User reviews

Having seen many Wes Anderson films before this one, it's harder to appreciate how fresh and original Rushmore was in 1998. That being said, I can still appreciate the great characters, idiosyncratic style, and fabulous soundtrack. Bill Murray owes Anderson a debt of gratitude for reviving his career and Anderson owes Murray for bringing some heavyweight comedic talent to his film and putting him on the map. Rushmore is definitely weird, but ultimately sweet and rewarding.

Wes Anderson's first big success came with "Rushmore," released in 1998.

And with approval I can say that it is a funny movie. With characters like Max Fischer (played by Jason Schwartzman) or Herman Blume (played by Bill Murray), it features two unique and compelling characters. They made me really laugh several times. Especially in the first half of Max with subliminal jokes.

It's an unusual plot. Sometimes with humor, sometimes with full seriousness, about love and friendship to ambition and passion. Although the plot does not always follow the same direction and digresses from time to time, nevertheless, development in character and plot can be seen.

It is a film of the classic kind. Anderson's unique film style as in "Grand Budapest Hotel" or other films is not yet pronounced. Nevertheless, the film is produced in a high quality.

Max Fischer (Jason Schwartzman) is an odd friendless teen at a private school with lots of useless extracurricular activities. He get put on academic probation, and falls obsessively in love with elementary teacher Miss Cross (Olivia Williams). He befriends an equally odd wealthy Herman Blume (Bill Murray), the owner of a pipe company. She dates Dr. Peter Flynn (Luke Wilson) which raises the ire of Max. Then Herman becomes infatuated with the lovely teacher and Max gets kicked out of private school.

These are truly uncompromisingly odd characters. They are a quirky unconventional group. They are not immediately hilarious but funny in how wacky Schwartzman gets. The dialog is sharp with a lot of unusual Wes Anderson takes. Bill Murray extends his range starting an acting relationship with Wes. It's a wonderful move forward for Wes and friends.

Wes Anderson's Rushmore is a movie full of everything that modern day cinematic crap movies lack; dry humor, unique writing, music that makes a scene unforgettable, and real heart. I feel as though Rushmore is cinematic excellence, Max Fischer is the perfectly flawed yet absolutely brilliant character who tries to find his place in the world, whether it's by engrossing himself in extracurricular activities or pretending he's the son of a neurosurgeon. All of the characters are finely tuned, Herman Blume is a successful man who feels worthless, Miss Cross is a brilliant woman who feels only sorrow because of the loss of her husband. But it is their flaws that make them so wonderful, they aren't boxed into labeled packages, they are raw and real human beings who are just trying to survive. This movie is about, as Max says, finding out what you love and doing it for the rest of your life.

The camera angles in this film are interesting, connecting you to the environment and the characters. Wes Anderson picks the perfect music for each scene, especially for the heartbreaking scene at the end when Miss Cross and Max are dancing to the Faces "Ooh la la." But, what's most brilliant about Rushmore is how it makes you feel; pessimistic yet hopeful, sad yet joyful, confused yet clear-minded. A good movie makes you think but a great movie changes your perspective on the world and this is what Anderson has done. To quote Cousteau, as Miss Cross did in the Diving for Sunken Treasure book, "When one man, for whatever reason, has the opportunity to lead an extraordinary life he has no right to keep it to himself," and I'm glad that Wes Anderson created such an extraordinary movie and shared it with us all.

Rushmore was the first Wes Anderson film I saw, and I didn't think much of it the first time. I used to think that Royal Tenenbaums was Anderson's first good film. I thought Bottle Rocket wore its rookie status on its sleeve; I thought Rushmore was flawed; and I thought Tenenbaums finally showed that Anderson had honed his craft and he would start making great films. I then re-watched Tenenbaums and found it to be even more satisfying on additional viewings. I realized that Anderson had actually crafted one of those rare pieces of cinema that reveals itself more and more upon repeat viewings. So I of course decided to give Rushmore a second look.

Now that I've had a chance to see the DVD, I've had a much different experience viewing the film. Perhaps because I saw it on Pan and Scan VHS previously? Or perhaps because Anderson's vision requires an adjustment period?

