"Rushmore" Discussion: 3/3/02 - 3/9/02

[slade]

Click here to see what this is all about.

In brief: this is a thread to discuss the technical and/or thematic merits of Rushmore.

The purpose being to foster intelligent discussion of films without resorting to "It's a piece of crap." or "It's the greatest film ever." (And so that I can gain a bit of a film education from you all.)

We'll discuss a new film each week (assuming this actually works). I'll post the film in this forum on Thursday, but please refrain from discussing until Sunday so that everyone can have a chance to watch the film before the discussion begins.

If you want to make any comments about this idea, that don't directly pertain to this movie, please make them in the thread linked above.

****SPOILER WARNING**** of course this entire thread is going to be full of spoilers.

[glossybear]

I just made my fiancee and two friends sit through Rushmore tonight!!

I love that film!!

[Indyphantom]

This is cool. I missed hearing about these discussions. Oddly, I just bid on Rushmore Criterion, but I won't have it for 3 weeks. I've seen it, but not since theatres. Good film, but I really need to see it again--I've heard it gets better and better.

[Prancer]

I rented the Criterion Collection version of the film and I was totally bored. I do want to see it again to see what it is that I missed out.

[Rogue]

I was also bored out of my mind when I watched it. But I see so much enthusiasm for the movie here that I will probably rewatch it again.

[Filmmaker]

An extremely irritating film, chock-a-block with repugnant, banal characters. Yet another film that centers around a multi-character obsession with a plain-Jane woman with no particularly interesting or compelling personality features. The script is meandering, and too self-aware of its attempts to be witty and stylistically unique. Bill Murray is the sole saving grace of the film, and his misadventures with his asinine sons are little treasures buried within the script but, otherwise, the film's cult appeal utterly escapes me. Sometimes, in the attempt to make something fresh and different from the typical Hollywood crap, all you end up creating is a newly fresh and different form of crap...

[Templar]

No offense Filmmaker but did you read Slade's description of these threads...I think we were trying to stay away from that kinda thing.

[Filmmaker]

No offense, Templar, but did you actually read my post, or just the word "crap" at the end? I listed no less than four different aspects to the film that I felt suffered, and why. My post was not simply, "It's a piece of crap", as slade warned against, or do the replies in these threads have to be a mile long to be worthwhile?

[Sartori]

Even though I don't necessarily agree with Filmmaker's less than glowing appraisal of the film, I'd have to concede that he does have the right to express his points of contention with the film. It wasn't just a trite "It was crap..." type of statement.

Personally, I thought the film was great. A perfect charm of a movie. With all the brit-pop lingering over the soundtrack it gave a certain nostalgic quality to the rebellion of youth and naivete of infatuations.

Its humor also got to me. It was witty and sharp, and everyone who spouted their respective dialogue was perfect. The delivery of lines was perfect.....especially with Jason Schwartzman's character. I especially loved the NAM play that Max put on.

Can't think of anything else to discuss right now......I might get back....

[Indyphantom]

At first I didn't particularly care for the film because the I thought the lead character was very irritating and self-centered. I did not find him charming in any way and couldn't really believe anyone could be attracted to him.

I have since grown to understand that that is kind of the point. As was the case with Thora Birch's Enid character in GHOST WORLD. Max is not meant to be endearing, he is meant to be real. The film forces us to get caught up in the life of a character who isn't just a pretty boy (Freddie Prinze Jr.) spouting cute dialogue. He is frustrated, and he lashes out with biting humor.

Also, his ambitious stage productions really hit home with me. I once did a play that had a huge musical vietnam sequence complete with gunfire, dancing prostitutes...the works. I wanted to make a movie and instead put on an elaborate play that felt more like a movie.

Bill Murray is also wonderful in the film. He's the perfect foil for the film.

I've only seen RUSHMORE once. But it has stayed with me. Can't wait to finally get my hands on the Criterion DVD.

[slade]

Mise en scene

I really enjoyed the way this movie utilized it's framing of the characters to further their situations, relationships, and simply adding the the comedic effect.

Many times the Max and Herman are shot off centered. Which further shows their unbalanced lives. What is interesting, however, is that the shots that include both of them are very well balanced, despite their size and age differences. Some of them use a symmetrical parrallelism (yes, that's right out of my film book) to increase the comedic effect (for example, near the end when they are walking down the walkway in Herman's pipe factory, both wearing hard hats and both with a pipe in hand).

