User reviews

Saw this just now in a small indie cinema in Heidelberg, Germany and I have to say, it was a romp. In my humble opinion this film manages to be both Wes Anderson's funniest picture so far and his most melancholic. The utter uncompromising stylishness of his other work is also present here, perhaps even heightened, but in contrast to The Life Aquatic (and to a certain degree The Darjeeling Limited), the emphasis here is firmly on plot. The brave and often odd visuals never overwhelm the story and the audience never feels like they are not quite in on the joke, like in The Life Aquatic. The tone does tend to become a bit erratic, especially in the last third of the film when Anderson seems to want to pack so much into every frame that the film becomes a bit cartoonish at times (hence the not-perfect score from me). All in all, though, the plot is very balanced and the pacing is great. The two young leads are superb and the brave move by Anderson to place unknown actors front and centre pays off beautifully. The rest of the cast is on paper even more star-studded than The Royal Tenenbaums and yet Anderson never steers into unnecessary character development just to accommodate his stars. A touch here and a touch there are more than enough to paint a picture of a group of people who are eerily similar in their dissatisfaction with their lives and yet react quite differently to the two young lovers' dash (literally) for happiness. In conclusion, a must-see for Anderson fans and highly recommended for everyone else.

and I absolutely loved every minute. There's nothing better than when you see actors commit fully to absurdity, and there wasn't a misstep in the entire film, stellar cast and a great movie watching experience. My favorite, of Wes Anderson's films, and what a move picking the two lead child actors - their performances were brave and spot-on. I want to find this island, I want to liquidate everything I own and move there, I just wonder if a place like this still exists in the World? I bet it does. Quirky and humorous, this film doesn't disappoint (or at least I've only heard of 1 person so far not giving it a thumbs up), anyone who doesn't get this film I suspect had a very regimented childhood and didn't take any risks. Great soundtrack, two people near me in the theatre jumped up into the aisle to start dancing (I suspect they may have been there for a second viewing!), the entire audience enjoyed it. Really, Anderson's best film yet in my book, highly recommended.

The year is 1965 and a remote North Eastern coastal community is plunged into confusion when it discovers that two kids have run away. Sam, a discontented Khaki Scout, and Suzy, a put-upon older sister and forgotten daughter, abscond into the forest to escape their dissatisfying existences. The responsible adults – Sam's Scout Master Ward (Edward Norton) and Suzy's parents (Bill Murray and Frances McDormand) – and the entire town set out on a frenzied search, which gets wild when the largest storm in recorded history touches down and puts everyone's life into question. What ensues is a battle between youth and age, hope and disillusionment, faith and cynicism.

In terms of story and character, Wes Anderson's previous films, especially The Royal Tenenbaums and The Darjeeling Limited, are superior. Even in the most compelling relationship in the film between Captain Sharp (Bruce Willis) and Sam doesn't embody Anderson's ability to take his characters into deep emotional places of hurt and healing without melodrama. However, the newest addition to the Anderson canon is a cinematic experience.

Moonrise Kingdom's story, co-written with Roman Coppola, takes a definite backseat to style, as Anderson saturates the entire film with a "Norman Rockwell-type of Americana". Stylistically, it may be Anderson's most masterful work, as the costumes, sets, and settings transport the viewer to an alternate universe, a place of wonder and adventure. The soundtrack is especially effective, as it recalls a time when things were simpler: Hank Williams was on the radio, and children listened to records instead of playing video games. However, Anderson isn't content with reminiscing about the year 1965. He takes this nostalgia and twists it, infusing the film with a twinge of sadness through the reality of life's disappointments. He doesn't reject the Rockwellian view of America, but argues that it doesn't tell the whole story.

Moonrise Kingdom is that place of beauty and passion that we all have been in at least once in our lives – the one place on earth where we believe that anything is possible. It has since been lost, but it persists in our memories in moments of nostalgia.

Let's try to understand the miracle I have just witnessed. Director Wes Anderson is 12 years old, has just experienced his first love while at Summer camp, and immediately rushed to a camera to tell us, his pen pals, the story. A slightly embellished story which follows the perfect scenarios we would draw at night in our beds at this age. It has all the tiny details, the sense of adventure and the freshness of youth. How someone 43 years old in real life could do this movie is beyond me. The drawback of this miracle for the viewer is that such a jump back into the kind of idealized feelings you had in your early teens leaves you with quite some melancholy when you leave the cinema.