Some people will never like Anderson's films. They simply will not appeal to those out there who want clichéd Hollywood fodder. Some people will love Anderson's films from the moment they see them. Others, like myself, will need to see the films more than once to truly appreciate them. Anderson breaks convention in ways no one has done before - One has to understand that his films are deep where most films are shallow, and shallow where most films are deep. This will throw A LOT of people off, as evidenced by many of the comments on the message boards. Anderson's films begin where others end. In Rushmore, we see Max's fall from grace, not his climb up to become head of every club in his school. In Tenenbaums, we see the aftermath of the child prodigies, not their glory years. Again, this will throw a lot of people off, and indeed I heard this criticism of Tenenbaums quite a lot. Anderson constructs the world of his films around a cinema storybook. They are episodic, told in chapters. Some will find Anderson at first glance to be a rather egotistical filmmaker, as I once did. However, upon second glance, you can begin to see the rich text woven deeper in the films that might be hidden beneath quirkiness or drastic breaks from convention. The first time I saw Rushmore, I felt shock, embarrassment and confusion (Mostly at Max and Rosemary's bizarre interaction). I was lost and unfamiliar with this world Anderson has created. The second time I saw the film I felt Passion, Love, Tragedy and ultimate Redemption. I found the heart in Anderson's film.

If you felt Rushmore was not all it could have been the first time you saw it, please give it another chance. You'll find which side you fall on.

One of the greatest films ever? I don't think that's an understatement, and I'm not just saying it cause I'm a Bill Murray fan and he happens to be in it. Granted, he brings to the movie his usual subtle quirkiness, but that humor isn't out of line with the general mood of the film. The whole thing is seriously funny and somehow seriously real, but at the same time doesn't always take itself seriously. Seriously. The idea of the movie doesn't come off sounding like a very captivating plot: high school geek and middle-aged millionaire fall in love with the same first grade teacher. Not exactly material for a high-grossing box office hit. But I don't think plot necessarily matters when it comes to making a quality film. It has a fantastic script, believable character development, and top-notch acting, and that's what counts in making a memorable film. Why do we love Rushmore? Max and Mr. Blume are the same person, Mr. Blume is just older and wealthier. They are both creative, romantic characters whose motives are ultimately selfish. My guess is if you appreciate this film, it's probably because you're the same way. This movie is about us. We are the boys who do everything we want to and nothing we're supposed to. The ones who go to college and get by on as little effort as possible, but somehow still pull through. At one point or another we all believed we could make our fantasies a reality, and watching this film makes us optimistic about those things again.

Also, I don't think a soundtrack makes a film, but it can certainly help set the mood. Yes, I have to agree with the other commenters for Rushmore: great soundtrack. But you already know that and it's been said a hundred times, so I think I'll just leave it at that and not beat it into the ground any more than it already has.

Right. Good movie, watch it if you haven't yet.

Ok, presumably anyone reading this has not seen this movie. DON'T. I don't care that the 6 reviewers in Entertainment Weekly gave it an average of B+. I don't care that 70% of the people voting on imbd prior to me gave it a 9 or 10. I don't care that the person who went with me gave it an 8. I DON'T CARE!

And, that is the problem. I didn't care about the characters in this movie. You know how a movie establishes A and then B builds on A and then C builds on B, etc. Logical. Well, this movie is all over the map. It was chronological, assuming you can look past the leaves being gone in October, but bright green at Christmas. Nevertheless, it attempted to give a chronological account. However, the problem was that what happened from scene to scene had little bearing on any prior or future scene. It was just a series of half-hearted skits loosely related.

I knew the movie was 93 minutes before I went in, but I would have bet the house that it was a misprint. When I got out and looked at a clock, I couldn't believe it had only been 93 minutes. Does that tell you anything?

It is quirky and off beat. The lead character is very unusual and strange. That is a good start. But, no script, horrible editing, few laughs (was this a comedy?), no genuine romance, and no likeable characters left me feeling incredibly empty. I will forget this movie before I'm done typing this review.

I think if you're looking for a straight up comedy, you'll be disappointed. This is not an easily classifiable film, but one that I love for its unique spin on some interesting characters. I especially like the fact that Max is not completely lovable, but in the end you root for him anyway. I found all the various reconciliations quite touching, and there's an interesting emphasis on friendships between people with lots of differences. Max's sidekick is younger than him, his crush is on a teacher much older, his friendship with Bill Murray's character who could be his father. Lots of heart here.

