avik-basu1889 'Bottle Rocket' was Wes Anderson's first feature film and one can clearly see the rough, unpolished edges in this film which is somewhat expected from a first-time filmmaker. Although one can understand that the characters in the film are a bunch of individuals who are constantly plagued by a nagging feeling of inadequacy and insecurity. They are a bunch of suburban man-children who at the back of their minds are conscious of their immaturity, but at the same time, they are also reluctant to consciously make an effort to trigger any sort of growth in a mature way. Instead they think of silly and potentially self-destructive ways to find entertainment and meaning in their lives. But the problem is, the Anderson's treatment of these characters never really go beyond a broad, superficial level. The film doesn't explore or give enough information about their past to backup their character motivations in the film. Their is a romance sub-plot added involving Luke Wilson's character Anthony and a housekeeper of the motel that Anthony, Dignan and Bob were staying in, and unfortunately it feels really rushed and the romance never really goes anywhere.Anderson's style of storytelling wasn't yet as quirky and unique in 'Bottle Rocket' as it became later on. Yes there are elements like the use of slow motion, the use of music and certain visual idiosyncrasies that connects it with the subsequent films in Anderson's body of work. But for the most part, the direction and storytelling in 'Bottle Rocket' remains somewhat conventional.However, have said all that, the film still wasn't a disappointment. This is because the presence of truly witty and enjoyable humour, to some extent makes up for the lack of character depth. The subversive set-pieces, the understated dryly funny dialogue and the comic timing in the acting performances really made the film entertaining.I don't think the film is deep enough for viewers looking for a very dense, layered character piece. But just on a superficial level, there is quite a bit of fun that can be had with it due to the inherent comedy in it. Recommended.

Lee Eisenberg If you've come of age in the 21st century, then you know Wes Anderson as one of the most important indie directors. His oeuvre (Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, The Darjeeling Limited, Moonrise Kingdom, The Grand Budapest Hotel) features quirky characters, scenes with centered action, and generally unusual plots. And he tends to cast Bill Murray in supporting roles.His debut, 1996's "Bottle Rocket", is a little different. Bill Murray is absent. There are a few scenes with centered action, but the emphasis is certainly on the characters and plot. Owen and Luke Wilson play friends who plan a series of heists. I found the best part of the movie to be the whole sequence in the motel; the heists themselves came across as secondary to the events in the motel.So, while it doesn't give that much of a hint of Anderson's later movies, "Bottle Rocket" is still an enjoyable one. James Caan's character struck me as an allusion to his most famous one. And Kumar Pallana accomplished something practically unheard of: he debuted in cinema when he was pushing eighty."Tell him I love him." Ha!

Clark Nelson This film only ranks a five based on the fact that it is Wes Anderson's first film. If he were to quit directing after this movie it would be at least a three. You can tell that Wes Anderson is clearly developing his style for cinematography and not for storytelling during this film. The entire premise of the movie is awkward and hard to watch since the Wilson brothers are frequently cast in more intelligent roles. Some scenes are boring, some scenes are confusing, but every once in a while you get a cheep laugh. I believe that Bob's condescending brother is the most humorous character in the film, besides maybe Mr.Henry, but they both play supporting roles. Acting from the main characters is dry, which is to be expected with any Wes Anderson flick. If you're a hip Wes Anderson fanatic, you would probably fall head over beard for this film. If not, do yourself a favor and check out Rushmore instead.

LeonLouisRicci Rookie Director Wes Anderson Delivers a Deadpan, Dead On Arrival Movie that Fizzled at the Box Office and took Critics by Surprise. It was so Laid-Back in its Slackerness that it Suffered to make a Blip on the Radar of the Intelligentsia and Bored Casual Moviegoers to Death. Anderson is an Acquired Taste if He becomes Tasty at all. To this Day His Against the Grain Films are Talked About Intensely and Loved and Hated with Equal Enthusiasm. But in Retrospect it's Hard to Ignore a Film that Martin Scorsese called "One of the best Films of the Nineties".But Mostly Ignored it was and its Lukewarm at Best Receivership did Little to Boost the Confidence of Writer/Star Owen Wilson. But He and the Director Soldiered On because they were both Obviously Full of Self-Confidence Concerning Their Offbeat Vision of Film Comedy.This Movie is about as Inoffensive as Any Modern Comedy and it is with that Refreshing Style where it Makes its Mark. It is a Film that is Thinking all the time and Plays Out Typical Movie Stuff like Quirky Romances (that need an interpreter) and Street Level Criminals that Really should Find Another Line of Work.This is a Soft Heist Film and the Charm is in the Realness of its Characters and Their Unpretentious Take on Life. A Gaudy Jump Suit may be a Subconscious Wish Fulfillment for Dignan and He Brings His Friends Along with His Energetic Naivete. Note...If you have never seen a Wes Anderson Movie and wonder what all the fuss is about, its best to not start here. He is one of those Auteurs where it might be better to watch His Films in reverse chronological order. Makes perfect upside-down sense really.