It could be that some people do not connect to the movie and just see it as "adorable" or "cute" and nothing more. But I suppose most people will feel connected, notably because the movie has this straight-to-the-point attitude in both the technique and the story-telling; the story is read to you, not force-fed with dramatic music and whatnot. Just like one of the characters who reads bedtime stories to the others.

You might complain about the lack of character development for some of the big names in this film (Norton, Willis, Murray - McDormand less so as she gets more detailed screen time than the others) but I suppose this is wanted: kids will see hints of the issues adults are facing, but can't understand them fully. And remember this is a movie shot by 12-year old Wes Anderson.

In the past, Anderson has whirled us from melancholy dreamscapes set deep below the Pacific to tales of inter-generation betrayals in the name of love, from doomed romances in Paris hotels to deliriously bizarre animal revolutions in the English countryside. But for all the retro-stylings his films so proudly wear, Moonrise Kingdom is Anderson's first period piece - a tender love story set in the sepia-soaked sixties of Anderson's youth that have worked their influence into every one of his movies. It is fitting that this film is his most childlike - not in any way any simpler than his other films (as anyone with an accurate memory of childhood will remember all it's complexities; the way each trivial thing became a nest of thorns), but an accurate and deeply heartfelt depiction of childhood. It is not aiming to be as crushingly dramatic as Life Aquatic or as deeply tragic as Hotel Chevalier, because that wouldn't be appropriate for the story it's trying to tell. Instead, while still bearing Anderson's still surprising streak of black humour (some acts of violence really catch you off-guard; then again, children are violent so hats off Wes), it is largely concerned with the dramas and tragedies of youth. Yes, it is less ambitious than say The Life Aquatic but it also has none of the flaws that that film does (and believe me, I am a massive Steve Zissou fan). Instead, it is perfectly executed, wonderfully acted poignant beauty, with fantastic performances across the board (especially from newcomers Gilman and Hayward). This, while not his most ambitious, is certainly Anderson's most perfect work so far. You owe it to yourself to see this movie.

Despite the dreadful title, Moonrise Kingdom is simply wonderful.

Since his flying start with Bottle Rocket and the triumph of Rushmore, I felt that Wes Anderson had rather tottered off a true path. The Royal Tenenbaums was hit and miss, The Darjeeling Limited was too twee, and The Life Aquatic was simply AWFUL. I take against ANY film that wastes Bill Murray.

Moonrise Kingdom doesn't repeat that error. Despite covering ground Anderson's already visited to an extent in Rushmore, MK looks at a teenage crush with fresh eyes, and surrounds it with a fantastic cast of oddballs and misfits. Unlike his films where the characters are irritatingly quirky for the sake of it, these oddballs seem organic to their strange island home. Star among them is Ed Norton as Scout Master Ward, who looks as if he's having the time of his life in shorts and woggles, in charge of a troop described as 'beige lunatics'.

Bruce Willis, Frances McDormand and Bill Murray all play their parts but never feel as though they're elbowing for the spotlight, which keeps the mood kind, befitting the hearts of all involved in the search for runaway scout, Sam, and his pen-pal, Suzy.

Visually, it's a feast of saturated colour and fabulous design, but - as with the best of Wes Anderson - the devil's always in the detail. The laughs come from minutely observed accessories (keep an eye on the scouts' badges!) and from throwaway truths. And the soundtrack is a great mix of wistful Western and classical pieces. Definitely buyable.

Anderson flirts with surrealism, but never gets Burtonesque, controlling his story with a firmer hand and to better effect. His situations might be bizarre, but the people in them are always painfully, wonderfully human. It's also a rare film - one you could watch with your grandmother or your grandchildren, with only a couple of moments where young eyes would have to be covered, and no real violence or swearing.

There is an overwhelming feeling of innocence and good will throughout.

I loved it from the opening frames, and it only got better from there.

The thing that I enjoy most about Wes Anderson films is that they each feel like a great adventure and in this sense I think Moonrise Kingdom is his best yet. It tells that tale of Sam, an orphan on scout camp, and Suzy, a misunderstood girl, as they run away together. At first I found the two actors playing the kids to be kind of limp but after a few minutes I warmed to them and I actually think they were both pretty good overall, particularly Jared Gilman who plays Sam and even more so knowing that it's the first acting he's ever done. The rest of the cast are all pursuing or helping them in some way and there a couple of sub-plots with the island's policeman (played by Bruce Willis) and the parents of Suzy (Bill Murray and Frances McDormand).

I thought that the rest of the cast was great. In fairness I am a bit biased because I love Bill Murray, Edward Norton, Bruce Willis and Frances McDormand but even so I have to say that they were all really good, especially Edward Norton who plays the scout master, and Bill Murray. There are also a couple of minor roles for Jason Schwartzman, Harvey Keital and Tilda Swinton who were also a lot of fun. Everyone in the cast fits into their role really well which is obviously exactly what you want, but not only is that the case for the main roles but also for the less important ones, like the scout troupe (especially Sam's 'enemy'), Suzy's three brothers or the oddball narrator.

Cinematography wise I didn't think this movie was particularly spectacular, especially in comparison to other Wes Anderson movies like 'The Life Aquatic' or 'The Royal Tenenbaums'. There were a couple of shots that were cool though, some really long zoom outs (which sounds clichéd but it worked) and the doll house type ones that I love and think are awesome.

I wouldn't expect to wet your pants laughing at any moment in 'Moonrise Kingdom' but it is funny. There are a couple of laugh out loud moments and as a whole the jokes are pretty sharp and intelligently done. The reason I like the humour in this movie is that it's a part of the ambiance and feel of it, it won't make you crack up but it will make you have a smile on your face for pretty much the whole thing and leave you feeling strangely happy.

That kind of ambiance is really why the movie is so good, and is possibly Wes Anderson's best movie. The whole story is this fantastic blend of reality and child-like dreaming and it's wonderful. At times I felt kind of nostalgic and sad that I'm not a kid anymore. On the other hand it feels like a tribute to those myths and dreams of being a child and it works so well. This is the kind of film that I feel I could watch over and over again, each time spotting something new but also feeling good and enjoying the overall purpose.

Definitely go and see it!

The average Wes Anderson film - if you liked the other, you will like this one as well. In many ways, it reminded me of the Royal Tenenbaums, but at the same felt more genuine in its intentions and relatively toned down visually. Don't get me wrong, everything is as over-stylized and artificial as usual, but I guess the preteen coming-of-age adventure premise just made the pill easier to swallow?

I loved this movie! One of Wes Anderson's best - up there with Rushmore and Fantastic Mr Fox. Top reasons to see this movie:

The love story between the quirky dark characters was so sweet. The casting for the 2 lead kids was spot on! You can take kids to this movie. They won't get all of the subtle humor but you will. The music and the film setting. The quirkiness of the filming, scenes, and narrator. Everyone in short pants... classic! Bruce Willis is actually good in it. Beautifully shot. You leave the theater with a smile on your face and a tear in your eye. Best movie so far this year.

Anyone who said they did't like it, doesn't get Wes Anderson. If you like his movies, you will love Moonrise Kingdom!

Moonrise Kingdom (2012)

*** 1/2 (out of 4)

Teenager love birds Sam (Jared Gilman) and Suzy (Kara Hayward) run away from their homes to find a better life together but soon a search party is out looking for them. Wes Anderson's latest picture is quite a gem because it's been a very long time since a film has captured the innocence and beauty of young love. Now this certainly isn't a love story but then again the film is so original that it really doesn't fit into any one genre. There's the love stuff but also plenty of great comedy and best of all are the terrific performances from the entire cast, many of which haven't done this good of work in years. Anderson and Roman Coppola's screenplay is so simple yet so beautiful and innocent that it's nearly impossible not to get caught up in this crazy world. The visual style of Anderson is certainly on full display as is the weird and surreal atmosphere that really makes you feel as if you're seeing some sci-fi movie because it just appears to be a different universe than anything you've seen or known. At just 84-minutes without the end credits, there's really no filler or scenes that don't belong. This is a very tight ship that tells its story, gets the characters developed and then moves on. Both Gilman and Hayward are terrific in the roles of the young lovers and it's easy to see that they've both got a great talent and Anderson exploits every bit of it. The comic touch by the two was very impressive and they fit Anderson's world perfectly. Frances McDormand and Bill Murray are both extremely funny as the girl's parents and especially Murray who can play weird like no one else. Edward Norton turns in his best work in years as the scout leader and we even get a strong bit by Tilda Swinton. Harvey Keitel pops up towards the end and it's always great seeing him. Bruce Willis is the one that really jumps off the screen. I remember PULP FICTION brought him back to life in regards to showing he could "act" and didn't have to always play Bruce Willis and this film proves the same. Willis is extremely good, funny and at times touching in his part and it was great to see him acting again. MOONRISE KINGDOM isn't going to be a film for those seeking brainless action but those who want something more are bound to be entertained.

Moonrise Kingdom is charming, quirky, cute, affable, well-composed, sentimental, nostalgic and pragmatic; and I HATED IT. When it comes to Wes Anderson films, there are three guarantees: children will act like adults, girls will carry around suitcases, and parents will not understand - Moonrise Kingdom cashes in on the Anderson promises with much aplomb. If you have never seen a Wes Anderson film you might find Moonrise Kingdom to be magical and unique. If you have seen Bottle Rocket, Rushmore, The Royal Tennenbaums, Life Aquatic, and Darjeeling Limited, you will find Moonrise Kingdom to be a tired regurgitation of a one-trick-pony director who will forever try to recreate the popular and artistic success of The Royal Tennenbaums, his truly benchmark work. Anderson is a very creative artist, who freely steals from French New Wave and Italian Neo-surrealism, to craft highly choreographed and visually intricate films that specifically show the audience exactly what Anderson likes and how he likes to show these things; he is an artist who works exclusively in a personal space and so far hasn't compromised his personal artistic vision. And there is also the rub! Anderson is incapable of working outside his space; where he once filmed "outside the box"...he now is trapped in this box and ironically appears no longer able to think outside that box - he is a hostage of the aesthetics and style that define him. A tale set in the 1965 about two pre-teens who fall in love and escape into a boy-scout fantasy of an adventure, Moonrise Kingdom, while displaying the very artistic template that made him a favorite of cinematophiles, is also incredibly lifeless, pretentious, contrived and frankly, poorly written. A stand-out cast featuring Edward Norton, Bill Murray, Bruce Willis, and Frances McDormand are wasted on underwritten cardboard cutout characters that are weighed down by hackneyed clichés and insipid dialog. I do give kudos to the main two leads - the children - they give the film its only signs of life; Kara Hayward would not look out of place in a Goddard or Fellini piece. While the story is mainly about unhappiness, disenfranchisement, and the ubiquitousness of love vs. duty, it also provides no real substance regarding these themes, meandering along until its trite conclusion. Moonrise Kingdom is a film that suffers the failure of style over substance - in so much as Wes Anderson's signature moves such as tracking from perfectly composed room to perfectly composed room, are now too obvious and no longer meld in the wholeness of the cinematic aesthetic, but instead point out, too glaringly, that you are watching a Wes Anderson film. There is a difference between suddenly seeing a Stanley Kubrick image and saying "oh yeah, this must be a Kubrick film" to watching a Wes Anderson film and throughout the entire film you are drubbed to oblivion with the fact that you are watching a Wes Anderson film. Within 10 minutes of the opening, I was tired of seeing what I was watching - it was so contrived and such a shameless display of idiosyncrasy that the film became a quest to find something new and fresh in it, and unfortunately there is none to be found. With a script that is full of humor but none of it funny, full of quirky characters but none of them interesting, and full of pretty visuals that add nothing to the story, Moonrise Kingdom seems like the death knell of the prototypical Wes Anderson film. But I doubt this will ever stop him - I applaud his artistic integrity and refusal to compromise with mainstream Hollywood, but ultimately he is becoming Quentin Tarantino - a one-note carnivalist forever trying to recreate the success of his early work (Reservoir Dogs is still by far Tarantino's best work and all subsequent films are the recyclage of Pulp Fiction, the film where QT blew his entire artistic wad, just like Anderson did with The Tennenbaums) by insisting on a personal style that is adored by many but offers nothing new to the medium through which the artist tries to communicate. Like Bill Murray's character, when told to stop feeling sorry for himself, I ask... "why?"