Wes Anderson's films are confusing, strange and seemingly pointless. They feature EXTREMELY interesting characters--folks who are very, very unique but strange. As far as the plots in many of these films go, they really seem unimportant--like the film is more a platform for a character study than a traditional film plot. This is not necessarily a criticism--more an observation. And, if you don't mind these sort of meandering films, then by all means see "Rushmore".

"Rushmore" is a character study of an ultra-bizarre high school student who is probably nothing like any living person. Jason Schwartzman plays Max--a seriously strange guy who is impossible to adequately describe or classify--though he is really creepy and becomes a stalker. He is super-involved with a zillion school activities and clubs which he started, yet his grades are abominable. He seems like a nice kid at times, but later seems emotionally disturbed and potentially dangerous. He's also thoughtful and nice and yet incredibly thoughtless and a jerk. Do these combinations make sense? The same could be said, to a lesser degree for the other characters--as they often behave inconsistently and are confusing.

So did I like the film? Well, parts of the film were good and I enjoyed them. But the plot just left me very, very cold--as did the extremely deadpan performances (something typical of an Anderson film). My advice is to first see an Anderson film with a more traditional style and plot. While "Moonrise Kingdom" certainly isn't conventional, compared to all his other films, it really is! Try it and if you like it, then try "The Royal Tenenbaums" and THEN "Rushmore". And, if you are really a fan, by all means try "Bottle Rocket" and the rest. But start slowly...your brain will thank you for this!

This is a love it or hate it kind of movie. I've watched this movie with people with a like-minded sense of humor and they always have a polarized reaction to it. Love it or hate it. Personally, it's in my top 10 movies. Max Fischer is the quintessential oddball kid. A phenom of extracurricular activities but still gets bad grades. He lacks social skills yet is bold enough to say what's on his mind. The genius of this film is how Anderson writes dialogue for his characters as adults but has kids saying the lines. Dirk steals the scenes as he confronts Bill Murray and spits on his car, plays a gun touting nun in Max's version of "Serpico" and is the cigarette smoking point man in the final play. Anderson has a great talent for having his characters be odd, yet still plausible. He can really balance that mix, yet still tell a story from his skewed reality. I hope I'm making sense because I just had six shots of whiskey and two Benydril and am nodding off. LOL. Anyway, this movie is about the pain of growing up, the pain of loneliness, the happiness of friendship, the ugliness that we are all capable of and ultimately for Max, redemption.

The scene where Max grabs a hold of the yellow kite and starts to get it all back together is great. Back dropped by Cat Steven's "The Wind", it's a wonderful meeting of film and music. Anderson has a knack for that. Great soundtrack all around. The closing scene is equally terrific. If you hate this movie, trust me, I understand...I hated it too. It wasn't until I saw it a second time that I saw it in a different light. It's a pretty special movie about growing up and forgiveness. If you happen to rent this, try to get the Criterion Edition; a lot of great extras in there. One last thought, Bill Murray gives a great, great performance as well as Olivia Williams, who, IMO, should had gotten an Oscar nod as well. OK, sleepy time...zzzz

I am a huge Wes Anderson fan and this is one of the last films of his that I've got around to watching. I must admit I am a tad disappointed with this one.

For me the story and characters are just too out there, even for Wes Anderson. The performances are all great, particularly Jason Schwartzman in the lead who really sells his role, so I can't fault that side of things. But the characters they are playing just feel that little bit too eccentric.

The story didn't really grab me either. In a Wes Anderson film the story often isn't the main attraction anyway its the characters, so when these aren't spot on things can quickly fall apart.

Still, the direction from Anderson is great. As it is one of his earlier films a lot of his visual trademarks are in their infancy, so it is cool to see how these evolved in his later films.

Overall a good film that Wes Anderson fans will be sure to enjoy, but I must say I do think it is perhaps his worst film.

If you are looking for convention, don't see this movie. This movie isn't a happy story. Although you could say this movie has a happy ending, if you have a smile at the end of the film, you're missing something.

The characters are all disturbed on some level; Max, although giving the appearance of a mature young boy, really knows very little about life. Herman has the money and the house - but his kids are brats and his life is going nowhere. Rosemary is in love with the perfect man... but he is dead. Yes, this movie is funny, but I mean it when I say throughout the film I was on the verge of either bursting into laughter or tears.