I think this balanced parallelism is useful becuase it furthers the idea that these are two unbalanced individuals (hence they are fequently off-center when shot individually) who, through their quirky behavior balance each other out.

In the bedroom scene Rosemary says that Max and Herman are made for each other becuase they are both children--it kind of sums up this entire piece of the story. Max is working so hard at being a responsible grown up, that he just comes off as an overly juvenile adolescent. Herman, on the other hand, just wants to avoid/escape the responsibility of his life (i.e. wife and kids) and so, in combination with his somewhat strange personaility, acts like a child to do this (think of him hiding behind a tree spying on Rosemary, and then scurrying off after their conversation).

But, get these two odd people together, and really together so that they're working side by side (like in the first, but more particularly the third, act) instead of in competition (as they did in the second act) and they are able to help each other find peace in the world.

Story

I thought it was an interesting choice to start the movie with a dream sequence. It certainly shows Max's aspirations, and in the very next scene we are shown his comparitively dreary reality. But, I felt like it also made an alread bizarre story, even more out of touch with reality. Folloiwng the opening chapel scene when it shows Max being in, and fouding, all the school clubs, I couldn't tell if that was real, or yet another dream sequnce because it was just so weird, especially with him constantly in that blazer (which is has it's own interesting symbolisms).

Several other times throughout the movie I also wondered whether it was going to turn out to be a dream sequence or not. Again, this show is a little strange.

After I think about it I can see why they decided to start with Max's fantasies of himself (juxteposes his desire to be smart, which is what Rushmore is really about, with his reality of average intelligence, but a life filled with enthusiasm and other obvious talents), but ultimately, I felt like it hurt the story.

Filmmaker said:

"The script is meandering, and too self-aware of its attempts to be witty and stylistically unique."

I'm wondering if you can give some examples of these complaints?

[SolidSnakeASS]