If you've been following Mr. Anderson's relatively short career, you'll find more of the same here: a film that is full of quirkiness, which I find to be parables of the troubles we encounter in life. I came to this film without any expectations, having read nothing about it in the news so I was pleasantly surprised that the main protagonists are a couple of tweens. Any fears of mine finding a sappy or saccharine story were vanquished and replaced with wonderment following the journey of the two main characters. Both actors didn't seem to have formal training but this didn't stop them from serving the story well. It is down to the genius of Mr. Anderson capturing their human performances which are nothing less than beautiful.

I can't recommend this film highly enough!

My young son watched the start of the movie and immediately exclaimed that it reminded him of Fantastic Mr Fox. So right from the off, it is a Wes Anderson film with its quirky photography and performances.

You also get the Anderson regulars such as Billy Murray, with newcomers such as Bruce Willis and Ed Norton.

Norton as the offbeat scoutmaster fits in well here and we see a kind of performance from him that's been missing for a few years.

The real stars are the youngsters. Its a tale of two pre-pubescent, difficult children who fall in love and run off with the adults searching for them. One of them is an orphan, rejected by his foster family and social services may farm him out to a home or even worse.

I suppose young kids kissing or exploring their sexuality might be off putting for some but it does have real tenderness and emotion.

It is a shame that the pace wavers and loses focus here and there. Maybe the film needed to be tighter but is no less rewarding.

I was genuinely looking forward to seeing this, especially as I hadn't previously seen a Wes Anderson film, which appeared a major gap in my experience. I have to say that I found it the most dull, unengaging film I have seen for some time, but I acknowledge the difficulty of being critical of a film that so many consider exceptionally good. It's interesting, though, to see that there are a relatively small number of comments here that articulate the same reservations that I had.

In case I was missing something fundamental, I have since read up on Anderson's career and approach and I can see that he has his own distinctive trademark. But is that really such a positive thing? Some of the greatest directors manage to put their own stamp on a film by using their expertise to draw you in (and thereby make you forget who the director is) rather than via an obsessive need to make practically every frame indicative of their style. OK, Anderson likes (e.g.) particular colours and very precise compositions within the frame - and perhaps his fans enjoy spotting such elements - but why should that increase the enjoyment of the viewer? I was intrigued by the potential of the story but I felt all the dramatic potential was lost due to it being secondary to Anderson's quirky and unreal world. E.g. Why does it enhance the film for the characters to display so little emotion and never smile? Why is there a need for distorting lenses?

I'm amazed that so many consider the film romantic. Even considering that the kids are supposed to be somewhat disturbed, it's notable that they display so little affection for each other, even when saying "I love you" with absolutely no warmth. Like others here, I was also uneasy about a film (especially a comedy) having scenes with two 12 year olds in their underwear kissing, with the girl inviting the boy to touch her breasts and commenting on his erection. I wonder if all those praising the film for being "cute" and for its depiction of "innocence" would be equally relaxed about their children of similar ages (if they have them) having a similar relationship? Doesn't this send the wrong message to adults watching? Those emphasising the "innocence" also seem to have overlooked the boy using a fish hook to pierce the girl's ears, the other boy that was stabbed and the dog that was killed, or is all that OK because it's 'A Wes Anderson Film' and the fans are in on the joke?

I accept that this review will have no impact on the fans that love the film, but I'm still inclined to assume that so many like Anderson's style - and the unreal world he creates - that they are prepared to gloss over the lack of substance. But if you haven't seen the film yet and intend to do so, I would urge you to genuinely watch it with an open mind and not be swept along into thinking that if you don't like an Anderson film, you lack an appreciation for subtlety and 'indie' cinema. You may instead have noticed the unlikeable characters, the irritatingly theatrical staging, the not particularly funny in-jokes, etc, etc.