The movie is funny because it's true. The movie is sad because it's true. What you expect to happen and what you hope happen never really happen, because really this movie is about life. If you're the type of person who can see the humor and sadness in everyday life, you'll love this movie. It may not be uplifting, but it is reassuring. These characters - with what little they have - learn to be happier people. They learn to move on.

Wes Anderson made a story that can encompass all these emotions in a relatively simply plot. Don't be fooled; a lot is going on here. Issues of love, social class, morality, and convention are all brought up. It will make you think about what kind of world you live in, and what kind of a person you are.

10/10

I wasn't exactly Jason Schwartzman's biggest fan to begin with. But after watching him play an annoying self-important little d-bag, I'd now be comfortable never seeing him in another movie ever again.

All that aside, pretty standard for a Wes Anderson flick. All a bunch of characters nobody really likes...and then a quirky enigmatic emotionless female lead.

For whatever reason Wes Anderson likes it when kids act like jaded adults. And it's cute at first, but after a while it's kind of weird.

The movie isn't bad, but it's just...bleh. Inspired the emo band 'Brand New' to write an album, if that says anything.

First, upstart Jason Schwartzman does a pretty good job in this role. Baritoness Olivia Williams is a real doll; and Murray does ok as well. No problem with acting.

The main character is the problem. We are supposed to see his eccentricities as charming and/or pitiable.

Unfortunately, his selfish, self-absorption is so bad; he comes off as a presumptuous and pretentious jerk.

He does have an amiable side to him, but it is extremely overshadowed by his 'Richard Craniumism'.

Moreover, he actually crosses over into the mentally unbalanced category. Several times in fact.

What really aggravated me is that the movie never moves on. There is no real plot. Just kind of an autobiography by quasi nutcase (despite the Director's best efforts to make him seem like something more.) Anywho; we were 1/2 way thru this flick when I asked my wife; "Ya wanna keep going? I have the strong feeling the next 45 minutes are going to be more of the same." Evelyn, said, "I do indeed wonder where it's going, but not sure if it's worth the risking another 45 minutes of our lives." But regrettably, we pretty much did. And yes, it was a mistake.

Two more things; our star looks kinda looks like a young Peter Sellers (Without the humor.) And the object of his affection (Williams), on several occasions, looks like she could be Ferris Bueller's sister no kidding.

Clearly I (we) cannot recommend. I gave it 3 stars because.....because.... Well, maybe because I'm a gracious person filled with charity.

This movie ultimately left a bad taste in our mouths. We quickly cleansed our palates with something even less cerebral, but far more fun & scenic: "Romy & Michelle's HS Reunion":)

Thx

Bob R.

Very rarely can a director evoke so much awkwardness and kindness from his/her silent moments in their films. Wes Anderson is one filmmaker who can. His characters are so richly drawn, finely acted and beautifully directed, that even when they're not speaking... we can read their emotions, we feel their pain. Young Jason Swartzman gives a fantastic performance. Even nicer is the surprise turn by Bill Murray, who manages to play a good guy and a villain at the same time. In one scene he is wearing Budweiser boxer shorts on a diving board. He is smoking a cigarette and jumps, doing a cannonball into his sewer-ridden pool. We see him curled up at the bottom of his pool, drowning himself in misery. Is this a connection to his future lover's dead husband? Who knows. But what we do know is that Anderson has crafted his film to star the most unlikely of heroes. They are the oddest of the bunch, but at the same time we know what they are going through. Their oddness aside, what we learn to see more of, is their hearts. It is obvious Anderson has wiped his heart all over this piece, and it pays off more than I'm sure he ever could have imagined.

Overextended rather than overlong, this is still, along with A BUG'S LIFE, the best American film of the year. Sadly, this has been an atrocious year for movies, so that isn't saying much (being Europeans, we still haven't seen EYES WIDE SHUT or THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, so there's still hope). There has been no outstanding, awe-inspiring, terrifying, beautiful, blow-everything-out-of-the-water film this year, no PULP FICTION, THE USUAL SUSPECTS or HEAVENLY CREATURES. The main problem with new films is style. Because style has been reduced to empty, showy Lelouchisms, intelligent directors, like Solondz or Labute, have rejected style altogether; and their rather flat, dull compositions can detract from the undoubted brilliance of their content.

