But, while I don't begrudge my time spent with his flick, I'd
> have to call its A.D.D. charms "specialized". Somewhat recommended.
>
>

As I said way back when this was a current film:

It was just so very precious, so very mannered, so very Wes Anderson. I did
not enjoy it and I am really glad it is over and given the number of times
I considered bailing I still can’t understand why I kept watching. It was
intended, I think, to be the cinema equivalent of an edition of the New
Yorker magazine. There were long thought pieces, fine art, theater,
humorous vignettes, and even cartoons. It was an interesting effort but not
engaging and hardly entertaining.

--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog

On 9/27/2023 12:47 PM, Bill Anderson wrote:
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>> Imagine that a fictional newspaper in 1970s Kansas published a regular
>> supplement prepared in an obscure city in France. Now, if you stop to
>> wonder *why* you should imagine such a thing, then Wes Anderson's THE
>> FRENCH DISPATCH may not be for you, as it comprises a sampling of
>> articles from that imaginary weekly along with other Anderson-ville odds
>> and ends. Like his other offerings, its visuals are both kooky and
>> arresting, and there's the added pastime of spotting the big names in
>> his cast. But, while I don't begrudge my time spent with his flick, I'd
>> have to call its A.D.D. charms "specialized". Somewhat recommended.
>>
>>
>
> As I said way back when this was a current film:
>
> It was just so very precious, so very mannered, so very Wes Anderson. I did
> not enjoy it and I am really glad it is over and given the number of times
> I considered bailing I still can’t understand why I kept watching. It was
> intended, I think, to be the cinema equivalent of an edition of the New
> Yorker magazine. There were long thought pieces, fine art, theater,
> humorous vignettes, and even cartoons. It was an interesting effort but not
> engaging and hardly entertaining.

Yeah, I read your blurb (in its entirety) after I wrote mine, and
couldn't see significant points of departure worth commenting. Fwiw, I
watched tFD with someone, and about 20 minutes in we agreed that either
of us could feel free to pull the plug if their tolerance bottomed out.
So, I guess my most tangible positive comment is that neither of us did.

moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On 9/27/2023 12:47 PM, Bill Anderson wrote:
>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Imagine that a fictional newspaper in 1970s Kansas published a regular
>>> supplement prepared in an obscure city in France. Now, if you stop to
>>> wonder *why* you should imagine such a thing, then Wes Anderson's THE
>>> FRENCH DISPATCH may not be for you, as it comprises a sampling of
>>> articles from that imaginary weekly along with other Anderson-ville odds
>>> and ends. Like his other offerings, its visuals are both kooky and
>>> arresting, and there's the added pastime of spotting the big names in
>>> his cast. But, while I don't begrudge my time spent with his flick, I'd
>>> have to call its A.D.D. charms "specialized". Somewhat recommended.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> As I said way back when this was a current film:
>>
>> It was just so very precious, so very mannered, so very Wes Anderson. I did
>> not enjoy it and I am really glad it is over and given the number of times
>> I considered bailing I still can’t understand why I kept watching. It was
>> intended, I think, to be the cinema equivalent of an edition of the New
>> Yorker magazine. There were long thought pieces, fine art, theater,
>> humorous vignettes, and even cartoons. It was an interesting effort but not
>> engaging and hardly entertaining.
>
> Yeah, I read your blurb (in its entirety) after I wrote mine, and
> couldn't see significant points of departure worth commenting. Fwiw, I
> watched tFD with someone, and about 20 minutes in we agreed that either
> of us could feel free to pull the plug if their tolerance bottomed out.
> So, I guess my most tangible positive comment is that neither of us did.
>
>
Before I post my musings on a film, I generally almost always pretty much
every time assuming I remember check to see if someone has already been
there, and if I find the original post is cogent and serious I will reply
rather than proceed as though my post is uniquely insightful. I’m happy to
join a conversation rather than start one of my own. Your thoughts to the
contrary?

--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog