Asteroid City (2023) User Reviews

Enjoyable enough for Wes Anderson fans; but lacking in substance or impact

[bastille-852-731547 · 6/10 · 13 June 2023]

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.

He has out-Wes-Anderson himself

[mennivetvadjagmenar · 5/10 · 12 June 2023]

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.

This cast doesn't deserve this script

[spavaai · 7/10 · 16 June 2023]

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'm not sure how much further Wes Anderson can go along this path

[gcsman · 6/10 · 20 July 2023]

Like every Wes Anderson film I enjoyed seeing it, or at least it generated some conversation afterward. What's it about? Maybe that's the wrong question. It travels along the edge of surreality from beginning to end and maybe the question should be, what's it trying to say. I think maybe the closest we get is toward the end when the main character, Augie (Jason Schwartzman) breaks through the stage-like set and in a fully surreal segment goes 'backstage'. He asks the Director (Adrian Brody) what this means, what are my lines supposed to do. He's told only that you're doing great, keep it up. I.e. -- life has no script, it feels a lot of the time like it's made up, there's no one to tell you what it means. That's about as good as I can do with it. Just as in Soul (2020), the message is that the Purpose of Life is to live it.

As with all WA films part of the fun is to see all those well known actors bouncing off each other with quirky dialog (beyond quirky here). Scarlett Johanssen is entrancing. The flat delivery of lines, the sets that look like stage backdrops, the simplified color palette all stand out here as his trademarks. It's exquisitely tailored, but I'm not sure though how much further he can go on this stylistic path. Story, Substance, and Style -- if all you are left with is Style then you can admire it but what more?

For me Anderson's high-water mark is still Moonrise Kingdom (2012). That one is a perfect, near-magical balance of story/substance/style with quirkiness to burn but deeply humanist. (And the finest end credits of any movie ever.) Grand Budapest Hotel (2014) is very fine too but at that point, style was already starting to win over those other essential elements.

Visually Beautiful & Well-Crafted. Story Ranges From Fine, To Semi-Frustrating, & Slightly Pretentious.

[tjstarr-99199 · 6/10 · 25 June 2023]

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".

There is a lot of quality here, but I am afraid 'ASTEROID CITY' might not be everyone's taste,

[j-madej · 7/10 · 17 June 2023]

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! 👍

Quirky Anderson world, chaotic and eccentric.

[JohnDeSando · 17 June 2023]

"An apocryphal fabrication"

Rather than the usual "inspired by actual events," Wes Anderson's newest satire, Asteroid City, admits it's untrue, an especially important declaration for newbies to the Andersonverse. The deadpan take on America in the 50's as it responded to alien invasions via UFO's and the chaos of changing post WWII life including love is refreshingly honest, hopeful, and fearful. As it is not his best work, Asteroid shares endearing but minor chords with The Life Aquatic an The Darjeeling Limited. For me, the pinnacle of Anderson genius still is occupied by Fantastic Mr. Fox and The Grand Budapest Hotel, not Asteroid City.

Armed with the blue sky of the desert and the stars of the cinematic universe including Tom Hanks, Scarlett Johansson, and Tilda Swinton, to name just a few of the A-listers, Anderson and writer Roman Coppola get our attention with a form of cosmic exploration of the universe and the private psyche. The meta part of the film is framed in multiple ways such as a TV show within a movie within a play, or whatever.

Per usual, Anderson tightly controls his mise en scene while the pastel coloring and acting are circumscribed by the apparent tacit agreement among the entire crew that minimalism is the mode, especially in speech where the aud must think about what's being said because actors barely reveal what they are about through body language and inflection. What to make of the strange romance between Jason Schwartzman's grieving Augie and Scarlett Johansson's suicidal movie star with attitude, is one of the challenges of a perplexed audience, which must factor in that the lead actors also play their characters in a New York teleplay (check out Brian Cranston's host as stand in for Edward R. Murrow).

