Asteroid City

Wes Anderson has always been a favorite director of mine. I have seen all his movies - but for me, the magic is gone.

I feel like The Grand Budapest Hotel was his masterpiece. Where every aspect that makes his films special was at its peak. The characters, the cast, the sets and, of course, the visuals were up to an 11. His craft was perfected - and it's one of my top 5 films of all time.

When I saw Isle of Dogs, I started to feel full. I felt like I had seen Wes's style a bit too much. And now this.

I feel that Asteroid City is pretty bland. The visuals are fantastic - but we've seen this all before. Instead of a compelling lead who has an interesting problem to solve - we get several bland characters who are quirky, and that's it. The acting is great though. But it's not that funny nor intriguing.

We were eight friends who saw this film together. Every one of us was pretty bored after a while. One of us really liked it though - but she had only seen 50% of a Wes Anderson film before. The rest of us felt... full.

Few independent filmmakers have a style as unique and distinctive as Wes Anderson's, whose signature aesthetic is almost immediately recognizable upon watching one of his films. Yet his films are not just aesthetically engaging; they tend to be hilarious and well-written in a quirky, down-to-earth way. As a fan of his work, I was looking forward to "Asteroid City." This retro sci-fi tale of a UFO/alien sighting in a 1950s desert town certainly delivers Anderson's expected vibes, but fails to pair the visuals and auteurist elements with an engaging, emotionally impactful plot or character development that is equally strong and/or effective.

The film is a true ensemble piece, and doesn't have a clear main character. This would be fine if the wide array of characters involved were more compellingly written, but the screenplay treats their motivations as simply second fiddle to "style," world-building, and more abstract themes. Thematically, the film also seems a bit inert, seeming to jump around in subtext without providing the plot context to justify it--including through the framing device of a play. Anderson's large ensemble cast generally does pretty well with the material they are given, but their actions feel removed from consequence or plot relevance to make us feel a lot fo their characters. The brilliant craftsmanship on display mildly offsets these concerns--from the outstanding production design, cinematography, costume design, and editing--which are well-done even by Wes Anderson's standards. Yet the lack of a comparatively developed plot or character motivations is a bit jarring compared to his better films, such as "The Grand Budapest Hotel," "Moonrise Kingdom," "The Royal Tenebaums," and "Fantastic Mr. Fox." Even the anthology structure in "The French Dispatch" felt more character-driven and authentic, and thus more conceptually engaging than this film. Make no mistake, Anderson is and has always been a creative visionary, and his fans should generally have a good time while watching this film. It's just a little bit unfortunate that the film comes off as more hollow and forgettable than it should, despite plenty of positive qualities as well. Recommended only to Wes Anderson fans. 6.5/10.

As much as I love the artistic visuals and whimsical charm of a Wes Anderson film, this one was mildly disappointing. There were long speeches that didn't land with humor, weird pacing issues, and a nested framing device of a TV broadcast, the play, and its real-world creators that didn't do anything for me. Maybe it would take a repeat viewing, because the intention behind this was confusing, and it overshadowed the fine little moments that were scattered throughout the movie. As with The French Dispatch, the cast is jam-packed with stars, but unnecessarily so, as many seemed underused, and it felt like there were too many characters. This one needed simplification, a better story, and more heart.

People were laughing in the quaint historic theater I watched this film in. But I was not. I laughed one time, when you watch it you'll know the time.

The striking thing about these last couple of Wes Anderson movies is how they're becoming a parody of themselves. I can appreciate film as art vs film as entertainment. This takes entertainment disguised as art and commercializes it to a degree I find distasteful.

It was a pretty film. I loved the colors. I can respect it's aesthetic and that's where all the stars came from. I also love Schwartzmann.

The way the story was told as some kind of slowly unfolding meta-melodrama of a play within a film managed to completely chop the film into indigestible pieces. Ive rarely been that disinterested in the plot of a film.

Last thought. What on earth makes all of these famous actors want to be in these films??? Is it money? Is it the desire to see your own face with some pretty symmetrical colors in the background? Wes Anderson hasn't made a good film in years. We can continue to respect him from afar for doing something unique. Far enough away we don't have to watch....

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.