It's 1965 and pre teen pen pals, Sam (Jared Gilman) and Suzy (Kara Heywood) agree to run away from home and meet up a year after meeting for the first time. While the two of them head off into the wilderness of Suzy's twelve mile long home island a search party that includes Island Policeman Bruce Willis, Scout leader Edward Norton, Suzy's parents Bill Murray and Frances McDormand and Sam's fellow Scouts set about trying to hunt the eloping children down in the days preceding a huge storm. I should say from the outset that I am a huge Wes Anderson fan and have absolutely loved all of his films with the exception of Fantastic Mr Fox so I went in expecting great things. My expectations were matched and even perhaps exceeded. I loved this film. Anderson sets up Suzy's home life in a fantastic opening sequence which features some exquisite tracking shots through the family home. Before anything is said it is already obvious to the audience that Suzy is a loner who longs for something bigger, something more. Her parents do not get on and are never even seen in the same room, let alone talking to each other. She has three younger brothers who appear to get along very well. Her house is large and well furnished, indicating wealth if not happiness. All of this is established in one long sequence of beautiful camera movements which last no longer than a couple of minutes. Sam's life with his Scout troupe is shown in a similar manner although it soon becomes apparent that he has already escaped in search of his love, Suzy. One of the things I love about all of Anderson's films is that you could turn on the TV at pretty much any moment during any of his films and within a few moments be sure that you are watching a Wes Anderson film. His style is very distinctive and it's all over his latest work. The shots are framed to perfection and each camera movement feels measured but not forced. There is a vague pastel and brown tint to everything which matches the film's period setting. Everything from the sets to the characters also feels slightly off centre and as though they inhabit the same world as The Royal Tenenbaums and The Darjeeling Limited. Anderson not only creates his own world for each film but his films feel somehow connected and as though they too inhabit the same slightly odd world. The plot is absolutely delightful and sweet. It's such a touching and loving story which also feels like a love letter to the children's adventure books of which Suzy reads throughout the film. Though they read these books, the children long for an adventure of their own and have finally embarked on one. The characters are equally enchanting. Sam and Suzy are somehow both old beyond their years but also very much still children. They have obvious intelligence and wisdom but convey it through a child's eyes. They are on the cusp of adulthood but somewhere in between. The acting of Hayward and Gilman is superb and again both feel both older than they are but also very child like. They are great. The adult characters are also great without exception. Bruce Willis is a sad and lonely cop who patrols a quiet island and although he has his faults is very kind and caring. Edward Norton is an exemplary leader who also has a big heart while Bill Murray and Frances McDormand, both lawyers, talk to each other using mostly legal language and although are not really in love with each other, care a lot for their children and want the best for them. There are also small cameos from Jason Schwartzman, Harvey Keitel and Tilda Swinton, all three of which were welcome and provided something. The adult cast on the whole was fantastic. The score goes perfectly with the on screen action and features a mixture of militaristic marching music, classical and 60s pop. They somehow all work together and help to push the story on to it's frenetic final act. This is a film with a big heart, lovely story and plenty of laughs. Although I only just saw it I already can't wait to see it again. It's everything you'd expect from a Wes Anderson film but as well as being unusual, wacky and nice to look at also has a sweet story about adolescence, growing up and first love.

The story of an unliked 12 year old Khaki scout and the unwanted 12 year old daughter of a pair of disfunctional lawyer parents, all set in 1965 - then the pair of 'lovers' decide to run away together on a fairly small island. The whole concept is ridiculous, but the absolutely stellar cast pull it off. The use of music by Benjamin Britten and other C20th composers works very well. I give it at least 8/10 (possibly 9/10 - it is very good).

I will be really interested to see next year's Academy Awards, especially the one for cinematography. This is a course in that subject. The camera plays with everyone and is the trued hero in this film. Once I realized that this was not a conventional movie, but one with quirky characters and deep psychology overtones, I settled back and was mesmerized. This is the story of a couple misfits, caught in a claustrophobic world where they don't belong. They come form a dysfunctional ethos but maintain dreams they don't understand. They manage to persevere despite the odds against them. This is a lovely film with some of our best actors: Frances McDormand, Bruce Willis, Edward Norton, Bill Murray, all caught up in their own debilitating existences and trying to move from one day to the next. This is one of those gems that come along once in a blue moon. It is full of charm, wit, kindness, pain, and a whole hose of characters you will have a hard time forgetting.