Why Tom Hanks's Stanley, a hip curmudgeon, carries a gun behind his belt may take a while to figure out in the context of characters looking for control in their lives. The participants in the Junior Stargazing convention, including Augie's "brainiac" son Woodrow (Jake Ryan), are blameless in their ignorance of a romantic life, relying on adults who are not capable of controlling even their little lives. Almost everyone is at least a bit lost as they face post-WWII love of the good life juxtaposed with dangers like the periodic mushroom out in the desert.

As the complex plot winds down to a nostalgic relook at Spielberg's Close Encounters, the omnipresent pastel landscape and benign characters create a peacefulness for the film/TV production itself and the future as Anderson sees it in its multihued and vibrant human connections.

For Asteroid, few visitors and 47 denizens care about the ancient crater outside their doors. For audience, the memorabilia include a diner, motor court, single pump gas station, and occasional cop chase. Most memorable of Anderson's quirky touches is the vending machine that sells miniscule plots of land.

Besides the audiences' scratching their heads at Anderson's off-the-wall motifs, the aud must also consider that as the alien (Jeff Goldblum, who better?) leaves, the town is put in quarantine, which is like the audience itself stuck in a blended world of Anderson tropes.

It's how to deal with the vagaries and beauties of life as they are, even in an arid Southwest Americana town, that gives this city a place for the audience to stop, but thankfully not forever.

Aims to satisfy hardcore fans of the director's work but alienates any potential newcomers

[MrDHWong · 6/10 · 27 July 2023]

"Asteroid City" is a comedy drama film written and directed by Wes Anderson ("The Royal Tenenbaums", "Moonrise Kingdom", "The Grand Budapest Hotel"). Featuring an ensemble cast including the likes of Jason Schwartzman, Scarlett Johansson, Tom Hanks, Bryan Cranston, and Edward Norton, it aims to satisfy hardcore fans of the director's work but alienates any potential newcomers.

In a retro-futuristic 1955, playwright Conrad Earp's (Edward Norton) latest play "Asteroid City" is being televised with introductory information provided by its host (Bryan Cranston). The play follows a group of people who travel to the desert town of Asteroid City, Arizona in order to attend a youth stargazer convention. Among the attendees are widowed photographer Augie Steenbeck (Jason Schwartzman) and his teenaged son Woodrow (Jake Ryan) and three young daughters, actress Midge Campbell (Scarlett Johansson) and her daughter Dinah (Grace Edwards), General Grif Gibson (Jeffrey Wright), scientist Dr. Hickenlooper (Tilda Swinton), elementary school teacher June Douglas (Maya Hawke) and her class, and a singing cowboy named Montana (Rupert Friend). As the event begins, things seem to be moving smoothly but soon all the participants experience something unexplainable that change their views on life forever.

If there were ever a filmmaker who could be considered the very embodiment of the term "quirky", it would be Wes Anderson. Well, at least one of the more notable examples. Ever since making a name for himself all the way back in 1996, Anderson has essentially crafted out his own unique world in each of his films, treating the audience to interesting camera placement, eccentric characters, unusual settings, and lengthy scenes of explanatory dialogue. For his eleventh film "Asteroid City", Anderson pays tribute to a bygone era of American history, that being the mythology surrounding extraterrestrial life on Earth in post-war times, in his signature style that may test even the most devoted fans of his handiwork.

Where the film falls short of Anderson's better projects is in its uninvolving plot, something of which usually isn't a problem in his films. It is clear the film is supposed to be a story-within-a-story, as it is structured like how a play would look from the imagination of the playwright. Normally I enjoy this meta approach to storytelling, yet at no point did I ever feel fully invested in this story about all these people who just so happen to be at an astronomy convention at the same time. Though each of their stories are somewhat linked together, they never felt like they flowed naturally from one to the other. In many of Anderson's other films, there's an organic connection that links all the story elements into one whereas here it all seemed like the characters only interact with each other arbitrarily rather than for the benefit of the plot. As a result, the film just doesn't have that important emotional attachment to the audience and because of this, it is near impossible to care about anything crucial occurring throughout the story.

