Asteroid City

Wes Anderson drummed up a magnificent cast. At least ten of them could carry a triple A movie by themselves. Unfortunately, Wes forgot that a good movie needs a good plot as well.

The visuals are outstanding, almost every shot is also an award winning photo. The acting is superb. The setting is magnificent and almost everything about this movie is perfect.

Everything but the plot. If you like humor, you'll like this film. If you come for the visuals, you'll love this film. If you're into acting, you'll have an excellent time. But if you want to be engaged? Look elsewhere.

Dear Wes, your dialogues are hilarious and witty. Your plots lack substance. Work on your plots.

I saw 'ASTEROID CITY' yesterday...and I have a mixed feelings about it.... As usual, stylistically very impressive, with strong emphasis on ensemble work of actors, as it's usually happens in Wes Anderson's movies.

When movie is considered ensemble piece the pressure of a film success falls on the shoulders of the director. In a normal narrative film the protagonist and antagonist often take the burden of film success on themselves, hoping that the audience will emphasize with our lead characters and their character arc, to be immersed in the story during the full running time.

There is a risk however if the audience doesn't connect with performances the status of leading man or a woman is in jeopardy, with producers in the future not wanting to green light another film with actors, which were unable to handle the "weight" of the movie.

This is why plenty of actors like to work on movies which offer ensemble feel. They don't have to spend many months on filmset, instead they come for few days, shoot their scenes and can move on to the next project. If their performance didn't work they are always supported by other quality actors, so it doesn't ruin the whole film. In ether way Wes Anderson's style always comes on top, as actors who work with him understand the particular speed of lines delivery, as well as dryness of the dialog.

Stylistically it's very much what we expect from Anderson. Cinematography is more interesting then usual with a strong emphasis on production and costumes design. The camera movement feel bit more free then usual and yet the composition is always full of symmetry, which is the calling card of Wes. He even included few inserts (close ups of objects, which normally make thinks appear more cinematic) which for his filmmaking style is rather unusual. As well as few "Dutch angles", which make the audience feel sense of distorted reality in moments of surrealism.

The color correction ranging from black and white to colorful over saturation is rather visually interesting.

There is a lot of quality here, but I am afraid 'ASTEROID CITY' might not be everyone's taste, although fans of Anderson know what to expect and should have a good time.

More casual viewers might feel like this film is a little stylistically disjointed.

For me I appreciate what Wes was trying to accomplish and always admire his stylistic consistency, which has its benefits (you know what to expect), but also it's throwbacks, when Wes just like in this case is trying to explore a new filmmaking narrative techniques.

Recommend! 👍

It is hard to think of a movie as underwhelming or as twee as Wes Anderson's 'Asteroid City,' a meandering, grandiose comic-drama as overlong as it is overindulgent. As it begins, we are told the film is in fact a televised production of a play by a fellow named Conrad Earp, which follows a ragtag bunch of misfits who gather on the isolated titular town to partake in a science convention. Among them is recent widower and war photojournalist Augie Steenbeck, who hits it off with noted actress Midge Campbell. Meanwhile, the actor playing Augie has doubts about his performance, and fears he doesn't understand the play.

A fear shared by this viewer. 'Asteroid City' is a film packed to the rafters with nothing of note. The narrative is overloaded with unnecessary stylizations that distract rather than engage. Moreover, the switching back and forth between the play and the show about it is jarring throughout, while the overarching structure is alienating. It is difficult to immerse oneself in the world of the film as one is constantly reminded it is fiction. Similarly, it is no easy task connecting with the characters when the film they're in keeps telling us that they and their conflicts are imaginary.

Additionally, Anderson doesn't fully explore any of the innumerable story threads he begins to unravel, nor does he properly develop his themes, whether they be about reality and fiction, the role of science and technology or the search for identity and belonging. He introduces thematic ideas in a superficial and inconsistent way, without giving them enough depth or resolution. This makes the film feel unfocused and incomplete, as it leaves the viewer with many questions and loose ends.