RUSHMORE has style in spades. RUSHMORE is (on the surface at least) a very intelligent film. It is the kind of film my spouse would dismiss as 'a young man's film', but then so, apparently, was A BOUT DE SOUFFLE. The comparison is not gratuitous. There is a glorious, gleeful, freewheeling joy in cinema here that carries the film for the first hour, reminiscent of the early Nouvelle Vague, and Richard Lester. It's odd how these old devices - and there are also echoes of Chaplin, Keaton, the Marx Brothers, Tati and Woody Allen in here too - should seem so fresh and new. Has cinema stagnated so far? Most modern US (indie) film is stagy, rigid, overcomposed. This film uses all the old tricks to show life being lived, not an imposed thesis.

As I suggested, the film is probably intelligent. I say probably, because this is not its main interest. It does interesting things with Oedipal conflicts - there are at least five father/son relationships in the film (Max/Bert, Max/Dirk, Max/Hermann, Hermann/sons, Max/Edward Appleby), most of which are put under pressure, if not outright hostile, but resolved in unexpected ways. There is the influence of the dead on the living, unwritten stories intruding on those trying to write their own lives. There is the idea of Rushmore as a conservative, Brideshead-like arcadia, wherein also lies betrayal and death. The whole Ivy League (or whatever second level's called over there) system is debunked: whereas Rushmore will accept any trash as long as they're white, Max's multi-racial public school seems a much more vital place.

What is great about this film is not these things, but its understanding of and sympathy for adolescent experience. The most obvious marker of this is self-dramatisation, and there is strong evidence (the theatre curtains that open each section; Max's facility as a playwright; the repetition of portraits and framings within the film) that this is not an 'objective' story, but Max's highly mediated view of his own life. The film is sprightly, energetic, hilarious and inventive when he is on top of life, sluggish and dour when he is depressed. This actually makes his pain even more moving, and why he can sympathise with Hermann throughout on an emotional level, even when he needs to hate him on a narrative one.

Bill Murray gives the year's outstanding performance, which will hopefully be ignored at the Oscars - there is such depth to his angst, such humour to his self-lacerating millionaire, a self-made man who tragically sees himself as a loser. Few actors today can be so heartbreaking while seeming to do so little. And people still think Meryl Streep is an actress.

It is Jason Schwarzmann, though, who must carry the film, and he is perfect - brave, enterprising, irritating, vital. His romantic object is rather a drip, as adolescent idealisations generally are, and her swearing wake-up call is suitably shocking. Brian Cox is hilarious as a gruff, though sympathetic, headmaster, whose fate again suggests youthful wish-fulfillment. The use of music is as inventive as any great film I've seen. The film is actually quite bleak, and we can only thank our stars that Max isn't a goth - his doomed inventiveness staves of despair. Wonderful.

Max Fischer has a scholarship to exclusive prep school Rushmore, despite the fact that he really isn't as smart as his demeanour would suggest. He relentlessly talks himself up, forms and joins clubs and seems to impress as many people as he annoys – all with a very thin veil of lies to support it. When he falls in love with a teacher (Rosemary Cross) things appear wonderful but it is not long before he has messed it up. His frustrated friend (Herman Blume) tries to help but only succeeds in making things much, much worse and Max risks losing everything that is important to him.

Having recently see The Life Aquatic etc I decided to step back to a film that I feel did Wes Anderson's humour and talent much more of a service and one in which he got the mix just right. To me Rushmore is that film, although this is not to imply that it will appeal to those that just don't like any of his films. The plot is the usual mix of offbeat characters, strange events and deep seated emotions (and usually not happy ones either), it is quirky and humorous but it still works because, unlike Life Aquatic, it has enough heart and plot to balance out the dark quirky humour. To me the story is still a bit strange and difficult to get into but it does the hard work for you and even when I was still getting into it I was interested if not totally involved. The heart of the story is not one I could relate to, but I was able to feel for the characters and got into it quickly as a result – none of them are instantly likable characters or simple ones but they are still well written and delivered. The humour is never really consistently hilarious but to complain about a lack of belly laughs is to miss the point; for me the dark humour was well done and I found the film funny even when it didn't draw laughs from me.