Although the plot is distinctly lacking, the film at least has plenty of that unique Wes Anderson visual style for his fans to appreciate. Regardless of the overall quality of some of Anderson's movies, I've always loved the way each of them look. Similar to his previous film "The French Dispatch", Anderson cuts between certain scenes in black-and-white and colour as a way to distinguish between what is happening in the real world versus the play itself. Many of the shots that take place within the play are so meticulously set up that while I didn't care for what was happening at that point in the story, I still couldn't help but admire the attention-to-detail that must have gone into creating that particular look. One scene features a ferris wheel positioned perfectly symmetrical in the frame with the action taking place around it while another shows a group of children all sitting cleverly lined up listening to a musical act perform. Describing these shots doesn't really do them justice as they need to be seen to be properly acknowledged but I'm sure most Wes Anderson fans will understand where I am coming from.

Another trademark of Anderson is his tendency to use large ensemble casts in almost all of his movies, and this one features probably his biggest yet. Actors ranging from frequent collaborators like Jason Schwartzman, Adrien Brody, and Willem Dafoe, to new additions like Tom Hanks, Maya Hawke, and Scarlett Johansson all make up this film's world of quirky characters. Unfortunately, as previously mentioned, the story doesn't really allow for most of them to leave any real impression. Usually I can remember several scenes in Anderson's films that involve even the most minor of character, not simply because of how well known the actor is but rather because they actually contribute something noteworthy to the story. Here, only a small handful of characters are truly memorable, and that's only due to the fact that the plot placed a significant focus on them as opposed to everyone else. There are no real scene-stealers nor are there any standouts among the new faces, instead most of the supporting cast are reduced to forgettable cameos that I had to look up afterwards to confirm if it really was them.

With all of that said, I think the cast member who left the most impression on me was Jason Schwartzman as Augie, a photographer who attends the convention with his intellectual son. Augie is your stereotypical Wes Anderson protagonist; he's socially awkward, he feels emotionally distant from his family, and he craves approval from everyone around him. In any other case, I would have been bothered by a relatively one-note character like this but compared to most others in the film he was easily one of the most interesting. I enjoyed watching him interact with Scarlett Johansson's character Midge, a famous actress whose apathetic personality contrasts to his own longing for validation. These two had the most in-depth relationship in the whole film, which managed to hold my attention through even the blandest of scenes. Given the size of the film's already huge cast, this is quite a letdown.

Even for the most dedicated fan of Wes Anderson, "Asteroid City" is bound to be a challenging viewing experience. While all of the signature visual flair and quirkiness is present as always, it lacks the most important aspect of all, and that is in its ability to emotionally connect with the audience. There just isn't enough reason to justify recommending this film to people outside of Wes Anderson completists, and even then there isn't a whole lot worth seeing that hasn't already been done before, only better. I remain hopeful that Anderson can return to form in a future production, but for now things don't look too promising.

I rate it 6/10.

What do you see in the pastel Rorschach test?

[TheVictoriousV · 9/10 · 26 June 2023]

With Asteroid City, Wes Anderson's obsession with symmetry, balance, and immaculate arrangements may finally have gone to his head; he even puts the horizon smack-dab in the middle of the frame on occasion -- epically defying what John Ford might have once dictated. Pretty based, if you ask me.

Jokes and Fabelmans references aside, I can see why this has been dubbed the most "Wes Anderson" Wes Anderson film to date. (When idiots on TikTok use AI and/or basic principles of symmetry and color palettes to "mimic his aesthetic", this is the film they probably THINK they're creating.) This time, he tells the story (which is a play inside another story) of an Atomic Age desert town -- named Asteroid City, because it's situated near the crater left by a meteorite -- where the looming threat of nuclear war infects all, yet it is a place of nostalgia, escapism, and stargazing wonder. Junior Stargazer contestants annually present inventions and gizmos that seem plucked from the pages of a 1950s sci-fi magazine.