Shot from Rushmore – “The Balance between Comedy and Drama”
Wes Anderson’s Rushmore is a fickle comedy, constantly hovering over the line between drama and its principle genre. In the shot, beginning at 00:17:56 and ending at 00:18:04, this feeling has been achieved masterfully, creating a sense of ironic humour despite the obviousness of a depressing overtone created by Bill Murray’s Harold Blume. The shot consists of Blume being interrupted by a small boy, who is stealing a piece of Blume’s twin sons’ birthday cake, during his attempt at solitude. Blume’s response to the child, throwing a golf ball at him, and then his return to the somber reflection he had previously been engaged in, continues Rushmore’s mix of humour and sorrow. The use of the dominate, the set, framing, lighting, angle, camera lens choice, contrast, depth of field, density, camera proxemics, character proxemics, and the soundtrack all factor in greatly in the mood and the overtones of the scene, and the theme of the film in general.
The dominate aspect of the frame is Harold Blume, who is taking up the majority of the right hand side of the frame. We are automatically drawn to him, because the editing of the film has already placed several shots of Blume, looking at his wife feeding another man a piece of cake and his subsequent ignorance of that fact, in front of this shot. We automatically expect him to do something about this, so we are drawn to what his next action will be. That action turns out to be returning to throw golf balls into the swimming pool, and continuing to delve into his depression. Blume sticks out sorely in the frame, since the middle of it is occupied by children opening birthday presents, something that most would expect to be happening in a birthday party atmosphere. He is sitting at a table by himself, smoking cigarettes and drinking booze, something most parents wouldn’t be doing at a birthday party with children present. Right to the left of Blume is his wife, and the man that she had been feeding cake to, in the background. This fact keeps the hinted adultery in front of Blume despite his hardest attempts at ignoring it. The left hand side of the frame is dominated by a child, who walks in the frame and interrupts Blume’s isolation by taking a piece of cake from his table, evoking a response of Blume flinging one of his golf balls in his direction. Blume’s throwing of the golf balls also adds to his domination of the frame, since we are concentrating on where the movement is coming from. The movement, which is his arm pushing push towards the left hand side of the frame, is another attempt to distract himself and to push away what is happening in the left hand side of the frame.
The set for the shot is Blume’s backyard, which contains the pool that the majority of the scene revolves around. Blume is sitting at a table by himself, and there is a pool between him and the rest of the party goers. Behind the pool and to the left of Blume, is his wife with the unknown male, who are sitting at a table together. To the left of them is another table, occupied by Blume’s twin sons and a large group of children clamoring around the table to see their presents. The pool takes up the majority of the frame, approximately 40% of the backyard set is water, and it creates a sense of a smooth space. With a smooth space we never know what to expect, since smooth spaces are less predictable in nature then striated ones; this adds to the unpredictable aspect of Blume’s reaction to his environment. There are also several unoccupied chairs, one near Blume and several in the back of the set in relation to Blume’s head, creating a sense of missing pieces and magnifying the sense of loneliness in Blume’s life. Blume’s table is extremely cluttered and messy, adding another smooth aspect to the shot, and in front of him is a glass full of whiskey. The whiskey is another example of Blume’s attempts to create a shield of ignorance for himself; a shield that will end up fueling his depression even farther when loses his family and friends due to his divorce, and an affair with Miss Cross. All of these subsidiary contrasts add to the depth of the framing and contain important information that reveals Blume’s family life and his personal problems.
The shot is framed using a 2.35:1 (scope) aspect ratio and is framed fairly tightly. All of the information presented in the frame is placed where the filmmaker wants it; you can tell it has been carefully composed and not just thrown together or stumbled upon. It is in closed form because everything important in the world, and in the film, is happening within the frame of the shot. The objects are placed closely together horizontally even though there is tons of information to be picked up throughout the whole frame. Vertically the shot stretches far into the depths of Blume’s yard, giving great scope into his personal surroundings. This gives the shot a huge depth of field, allowing for an increased feeling of distance between Blume and his family and their guests. The density in this shot is also important, since it accomplishes great distances between some characters and closeness between others. The only character that gets near Blume is the small boy stealing the cake, and everyone else within the frame is at a large distance from the two. There is quite a bit of background action that increases the density of the shot by giving us more movement to be drawn to inside the frame, and also presenting the idea that maybe Blume is missing something important on the other side of the pool. Blume is also placed at a third quarter turn from the audience, which creates a feeling that the audience should be looking at this shot the same way he is. The turn avoids creating a distance between the viewer and his character, instead putting us in Blume’s shoes. All of the other characters in the shot are facing the audience at a full or quarter turn, allowing the audience to face what Blume is facing, and look at the world through his eyes.
The lighting used for the shot is low contrast, with almost no shadows appearing in the frame. This lighting style adds even more to the depressing overtones in the shot, and helps solidify the style of the scene with its creation of a dampening mood. The camera is placed at Blume’s eye level, to bring the audience even closer to Blume’s world. This camera placement furthers the fact that the audience is meant to experience the shot from Blume’s perspective.
The shot uses a wide angle lens, since its focus remains constant throughout the frame. Use of a wide angle lens allows for a huge amount of detail to be presented in the shot, and Anderson accomplishes that goal excellently. The detail in the shot remains strong because of this lens, allowing for a sprawling look at Blume’s back yard. This choice of lens creates a sensation that the background could go on forever, and that its boundary helps contain all we should care about; that the frame itself is a self contained universe. The distance from the camera to the dominate object is minimal, furthering the intended closeness to Blume. The distance from the other characters to the camera is greater, reflecting the emotions of Blume’s lonliness to the audience. All of the other characters in the shot are at an intimate or personal proxemic distance to another person. Even Blume, whose goal is to remain alone, is within a personal proxemic distance to another character, the little boy. The closeness of all the characters, and Harold Blume’s forced involvement in the celebrations, adds another element to the reflection in the shot of Blume’s lack of control on his surroundings.
The soundtrack contains minimal sound effects, a lot less then most would expect from a shot of a birthday party. The only real sound effects used, other then music, are the sounds of Blume’s golf balls hitting the water. These sounds help bring the audiences attention back to the water, and highlights the distance between Blume and the rest of the characters. The main focus of the soundtrack in the shot is on the music being played, its use reflecting the depression and lonesomeness of Blume. The song being used is The Kinks’ “Nothing in This World Can Stop Me Worrying Bout That Girl,” which features a theme of adultery that is concurrent with the film. During the shot the lyrics being sung are “But I think all the time, is she true to me?” meaning the song is basically handing the feeling of the shot over to the audience. The lyrics are obviously referential to the film, and they help create an increased sense of distance between Blume and his wife. The song is an excellent addition to the sentiment of the shot, and it fits in perfectly.
The main reason that the shot is including within its scene and the film is because it completely reflects what Herman Blume considers to be the problems in his life. The problems being the distance from his family, and the fact that he can’t ever be alone are both represented in this shot. It completes it function by submerging the audience into Blume’s problems and his pain, allowing the viewer to empathize with Blume and to relate with his character.
The shot carries on the theme of the film, by continuing its shift between the genres of drama and comedy. Anderson’s use of a birthday party to explore the most depressing moments of a grown man’s life is as sad as it is ironically funny. The importance of the shot is paramount to the film, and elements of composition of a shot - from it’s dominate to its soundtrack - allow the filmmakers to prove their excellent grasp of the art of film.

