in re Wes Anderson - the cloying tweeness, winking deadpan delivery, the stupid props (typewriters, rotary phones, encyclopedia sets, etc), Paul Simon soundtracks, etc are all irritating but forgivable. much less forgivable is the repeated use of non-white people as mute props and/or vehicles for white protagonists to further their emotional journeys, culminating in Darjeeling Ltd where India is a setting of strange/mute brown people in funny costumes for 3 cool white brothers to work out their emotional problems. and I'd actually dispute that he's ironic b/c for irony you need depth, multiple layers of meaning, which his work totally lacks. this is also where any comparison to Kubrick fails. both are stylists, true, but any Kubrick film is operating, successfully or not, on multiple psychological levels. unlike Anderson, there's something to parse underneath the style. I grant Rushmore is much better than the rest, I'd bet at least in part due to having autobiographical roots, which impart some heft to the usual relentless onslaught of whimsy.
in re Gallo - I think you're confusing commentary on narcissism w/actual narcissism, but again ymmv. I stick by what I said. Buffalo 66 is less stupid, if only b/c like Rushmore it has the autobiographical/origin story power going for it, a great cast besides Gallo and it harnesses - which I'm not sure English people can really get - the truly awesome pathos of not just Scott Norwood but the whole early 90s Jim Kelly/K-Gun Bills saga and Buffalo as a symbol. but ultimately Gallo is a much inferior Buscemi with better cheekbones and catty witticisms about other directors aside I doubt he has insights on anything besides how awesome Vincent Gallo is