Speaking of stars, the film features many. Jason Schwartzman, Scarlett Johansson, Tilda Swinton, Bryan Cranston, Adrien Brody, Edward Norton, Liev Schreiber, Willem Dafoe, Stephen Park, and Jeffrey Wright are of course no strangers to Anderson. New to his postcard multiverse are Tom Hanks, Maya Hawke, Hong Chau, Sophia Lillis, Steve Carell, etc. I've heard strangely mixed things about the cast and the acting here.

Some argue that these are some of Anderson's most one-note characters yet (his characters are often derided for being monotonously quirky in ways that make them seem interchangeable, while the ones who denote exceptions to the rule never leave whichever setting they're on). Others opine that these figures have more depth in their eyes than ever; that their "Andersonisms" seem like mere masks for deeply human truths.

You might say this stark disagreement among viewers is by design. Asteroid City is one of the more willfully vague, interpretable, and I guess "artsy" Wes Anderson pictures. Some will see a mess; others will see too much to appreciate in one sitting.

To steal a line from @firagawalkwthme: "Anyone saying they 'know' what Asteroid City is saying is missing the point ... the film is intentionally obtuse and open to multiple interpretations. 'You can't wake up if you go to sleep' is an evocative phrase but not even the actors in the film can agree on what it means". From the same thread: "The movie 'feels' like it's about a few different things, yet it's also a refutation of the idea that it's about anything. Schwartzman not knowing why his character does what he does feels like an admission that absolute meaning isn't real -- in movies or life." Do they mean Schwartzman IRL or the stage actor that Schwartzman plays in the film's framing story? The answer's probably yes.

I assure you, regardless, that these performers are all quite funny and, as overcrowded as the cast may seem, each character leaves a distinct impression. You will care more for some than others, of course, but creating so many memorable figures in a relatively short window of time is no small feat. (A friend jokingly observed that the film features both Margot Robbie and atomic bombs, proving that the Barbie-Oppenheimer hype truly is felt everywhere.)

There's charm to the use of practical models, vintage props, and stop-motion as usual. I do understand why it's been dismissed as More of the Same, even though it could also be regarded as a climax; a logical conclusion to a career-long celebration of, among other things, cartoons (the world of the play is one in which Road Runner or Yosemite Sam could pop up at any moment and I wouldn't question it).

In any event, I also understand how this one cuts deeper and gets some of you so very nostalgic and misty-eyed. One critic viewed it as a return to the sort of familial themes Anderson explored in his early days in titles like Rushmore and Royal Tenenbaums, as opposed to the modern hits he saw as being eccentric for its own sake -- paying homage to, say, New Yorker comics without the resonance that's achieved here (David Ehrlich called The French Dispatch the "most visually inventive" but "least emotionally involving" of Anderson's films). Again, though: it comes down to what you seek within the pastel Rorschach test.

As a quirky comedy, Asteroid City works well. As a dreamlike drama, it works better. Either way, as a piece of craftsmanship, boy is it so very "Anderson". I'll have to see it again to decide where it ranks in his library, but I do unquestionably need to see it a second time -- (1) because it invites deeper examination that may lead to even greater admiration, and (2) because I very much want to.

Visually beautiful, but weak narrative lacks heart

[gbill-74877 · 6/10 · 10 July 2023]

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.

Packed to the Rafters with Nothing of Note

[reelreviewsandrecommendations · 4/10 · 16 August 2023]

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.

Do Not Write Off this Film (7.75/10)

[JackRJosie · 8/10 · 19 July 2023]

I've never gone into a film before with such low expectations. I had read the poor reviews and was totally dis-swayed, the only reason I did end up actually seeing it was because it was the only film playing in town that I haven't already seen. So I wasn't all that jazzed about seeing it.