[MrTony]

Snake - very impressive post! Is that for a class, or did you just cook that up for us? Either way, an excellent read.

One of the things about Rushmore that appealed to me is that, although it's kind of an outrageous story, there's no reason it couldn't happen. It's the same reason American Beauty works - it may seem crazy, but it's not half as crazy as stuff that happens every day. It's like something out of the "News of the Weird" section of your newspaper.

The use of the song "Ooh La La" by the Faces at the end is so perfect, I almost want to cry. I recently heard a version of this song by Rod Stewart (who was famously upset over not getting to sing lead on the original), and it just then hit me how reflective and world-weary the original is by comparison. An outstanding choice.

I've seen this movie twice now, and hopefully my DVD player will be back from the shop in the next couple of days, so I can watch Rushmore again before this thread is closed. I may be back...

[Indyphantom]

Snake,

that is excellent work. Note you spelled "analysis" wrong, so I thought you were off to a shaky start. However, the whole thing is very well presented and fun to read. I really can't wait to see this film again on the Criterion dvd.

[slade]

nice work SolidSnakeASS

I'm assuming that is from your class since you mentioned you had done some work on it for a class. If you have more, share please (especially if it just involves cutting and pasting). I learned a lot from your analysis.

"We automatically expect him to do something about this, so we are drawn to what his next action will be. That action turns out to be returning to throw golf balls into the swimming pool, and continuing to delve into his depression."

I had the same response. I kept expecting him to do something. ANYTHING. Instead he hucks a few more golfballs into the pool, meanders onto the diving board, and cannonballs into the pool. Once in the pool, I thought for sure he was going to start gathering up the golf balls or something. Instead he just floats there in his little cannonball. Like you pointed out--all this is very humerous, but also does an excellent job of showing his depression--balancing the comedy with the drama.


"Blume is also placed at a third quarter turn from the audience, which creates a feeling that the audience should be looking at this shot the same way he is. The turn avoids creating a distance between the viewer and his character, instead putting us in Blume’s shoes. All of the other characters in the shot are facing the audience at a full or quarter turn, allowing the audience to face what Blume is facing, and look at the world through his eyes."

I didn't pick up on this, but it makes total sense. As I think about it now I like how they did include Blume at the 3/4 turn so that we do see him and his actions (or lack thereof) rather than using a straight point of view shot. It allows us to see from his eyes, while still seeing him.

[SolidSnakeASS]

Yes, I must admit, that was indeed for a film class that I took. But I thought it was pretty good, and worthy of being shared. Thanks for all the nice comments, and I can't believe I spelt analysis wrong! Well I was sort of in a rush to get that up before I ran out the door.

I have to note though that Rushmore is perhaps my favourite film, and I never tire of seeing it. I've watched it at least 10 times and I never get sick of it. It's great to see we recognize it as a superb peice, despite certain nay-sayers, and that it has been seen by many.You don't get great stories like this anymore, it is a story about children young and old, and I can't find a single flaw in it.

Oh yeah, and Filmmaker, Rushmore makes Close Encounter of the Third Kind look like dog-food.

[AnonomusBob15]

Rushmore is by far my favorite film. For one reason. Long and behold, I have searched for a comedy without one scene of gross out over the top humor, and have finally found it. Rushmore is a gem for the people tired of teen comedies and romantic comedies with middle aged stars playing the same roles over and over. Rushmore is a film where you can watch it over and over, and not laugh any less than the previous viewing, but only laugh more.

K, I mostly love it because of the classic one-liners

"Were you in the shit?"
"What happened to the Conelli line!"
"We both have dead people in our families..."
"Did someone say my name "
"Did you hear they are cancelling Latin?"
"I'm an alternate"

damn, I could go on and on...

[Filmmaker]

Originally posted by slade:
Filmmaker said:

"The script is meandering, and too self-aware of its attempts to be witty and stylistically unique."