For instance, he introduces the idea of a nuclear war looming over Asteroid City, but doesn't explore its implications or consequences for the characters or the world. He also introduces the character of Conrad Earp, the playwright behind it all, but never explains his motivations or his relationship with the actors or the audience. Moreover, he fails to conclude any of the various subplots in a meaningful or coherent way, seeming to prefer endlessly switching between different levels of artifice in a vacuum of self-satisfaction.

Furthermore, the characters are all Anderson stereotypes dialled up to the max. We've seen the quirky neurotic Steenbeck before in projects like 'Rushmore' and 'Darjeeling Limited', while Campbell is essentially just Margot Tenenbaum with better hair, or any number of the beautiful, aloof ladies Anderson has given the world over the years. Each and all eccentric and mannered, the people that populate 'Asteroid City' feel like they were created by artificial intelligence trying to emulate Anderson's earlier, better movies.

Likewise, the dialogue is your typical Anderson fare, full of cutesy phrases and obscure references that'll make grey-haired hipsters chuckle; though is a different breed from the likes of, say, 'The Grand Budapest Hotel.' For all its faults, that film had plenty of rapid-pace witticisms and verbal sparring matches, which 'Asteroid City' has a dearth of. The dialogue is largely uninspired and inane, when it isn't contrived and artificial, as it is whenever Steenbeck's son has to converse with anyone, or when Steenbeck and Campbell share their woes through their windows.

Narratively, 'Asteroid City' isolates and irritates, while Robert Yeoman's striking cinematography is cartoonish and extravagant. Yeoman makes use of bright colours, symmetrical compositions and retro-futuristic props and costumes to create a distinctive, whimsical aesthetic that reflects Anderson's trademark visual style. The attention to detail on display is laudable, while the intricacy of the sets and staging is staggering. However, Yeoman's work also contributes to the tacky artificiality and lack of subtlety of proceedings, meaning that, instead of enhancing the mood or meaning of the film, his exaggerated stylizations serve only to distract. Additionally, the score-a jumbled mixture of 50's country songs and synthetic pop- is as forgettable and bland as saltless porridge.

Though Anderson has assembled a truly awesome all-star cast, nobody is giving anything particularly interesting or challenging to do. Though Jason Schwartzman does strong work as the quirky, self-absorbed neurotic Augie Steenbeck, it's a role he's played dozens of times before in better projects and to greater effect. Similarly, Scarlett Johansson impresses as the austere Midge Campbell, showing her vulnerability in a way most nuanced and affecting; though is underutilised and ultimately reduced to a mere plot device.

Additionally, Bryan Cranston does a half-decent Rod Serling impression as the narrator of the piece and Tom Hanks brings pathos and power to his all too small role as Steenbeck's father-in-law, though both characters are woefully one-dimensional. Also worthy of note is Jeffrey Wright, who's consistently amusing as a caricature of an army general, and Tilda Swinton, who engages in more of the jittery over-acting that has endeared her to so many. The rest of the cavalcade of stars are generally commendable, but have little to do in the face of Anderson's scant characterisation and unengaging narrative.

In conclusion, 'Asteroid City,' like 'The French Dispatch' before it, is very much a case of style over substance. Anderson's best films- perhaps tellingly all written alongside Owen Wilson- have heart and soul to match their kooky characters and painstakingly intricate visuals. 'Asteroid City' is a heartless, soulless exercise in pretension; a meandering mess of a motion picture. Though it boasts some fine performances, there's very little on offer in 'Asteroid City;' and it's certainly not a place you'd want to call home.