My daughter went to see "Moonrise Kingdom" some time back and she said she felt out of sync with the hype for the film. While she liked it, she didn't think it was as brilliant or wonderful and reviews would indicate. Too often this is the case with very good films. The reviews are SO glowing that you feel let down when you finally see it ("The Artist" was such a film for me). My experience was a bit difference. Now that I heard how she thought the film was overrated, I expected less from the film--and perhaps this helped me like it more. Now this is not to say I adored the film--it had a few minor problems. Sometimes the incredibly overly restrained acting annoyed me--as I know this was very deliberate but it also occasionally frustrated me--especially with Bill Murray whose one style of acting in recent films has been to pretend he's a zombie. Otherwise, though, this is a must-see picture. Even with its overly mannered style (the singing, the flatness of affect, etc.), the story is so wildly original that it is still very captivating. I wanted to see more when it ended--and that's a good sign.

Wes Anderson movies have always automatically started at a 7/10 for me by default. I have admiration for symmetry and quirky characters executed in such a style. Its everything Wes excels in, it also fun that big time actors are always to be found running around this universe.

Fair warning (though it didn't affect the score besides not being higher) there ia a scene I felt uncomfortable with, I'd even say unnecessary. Two actual underaged children kiss, "french kiss", touch the others tit and mention another's "hard on". Its shot in the most flat and awkward manner so its hard to say its sexualising, more so displays how youngins explore sexuality. From an artsy perspective I understand the reasoning.

However from my own biased personal opinion I did not enjoy it, so much so I don't recommend this movie nor will I ever watch it again. Something about a grown man telling young kids to perform acts infront of camera, where children can't consent to such in real life, feels exploitive. Not to mention the sexually indecent culture around Hollywood.

In conclusion I will give praise for everything else about the show even rate it well. I don't recommend though. Not trying to have some sort of higher horse here, this movie is high praised so not much I say has impact. Its just my opinion.

Moonrise Kingdom (2012)

It's hard to see anyone not liking this movie on one level or another. It's really really well made, top to bottom. The art direction almost takes front row in this one, in coordination with the photography, creating a plasticky, beautiful, fluid, and highly stylized view of mid-1960s summer camp on an island in Maine. It's breathtaking and flawless on that visual, physical level. It even breaks rules with impunity--rain bashing the windshield and then it's sunny and bright, or waters savaging the town and people surviving by hanging like paper dolls from a church eave.

Okay, you should know by now that this is a fable, a fairy tale set in rustic beautiful coastal America. The stars are children even if the famous actors are adults. (You want a list, you haven't yet heard that the cast includes Bill Murray, Edward Norton, Tilda Swinton, Harvey Keitel, Francis McDormand, and Bruce Willis. Yes!)

The first analogy that came to mind was "Night of the Hunter" for all the slightly and playfully surreal elements in a serious story of children striking out on their own. This one, in color, is less brooding, for sure. In fact, one of things to love is the bright humor all through. It's either hilarious or witty or clever every single second. When it's touching, or even deeply moving, it remains airy and perfect, too.

The references, subtle and obvious (from Tang to Boy Scout patches to nods to the movies and their romantic distillations), are part of the content. You know you are watching through a filter. Unlike, say, "The Artist," which sort of re-creates the past and makes it clean and bright and shiny, this invents a new kind of reality that seems to be a perfect example of the past. It doesn't just mime it. It becomes it, fresh. Though utterly false, too, on purpose. Like a memory polished in a mirror.

Of the adult actors there isn't much to say. They play their exaggerated parts with restraint (a great trick) and the over-the-top plot keeps finding little things to keep it in check. The movie never quite gets carried away (though the end with the storm does push the limits, switching to an almost-not-quite black and white for awhile, beautifully). The movie does carry the viewer away, however.

I saw this with my girlfriend who isn't from the U.S. and she liked the film but didn't love it. It might partly be sense of humor or taste, but I think it's partly how imbedded the nostalgia for the real 1960s is for many of us who grew up then, in the U.S. Everything was, as in the "Truman Show," a kind of nod to a seemingly ideal, safe, happy, ridiculously simple and moral time. Even the immorality here is limited to a touching of hands, as seen through some binoculars.

The one thread that I somehow predict will become a problem for born-agains and do-gooders (no offense, to either, I think) is that there is an implicit sanctioning of teenage touching, pre-sex, and running away. I know, it's a fairy tale, but when the main boy is smoking a pipe, he isn't just miming his dad, he's smoking a pipe. When the girl says the boy can touch him where he shouldn't, he does. It's amazingly innocent, but it does imply a freedom unthinkable in the movies of the 1960s, if not in real life.

