I really enjoy Stephanie Zackarek's reviews. A couple years ago I didn't like them, but they've grown on me and now I look forward to reading her take on any film, whether I plan to see it or not, and also whether I agree with her opinion or not.

I like Stephanie Zacharek's reviews. They're conversational, and they most often track with my own views on the film.

On this one, it's interesting to reflect on how fun, quirky films like The Royal Tenenbaums did well, but then were followed by some films (in my opinion, Rushmore and Napoleon Dynamite) that were too in love with themselves for being quirky, and didn't give me any laughs or emotional payoff. Now, apparently, quirky filmmakers have become conscious of being too precious, and are trying to modulate it.

Audience to quirky filmmakers: attempting to assign quirks via assembly line, or cookie-cutter, leads to a Frankenstein's Monster of a film. Self-consciously quirky equals self-conscious, period. Don't start out with a blank page and fill in your character sketches by attaching random quirks to the empty air. That gives you a bloodless movie, a smirking, self-satisfied emperor with no clothes (and again, tragically, no laughs, and no emotional grounding). Most of the characters in a memorable film or TV show don't have very strange quirks. We laugh at them, or find them emotionally credible, simply because we see how their motivations and mindset lead to their actions, whether because of the environment they were raised in, or because of their innate talents or weaknesses, or whatever makes people behave the way they do.

No more quirks for quirks' sake. Screenwriters, get to know your characters. Get to know people. Watch people.

I will probably see this movie, though; I did love the Royal Tenenbaums.

"On this one, it's interesting to reflect on how fun, quirky films like The Royal Tenenbaums did well, but then were followed by some films (in my opinion, Rushmore and Napoleon Dynamite) that were too in love with themselves for being quirky..."

Um, Rushmore came out three years before The Royal Tenenbaums. It was the naive brilliance of Rushmore that won it rave critical reviews, cult movie status, and ultimately made it possible for The Royal Tenenbaums to be made. And if there was ever a movie that was in love with being quirky, it's The Royal Tenenbaums. All of Wes Anderson's movies after Rushmore are nothing if not self-conscious.

I have to say I agree with "anonymous," in his/her response to "anonymous2's" otherwise insightful assessment of quirky-cute movies: "Royal Tennenbaums" (sp?) made me want to throw up it was so damn cute. Everything rang false. Everything. Every...last...thing. Okay, Gene Hackman was superb as always.

I worry about every offbeat "quirky" film that comes down the pike after seeing that horrid movie; most are bad. "I Heart Huckabee's" comes readily to mind. "Lovely and Amazing" was neither. Let's hope "Little Miss Sunshine," which has what looks like a perfect cast, doesn't make us all sick and disappointed. My fingers are crossed (but in a real quirky way).

>Um, Rushmore came out three years before The Royal Tenenbaums.

Yes, that's true. Excuse me. I think that seeing the Royal Tenenbaums, which I loved (yes, for Gene Hackman) spurred me to then see Rushmore, and that's why Rushmore stuck in my mind as coming after.

Quirky needn't equal sick-making. In order to pull it off, though, it needs to be unselfconscious, which requires, um, acting. (Also writing and direction.)

I'm seeing that there are different opinions about the Royal Tenenbaums. I've noticed this when I speak with other quirk-loving friends, no matter which movie we're discussing, one will love it, another will hate it. I did love Gene Hackman's turn ("you want to talk some jive?! You want to talk some jive!?"). I wonder, are there always similar differences of opinion, among those of us who like quirky but hate self-consciously quirky? Do we agree on anyone nailing the quirky, or will one person's good-quirky always be someone else's bad-quirky?

To take an example, many characters in Harold and Maude were quirky (the title characters, the recruiting officer who'd lost his arm), and I still think that movie sails, loved it. Though, of course, Harold can be said to have been purposefully written as self-consciously quirky--that was his character. But essentially, the writing, acting and direction of that movie gave us a lot of good stuff.

Looking to TV, Kramer, from Seinfeld, did very well at being quirky because he convinced us that he was unselfconscious. The Seinfeld producers once said that they purposefully cast dramatic actors on the show. I think that was a masterstroke, because when someone got angry or disgusted on Seinfeld, they really were angry or disgusted! "I heard about your behaviour at Schindler's List the other night--it was disgraceful!" All of that could have been blown, if they'd cast more jerk-off, bad actors who couldn't help acting out "you see, everybody? I get the joke too!"

And I must repeat that I agree with you , Anonymous, on Rushmore--VERY precious and full of itself, and no payoff in the form of laughs or emotional investment.

Where do we stand on Charlie Kaufman? I think he's a _genius,_ and I see everything he does. Something I love about him is that most of his characters are believable, and most of the things they do are believable, even in the midst of some very bizarre situations. For me, The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Adaptation, and Being John Malkovich were Quirk Done Right.

Heathers? Looking back on it, there is a LOT that was self-conscious in that one. At the time, I loved it though.

And what about movies like Flirting with Disaster, which have very quirky characters (OK, not the walking R Crumb characters from The Royal Tenenbaums, but if you met them in real life?), but are pretty much just regular comedy films? Will every comedy film turn out to be self-consciously quirky, if we turn the floodlights on it?