Editor's Note: Very minor spoilers.

The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou manages to be both dry and silly at the same time, which is an impressive, if confusing, achievement. While everything about it will seem familiar to any Wes Anderson film, it also is quite a bit different than his past three films. There's more of a punchiness to the film that accentuates the dry humor. There also is less drama, or at least less affecting drama. It borders on ridiculous--okay, hell, it pushes right over the border at times--and yet never loses that Wes Anderson flair that most people either love or hate.

The movie deals with Steve Zissou, played wonderfully by Bill Murray, heading out on a final voyage at sea to track down and kill the jaguar shark that ate his partner. Joining him on the trip is Owen Wilson's character Ned Plimpton--who may be Zissou's son, we learn early on--Cate Blanchett's character Jane Winslett-Richardson, who is a reporter writing a cover story to give the crew some badly-needed press, and Zissou's regular crew, headed up brilliantly by Willem Dafoe. Oh, and there are some well-abused interns. Dealing with sea life in a few different sequences, the film takes the opportunity to use some awesome stop-motion animation by Henry Selick, which really adds to the film and gives it a unique presence. It's very cool to look at and makes the underwater sequences quite memorable.

This movie is funny, without a doubt. I found it even more amusing the second time I watched it, though that was probably influenced by the two dark beers I had in me. Still, there is a constant sense of shenanigans overhanging the proceedings, which works beautifully. As I said, there is also a heavy amount of dry wit, which is common in any Anderson film. It all meshes together very well to create something that is very entertaining and familiar for Anderson fans. Yet it stands apart from his other films.

The movie has taken some critical hits. It generally received favorable reviews, but there were many critics who claimed it to show that Anderson's shtick is getting a bit old and others that said it simply could not measure up to his other works. I'm somewhat mixed myself on where I stand on this. First of all, the movie is definitely less affecting than his others, particularly The Royal Tenenbaums. This isn't necessarily for lack of trying, either, though the film does give the distinct impression that it was going for a more light-hearted feel than the very heavy Royal Tenenabaums. But there certainly are attempts at emotional story-telling here. There is a scene toward the end of Life Aquatic that I won't reveal, lest you have not yet seen the movie, but that feels as though it should have hit me harder than it did. The characters in the movie are wonderful, but they didn't get to me the same way as in Anderson's other movies. This can be a little disorienting if you go into the movie expecting something more along the lines of Tenenbaums, which just kicked my ass emotionally. Bottle Rocket was largely the same and even Rushmore--hilarious as it was--had some very affecting moments to it.