Asteroid City

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....