I'm wondering if you can give some examples of these complaints?

Unfortunately, I am a full-time worker AND full-time student, so I have neither the time nor inclination to involve myself in a lengthy dissertation on any film, much less one I have no great affections for. Additionally, it's been at least two years since I last suffered through the film, so specific highlights for criticism elude me. Suffice it to say, it is my opinion on the overall tone of the screenplay. Some people view it as genius, I see it as too self-aware and glib.

Originally posted by SolidSnakeASS:
Oh yeah, and Filmmaker, Rushmore makes Close Encounter of the Third Kind look like dog-food.



What are you trying to make me do--laugh so hard I cough up Coca-Cola through my nose?! Jesus wept...may you never get your hands on a film camera...

[Disco Stu]

Originally posted by Filmmaker
Originally posted by slade:
Filmmaker said:

"The script is meandering, and too self-aware of its attempts to be witty and stylistically unique."

I'm wondering if you can give some examples of these complaints?

Unfortunately, I am a full-time worker AND full-time student, so I have neither the time nor inclination to involve myself in a lengthy dissertation on any film, much less one I have no great affections for. Additionally, it's been at least two years since I last suffered through the film, so specific highlights for criticism elude me. Suffice it to say, it is my opinion on the overall tone of the screenplay. Some people view it as genius, I see it as too self-aware and glib.

Originally posted by SolidSnakeASS:
Oh yeah, and Filmmaker, Rushmore makes Close Encounter of the Third Kind look like dog-food.



What are you trying to make me do--laugh so hard I cough up Coca-Cola through my nose?! Jesus wept...may you never get your hands on a film camera...

I am always amused by your arguments when you resort to using the excuse of being a full time student and worker. You have brought it up on a number of occasions, and it's always when you don't feel the need to justify your argument. Not that you're not either a full time student or a worker, but you seem to have plenty of time to go into detail on other more mundane topics. I respect the fact that you probbaly would have little time for argument, but since you never demonstrate a lack of time for discussion in other topics, this seems more like an excuse than anything.

I can always understand an objection to "Rushmore" in certain ways. Some people can't deal with the fact that Max is so obnoxious. Some people think it's "weird," which I think says more about the people watching it than anything. Some people don't have the right sense of humor to gel with the type of humor Anderson and Wilson employ. Some people don't like the fact that the plot is rather scattered, and sometimes non-exisistant.

Personally I love the film for so many reasons I could hardly list them all. It's certainly the only time I've seen a film in which a 2nd grade kid was in every scene, mostly so he can be a motif. It has some of the best uses of 2.35 that I've ever seen. In some scenes, Anderson seems to be parodying the use of the wide frame, and it's excessive and unlifelike wideness (specifically, the slow motion shot when Max is turning around at the end of the Serpico performance, and he has cotton in his nose, and the shot in the trailer where Brian Cox is in the foreground and Bill Murray in the background, saying of Max "He's one of the worst students we've got"). Every little detail of the film waits to be discovered for the first time, it needs to be seen more than a few times to be fully appreciated. But the details don't shout at you, they just wait in the background, waiting for your eye to glaze over them.

Some things I couldn't explain why I find them funny. Why do I laugh when Mr. Littlejeans is laughing through the play at the end? Why is it funny the way that kid says "Um, it's a jellyfish," when Bill Murray asks him what he's painting? Why is it utterly hilarious that the motif kid is dancing by himself in the last shot? Why is it funny when the way he swims away from Bill Murray at the bottom of the pool?

One of my biggest problems with "The Royal Tennenbaums" was how much it wanted to show off. A friend of mine summed up his feelings, and he seemed to get right at the root of the problem I had as well. He said, "The Royal Tennenbaums is trying to be weird, but Rushmore was organically weird." That's the root of what is so successful about Rushmore. I believe that it is the only film I have ever seen in which each directorial decision seemed to be perfect, as if no other decision could be better than what was already chosen. Anderson is a genius at casting, writing, and musical choices. My only hope is that he doesn't fall in love with himself for the next film, which is the problem with TRT.

Oh, and Filmmaker, it might be time to watch CE3K again. The movie is still good, but its naivete is almost disturbing. Even Spielberg, in the documentary, points to a huge flaw that he can't understand 25 years later. How should we feel about a man who abandons his wife and kids (they leave him, but he barely seems to notice) to go look for a mountain he has visions of? CE3K still acheives the awe and wonder it was after, but it seems so removed from reality (and I'm not talking about believing in UFO's) at this point, as to be kind of a fairy tale for your parents.