Those who thought this was a "boring" film, should not be criticized for thinking this. Asteroid City is a visual wonder and treat of world building. Wes Anderson's productions are easily well-known for their impressive artistic visual structure and camera work. No disappointment in any of these categories. Featuring a massive array of talent which included a cast of 4 Oscar winners and 9 Oscar nominees, all giving solid theatrical-style performances. The setting is an absolute delight, and ranks as one of the top production designs in any Wes Anderson film. All the characters are carefully pieced, selected, and framed. All building up to a finale which I considered a pretentious, underwhelming, and slightly dissatisfying. It's hard to not see this particular story as Wes Anderson being unsure about which direction to go in. This was easily a story Anderson wrote/worked on while stuck in quarantine during COVID. The themes of loss, uncertainty, entrapment, search for answers, childhood into adulthood are all well-received and present. However, once the themes completely over take the narrative and substance, that's when the movie starts to disappoint. All these themes could've fit well into a story which resulted in a fun gimmicky alien invasion story, just like in "Mars Attacks!" which the film even makes a hidden reference to. Or a narrative which leads into alien abduction. Something....anything. Any conflict better than simply, "they're all stuck in quarantine". Another problem with Asteroid City is the story's massive number of characters. I love a story which gives every little character a unique presence to the story. Problem is, there are enjoying scenes with these characters, but when the movie ends I was still pondering if these scenes were needed. They added little to the narrative, took time away from the main conflict, and resulted in a unbalanced flow of the narrative. A successful balance of adults and children in the narrative was achieved far better in Moonrise Kingdom than in Anderson's effort this time. While the character payoffs do make sense, some of the key payoffs feel shallow than unsatisfying. The payoffs you would easily imagine the film going in simply do not happen. Asteroid City is easily one of my favorite world buildings in a Wes Anderson film. I was hooked within the opening minutes, and yet it felt unused to its full potential. Shame too, because this could've easily have been a great film.

There is enjoyment to be found throughout Asteroid City, but in the end the descriptive words used regarding the narrative would have to include, "underwhelming" and "cheated".

Let me start off by saying: I have seen all of Wes Anderson's movies (including his ad work and his short movies), some of them even multiple times.

I can therefore certainly appreciate his quirky and unique style that made him a favorite at various film schools and among art-house movie lovers.

Asteroid City feels like a very concentrated version of his latest movies in a bland desert setting:

The black-and-white scenes in old TV formatting as well as the theatre-like setups reminded me of the "The French Dispatch" (2021) in particular. The newest movie doubles down on these "theatre/stage play" concepts, the sum of all parts unfortunately feels like a Wes Anderson overdose at times:

Too many actors (the usual staple of big-name actors is larger than ever in this one, only Bill Murray seems to be missing), yet with no real lead role present and very little character development.

The overall plot appears to be going nowhere until the credits roll - while the 1950's SF sub-"plot" also feels wasted when the Alien in his bright green UFO has a screen appearance about as short as the mythical 'Jaguar shark' in Wes' classic "The Life Aquatic" (2004).

Asteroid City looks like Wes jumped the shark on his own ideas and prior body of work.

Overall, the movie unfortunately feels too dry, stiff and boring to me (I would never write this about a prior Wes Anderson movie), even with its relatively short running time.

Summary: Asteroid City will most likely only please and appeal to his most hardcore fans. Another IMDB reviewer summed it up perfectly with this headline: "Nothing happens in the middle of nowhere".

4/10 , maybe rounded up to 5/10 for the (as always) beautiful decor and the immaculate attention to detail.

I hope Wes returns to "real" film-making one day. I wanted to see a "real" movie by Wes Anderson, not a "Wes Anderson doing Wes Anderson" stage play in the desert.

PS: (Edit). I have since found two professional reviews that almost perfectly match my impressions (quoted via Wikipedia):

"A review in the Alton Telegraph entitled, "'Asteroid City' script lacks direction and plot," said, "'Asteroid City' made no sense. The script was mind-numbing. I saw several people nod off because they were bored." Time Magazine's review was titled "Asteroid City Is Too Stiff and Stylized-Even for a Wes Anderson Movie, " saying "Wes Anderson's Asteroid City is what happens when a filmmaker's world of wonder and whimsy becomes a prison."

Yes, indeed. Asteroid City is what happens when a filmmaker's quirky world becomes a prison.