That’s the term Kent Jones used to describe The Life Aquatic, and after reading as he deciphered it further in his article, I agree with its overall intent. However, one thing I don’t consent with is his blame laying squarely on the shoulders of the film’s star: Bill Murray. (I believe Tabuno said something similar a little earlier.) Jones is a HUGE Anderson fan so I wasn’t shocked to read such a piece, but he was quite explicit in his remarks. In the article which was titled "Kill Bill," Jones stated that "Anderson’s films are nothing if not perfectly calibrated, and one piece of miscasting can sour the whole bowl of punch. So while Steve Zissou seems like the ultimate Bill Murray role, it is in fact about as wrong a role for him as I can imagine. As you watch scene after scene level out at Murray’s feet, you get the feeling that he may have been the first one to realize the mistake. Zissou is a role for an actor who, whether through technical skill, power of perception, or iconic power, suggests a glorious and heroic past. Murray’s is a presence with nothing but unrelieved absurdity, disenchantment and quiet withdrawal behind it -- it’s in his face, his physique, his stance, his gaze, his line readings, and his history as a comic icon."

Watching it again last night (on a newly released Criterion disc), I once again felt that Anderson didn’t quite flesh out his screenplay. The Life Aquatic’s sudden shifts in mood and tone worked against the atmosphere Anderson created during various stretches. I don’t have a big problem with the Filipino pirates, and some of other surreal touches, as after all, the film started out with the mission to track down a "Jaguar Shark." After watching the sequence involving the crew’s excursion onto the island, I realized what Jones beautifully described as a "genuinely haunting sequence," and a "tribute to Anderson’s gifts for spatial and geographical correlatives to his characters’ internal states (it’s one of the few settings in the film that doesn’t depend on Murray’s acting in order to register emotionally) and to his sharp sense of rhythm." Jones also brought up the breathtaking shot which I felt not too many others did: the one where Murray is climbing stairs to reach the station of his nemesis, it’s set against a dark stormy sky. Kent Jones’s penchant for clear and concise criticism is what sets him apart, he’s no need to impress anyone with clever wordplay.

A key event late in the film, which has already been mentioned a couple of time earlier in this thread, truly turns the film upside down. The final shot of Murray sitting alone on the sidewalk, seemingly trapped inside Anderson’s frame, does much to fetch some focus, but I think it came a bit too late. I didn’t mention the film in my "Best of 2004" list, but it’s possible that a few years from now some of the films that I did might not seem as endearing as this "exquisite failure."