[Filmmaker]

Originally posted by Disco Stu:
I am always amused by your arguments when you resort to using the excuse of being a full time student and worker. You have brought it up on a number of occasions, and it's always when you don't feel the need to justify your argument. Not that you're not either a full time student or a worker, but you seem to have plenty of time to go into detail on other more mundane topics. I respect the fact that you probbaly would have little time for argument, but since you never demonstrate a lack of time for discussion in other topics, this seems more like an excuse than anything.

Yes, I've used the excuse before, and shall continue to in the future, as long as it's valid. If you can show me a thread in the recent past (post June 2001) wherein I have gone into the kind of extreme, lengthy detail regarding a film that the others in this thread have, then I'll eat my shoe. I post often, yes, but not in J.R.R. Tolkien detail. ***sighs*** I guess our mutual amusement at each others' consistent and constant excuses remains solid (e.g. Disco Stu's one criticism of every film he sees as poor" "It takes itself too seriously!" ). Allow me to ask, must every opinion of mine result in a pissing contest between the two of us? I grow weary of it...

Oh, and Filmmaker, it might be time to watch CE3K again. The movie is still good, but its naivete is almost disturbing. Even Spielberg, in the documentary, points to a huge flaw that he can't understand 25 years later. How should we feel about a man who abandons his wife and kids (they leave him, but he barely seems to notice) to go look for a mountain he has visions of? CE3K still acheives the awe and wonder it was after, but it seems so removed from reality (and I'm not talking about believing in UFO's) at this point, as to be kind of a fairy tale for your parents.

Spielberg does not call it a flaw, but an area of the plot that he no longer relates to as a parent. It isn't his, my or your job to set the morality of CE3K in some kind of stone--that, along with all factors of any given work of art, must remain open to interpretation. As a young man with laser sites set on my future career, but no children at home, I still relate intimately with CE3K--that could change in the future as my life goals alter, but that doesn't minimize CE3K's value or impact any more than not enjoying Disney films the way I did as a child negates their inherent value. Your complaint is actually worthy of a good chuckle--("CE3K...seems so removed from reality...as to be kind of a fairy tale for your parents")--so now you're criticizing a film because it doesn't take itself seriously enough??? So much for your famed consistency. Better yet, don't answer that--frankly, this thread is already in danger of being derailed as it is, and the idea of butting heads with you yet again on the virtues of this film or that, when it's woefully clear that our aesthetic preferences are as different as night and day, holds all the appeal of visiting the dentist to me. This thread is about RUSHMORE--let's keep it that way, and if my sparse thoughts on the film strike you as unwarranted or invalid, I'll live. Let's move on...

[1138]

Originally posted by Disco Stu


Why do I laugh when Mr. Littlejeans is laughing through the play at the end? Why is it funny the way that kid says "Um, it's a jellyfish," when Bill Murray asks him what he's painting? Why is it utterly hilarious that the motif kid is dancing by himself in the last shot? Why is it funny when the way he swims away from Bill Murray at the bottom of the pool?

Right on! Mr. Littlejeans' laugh sounds funny and he's obviously enjoyed the play. I too love the way that kid say his line about the jellyfish.

I think one of the reasons I like Rushmore beyond the comedic elements is because it protrays a loser/nerd stroyline that's believable and honest. It's not your typical Hollywood movie where the nerd/loser/ugly duckling is some great looking actor who we're supposed to accept as sub standard. This guy is more like a real average person.

[slade]

Originally posted by 1138

Right on! Mr. Littlejeans' laugh sounds funny and he's obviously enjoyed the play. I too love the way that kid say his line about the jellyfish.

I agree. It seems to me as if the performances that Anderson got out of these actors is astounding. It is one of the best performances I've ever seen Bill Murray give. But, I don't feel real qualified to judge performances. Would others agree or disagree with me on this one? and why?

Here's my laymans perspective of why I liked the performances:
They are all very believable characters, often with unbelievable lines/situations. They pull the humor off marvelously--and again, it's humor that could've easily tanked. And, I believe that it was Jason S's first major motion picture, yet he seemed very comfortable in front of the camera--his performance didn't seemed forced at all.

[SolidSnakeASS]

Q