By the way, this is set before the hippy 60s. There is no hint of drugs or even rock and roll. The adults as much as the kids are pure as snow. Just a bit restless and wanting more than what they have. Which is maybe the story of all of us, one point or another.

See this. See this. See this.

The one thing this movie has going for it is its very unique style. But to me this can be too much at some points. I loved the set designs and the colors but I didn't care for the story or the characters at all. I didn't feel any kind if emotional connection to them. They all seemed too wacky and unrealistic. It was kind if like watching a cartoon. Nothing in the movie is realistic at all. It was as if it had been written by a child. I'm not putting it down as I'm sure that's what they were going for. I'm just saying its not for me.

This film is wonderfully shot, and the use of color is intriguing. However there is a distinct lack of substance and likable characters.

Seriously Coulda used a dose of Owen Wilson...Everyone Except the 2 main characters and Edward Norton are just agonizing to watch. And I like Murray, Willis, Swinton, AND McDormand, a lot. Murray was just not good, and the others lackluster, although Tilda Swinton was more or less her usual self. The dialogue was at times amusing but the direction was lacking.

There is a whole lot of droll monotone soliloquies and quirkiness just for the sake of quirkiness. You knew what was going to happen and yet it took forever and a day to unfold. It's like Wes Anderson took the worst parts of Tenenbaums, Darjeeling, and Fantastic Mr. Fox and decided they were the best, and deserved their own movie. In a word, boring. In a sentence, wait for rental or skip entirely.

Greetings again from the darkness. Not many people think like Wes Anderson. That's probably a good thing in real life. It's definitely a good thing for movies. He is a creative and distinct filmmaker, though not one with mass appeal. My two personal favorites of his are The Royal Tenenbaums and Rushmore. His previous film, Fantastic Mr Fox, was a solid hit and critically lauded. Now he delivers one that will probably only click with his core fans. It's a thing of beauty ... if you keep in mind that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Set on the fictional New Penzance Island off the coast of New England in 1965, the movie opens with terrific visuals of the Bishop family's lighthouse/home. Our tour is conducted as if the home were a dollhouse, and our eyes struggle to keep up with the detailed decor. We are struck by the color palette of tans, greens and splashes of red. This will continue throughout the movie.

The story centers around two 12 year old misfits: Sam and Suzy. Sam is an orphan and outcast in his Khaki Scouts troop, and Suzy is misunderstood and ignored by her selfish parents, who communicate with a bullhorn and through legalese at bedtime (they are both lawyers). Sam and Suzy are attracted to each other's misery and decide to run away together. This ignites a flurry of activity on this quiet island and showcases two first time actors with remarkable screen presence: Jared Gilman (Sam) and Kara Hayward (Suzy).

The "grown-ups" on the island include Suzy's parents played by Bill Murray (a Wes Anderson staple) and Frances McDormand. The island police chief is played Bruce Willis, who we soon figure out is also a social outcast. The Scoutmaster is played by Edward Norton in a regimented weirdness that will have you laughing in confoundment. For such serious topics, Mr. Anderson and co-writer Roman Coppola provide us many comedic moments - both through dialogue and site gags.

During the search, other colorful supporting characters get involved. Social Services is after Sam. Tilda Swinton plays Social Services. In one of the few gags, I'll give away, Swinton's character only introduces herself as Social Services. This is a gut punch to a system that is often under-staffed and forgetful of it's true mission. We also get Jason Schwartzman as a very helpful, though slightly seedy, Cousin Ben. Harvey Keitel plays the senior Scoutmaster who is unhappy with Norton for losing a scout. Bob Balaban makes periodic appearances as a narrator ... either for a documentary or for the movie, depending on the moment's need.

The script does a wonderful job of capturing how the 12 year old brain works. Some of the scenes with Sam and Suzy are almost like looking a photo album ... exactly the way our childhood memory works. Flashes of moments. The Alexandre Desplat score is heavy on percussion, but it works well with the minimalistic look of the film. It's also interesting to note that this is one of the few movies where it makes sense to have a soundtrack with Benjamin Britten, Hank Williams and Mozart! If you go to this one, keep your eyes open and moving, and your ears receptive. The payoff is worth it.