The cast are impressive and work well with the material they are given. Murray has much more meat in this supporting role than he did with Zissou and he does very good work with it throughout while also managing to carry off his deadpan delivery as well as usual. Schwartzman is spot on with a character that we are never able to truly like but have to get behind at the same time – he pitches it just right and shows a great understanding of his character. Williams is beautiful and vulnerable and works well in her role while support is good from Cox and Cassel as well as several others in support roles and cameos. Special mention to Tanaka for being the sweetest redemption I've seen in many a film and pulls off the geeky but wonderful girl of many of our dreams.

Overall this is a good film but not one that will appeal to the majority of viewers or be the one to win over those that just don't like Wes Anderson's films. The plot and characters are interesting throughout and the film succeeds because it manages to mix emotional content with darkly quirky humour rather than doing one at the expense of the other. An enjoyable film and probably my favourite from Anderson thus far.

There's a lot to like about "Rushmore" - enough that I got my hopes up that it would be a better film. The characters are fresh and new, the humor quirky and offbeat...but the story wandered too much. The "hand of God" was too clear, in that the characters did amusing things that the screenwriter wanted them to, but not actions that arose out of the characters themselves. You may enjoy the film - but you'll have no idea WHY anyone is doing the things they do. There's plenty of talent on display here...but when you walk out into the light of day, the story falls apart completely. Rushmore is filled with promise, but unfortunately the promise isn't kept.

There's no real reason to critique this film because it's as close to perfect as any movie can get. Plus, it has been reviewed over 500 times on this site alone.

One important aspect of this film, which is overlooked in practically every online review that I've read, is Wes Anderson's nod to the world of J.D. Salinger. The parallels between Holden Caulfield and Max are numerous, and when considered in light of THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS (with its scenes at the museum and the b.b. gun battles), the canon of Wes Anderson is one that has been greatly colored by the imagination of J.D. Salinger. From Max's red hat to his expulsion, the film touches on many ideas from THE CATCHER IN THE RYE. Thematically, the works are quite similar and share an idiosyncratic mood.

The other great influence on Wes Anderson, which is even more obvious to any student of film, is the work of Hal Ashby. In particular, the symmetry of Hal Ashby's shots in films like HAROLD AND MAUDE and BEING THERE. Watch RUSHMORE followed by HAROLD AND MAUDE followed by ROYAL TENENBAUMS followed by BEING THERE and you'll completely understand this sentiment.

Where will THE LIFE AQUATIC fit into this equation?!?!?

I picked up on two little small details, and seeing as it is an EARLY Wes Anderson movie shows how he has always been a witty and thoughtful director.

The first thing was when Max's outfit changes about an hour into the movie. This to me signifies that there was meant to be a change in Max's life, a big one, but he wouldn't follow through. We see the whole movie that Max is being handed changes but refuses to leave his past life at Rushmore, so when we are introduced to a warmer color coated version of Max, it is just that; a coated version of him.

The second thing I noticed is during Max's play, everyone puts on their earmuffs and safety glasses. Everyone except Herman. Herman was always the only person who could get Max and his weird theories, but I don't want to go on and on about this. Why? Because it was never that serious. Just like The Darjeeling Limited, this movie is purely for fun. There is almost no meaning to it, in that sense I mean that in the end you don't feel as moved as you would with Grand Budapest.

Not Anderson's worst, but certainly not his best--but we can excuse it.

Well I saw this movie some time ago. It's in the style of Wes Anderson's later movies , "The Royal Tenenbaums" and "Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou". The movie is a bit surrealistic and sour but the humor is deep and when you think back about this movie you can remember lots of it's jokes like how the main character, Marx Fischer used Latin in his latest play. Bill Murray was just as great as in his other Anderson movies. If you're looking for a comedy where you laugh at every scene this is not the movie but as a surrealistic comedy the movie is great. Also I liked some of the music in the film for example Rolling Stones and Cat Stevens. I think that Wes Anderson is a really special director and his style is of that kind that not nearly all of people like his movies.

Mr. Hawkins

I know this film was one of his earlier ones and does not show off much of his developed style, but I just didn't find this movie very likeable. Mainly because of the odd story, but this was just a predictable movie. It definitely had a ton of funny moments, but is still very low on my list of favorite wes anderson films.

