Asteroid City

This is by far the worst of his movies. Such an incredible cast and he did nothing with them, the acting is good but the lack of an interesting story is unbelievable. It's a pretty film, yes, but even visually, it's the least interesting from his work. French dispatch was his first strike, Asteroid city is his second, really hope there's not a third. Hope he hires a good writer or writers to help him with his next films. We know he can do art direction, photography, and a few funny bits, but he needs someone to help him with plots. Really, with such an amazing cast, to come up with this, is so so so sad. What a waste. Truly disappointed.

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! 👍

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....

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.

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.