RUSHMORE (1998) **** Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray, Olivia Williams, Seymour Cassel, Brian Cox, Mason Gamble, Luke Wilson. Hilarious comedy a la `Ferris Bueller's Day Off' as written by John Cheever: enterprising young Schwartzman (in a memorable acting debut; son of Talia Shire) as Max Fischer,a prep school student at the titular institution – whose ambitions are only mired by his lack of decent marks, with even higher set goals in wooing a second grade teacher played by the sexy Williams. But it is Murray who (rightfully) steals the film as a rich philanthropist who befriends Schwartzman only to betray him by also falling for his love-to-be, with a truly funny turn pulling out all the stops including slapstick falls and a great scene of depression in action at a family poolside party (one for the archives). Written by Owen Wilson and Wes Anderson (who also directed and both teamed up for their freshman gem, `Bottle Rocket') the film is smartly executed and makes even a sometimes unlikable character an empathetic symbol of adolescent anomie. Brilliant filmmaking of the high order and Murray was robbed of a justifiable Oscar nomination for supporting actor !

Rushmore is one of those rare movie experiences for me where I absolutely don't know what to make of it. I've seen my share of indie comedies, quirky films with cleverly subtle nuances, and an intricate focus, but this one has me truly baffled. For the first time in a long time, the screen I was facing and I, myself, had no connection. It was showing me a movie I particularly wasn't following, and I was desperately trying to comprehend why the events were happening, how and for what significance.

The movie is not by any means confusing, for that matter, it is fairly simple, but I was trying to search for the comedy in its material, the delivery in its dialog, and the wit in its nuances. This is director Wes Anderson's second feature film after the dismissed Bottle Rocket, and both films share my current view of the man himself; he makes films with a certain whimsicality to them, but overall, they're not that funny and simply not that interesting as a whole. It's a tad harsh to say that, but I was not truly lifted into the zone of appreciation watching either picture. I smiled a lot, chuckled solemnly, but afterwards I felt dry and unfulfilled.

In Rushmore, we follow Max Fischer (Schwartzman), a precocious Sophomore who earned himself a scholarship to the prestigious Rushmore Academy. Despite the high expectations of the boy, Max is a slacker when it comes to schoolwork, but is more than willing to start up a new club or write an offbeat play. He grabs the attention of Rushmore alumni Herman Blume (Murray), and winds up becoming close with the man. It isn't long before their friendship deteriorates into nothing when Herman starts crushing on first grade school teacher, Rosemary Cross (Williams), also Max's crush.

Meanwhile, while all this is in the mix, Max learns from his principal (Brian Cox) that he is will be given one more chance, but if he fails another test, he is gone, expelled from the Academy. I have no doubt that all of this could have been incorporated in a funny comedy or a relatively steady drama. I envision a drama focusing on the aspect of failing and trying your hardest only to not succeed because of an albatross or limitations to be a rather poignant subject a film could explore, yet still keep the whimsicality Anderson loves to work with.

Sadly, none of that is explored, and the film feels the whole concept is one big joke. Its protagonist, to begin with, is an unlikable manipulator of epic proportions, can't give the audience a reason to side with him, and his crush on his first grade teacher is odd and unfitting to the story. What I believe Rushmore is truly trying to be is a tough slice of life, yet it is taken in such a peculiar manner that even that becomes questionable.

Now there are elements that are nicely incorporated into the film. The warmth of Bottle Rocket has been traded for a rather crisp look in Rushmore, where the film occupies a very deep widescreen (also called letterbox). It's unusual, yet while the movie is shown in a smaller frame than normal, it appears with more clarity and distinction. It's also safe to say that Jason Schwartzman clearly tried all he possibly good so that the Max character rubs the audience the right way. He is a quirky character, although an acquired taste. Some will see him as a nuance, I see him as an annoyance. But that's not to say Schwartzman's performance isn't very likable. The same goes for Bill Murray, who plays the role of a disillusioned man in search of a home quite nicely.

Yet Rushmore still feels a tad underdeveloped and rather vacuous. I guess I lack the proper eccentricities to enjoy such a picture.

Starring: Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray, Olivia Williams, and Brian Cox. Directed by: Wes Anderson.