But... uhhhhh

Did I see the same movie as the rest of you?!

I have no idea why this film has such horrible reviews?! My friends, it is a Wes Anderson film! What did you expect? This is so very Wes Anderson! It's so utterly quirky and delightful, just like all of his other films! Mind you, it's wildly bizarre, and unlike any other film you'll see in the theater but for heaven sakes it was fun! It's absurdity was laugh out loud funny, like all of Wes' other films! It was an engaging story! Every shot was absolutely beautiful! It was a really pleasant time!

Do not write off this movie because of the poor reviews, set your expectations to the "Wes Anderson" level and you'll have a really wonderful, bizzare time.

Sci-fi Wes Anderson & The Always Charming Steve Carrell

[dnkqbzw · 7/10 · 18 June 2023]

Although I found Astroid City to be enjoyable to watch & thought provoking, I did not find it half as funny as the rest of my theater. Wes Anderson's first truly sci-fi movie shines in a way many modern sci-fi movies fail, by not saying or explaining everything out loud. The movie's strengths lie in its questioning, a non-circular plot, and evaluation of grief.

This cast shines but the character development was especially uneven for what I come to expect with a Wes Anderson film. For a man who can make The French Dispatch, a collection of short stores, with such powerful individual characters, the supporting characters could've been done better.

I found Schwartzman & Johansson excellently paired with an awkwardly strong chemistry to match Anderson's often deadpan tone. Steve Carrell & Tom Hanks are given the best comedic roles and deliver the funniest lines of the film.

Anderson's ability to showcase childhood love is woven more subtly into this plot with a standout performance by Jake Ryan, who plays Woodrow, Schwartzman's character's son. The science experiment fair type thing was a fun plot device and not familiar for the sci-fi genre. The child acting in this movie is very strong.

This is not my #1 Wes Anderson movie but I had fun and enjoyed it.

Style Over Substance

[andyman789 · 3/10 · 24 June 2023]

Near enough the definition of style over substance. At times seemed deliberately boring. Too much effort was spent in an attempt to seem clever, and not enough effort spent trying to be enjoyable.

Occasional lines were enough to raise a slight chuckle, or an exhale of air, but they are much too few and far between in the vast stretches of emptiness.

The impressive cast assembled don't do an awful job with what they've been given, but none of the characters have any depth whatsoever. Even if they were, there are far too many characters to form any kind of cohesion.

It's quirky at best and painfully dull.

Pretty film. Indigestible plot

[TinhornMarigold · 9 October 2023]

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....

Disappointed to say that it's disappointing

[DoubleMaitre · 6/10 · 16 June 2023]

I live in Paris and I accidentally ran into Wes Anderson on my way back from the office a few months ago. I am a devoted fan to the extent that I completely froze and could not utter a single word to him; I simply stood there, smiling at him stupidly.

You get the picture (pun unintended): I had been awaiting this movie for so long. Like many other fans, watching a good Wes Anderson movie feels like an out-of-body experience. For a couple of hours, you are not the person you are, you do not lead the normal life you lead. Instead, you're in the Wes Anderson Universe.

While most people consider the visual aspect of Wes Anderson's movie as the most quintessential, I consider that the general feeling his movies will leave you in is his most important trademark. The fans of The Royal Tenenbaums, Darjeeling Limited and Life Aquatic will know all too well what I am talking about. The movies are just so heartwarming; hardships, loss and betrayal happen, but people ultimately find a way to their loved ones. Even if it's not perfect. It's like real life, but better.

Alas, Wes Anderson did not deliver on this front with Asteroid City. Just as he did not with the French Dispatch. The movie is visually stunning, but I just expect something else from Wes Anderson. To take me away for one hour and forty-five minutes. That did not happen. The characters are not endearing; the soundtrack is subpar; and the storyline is mildly entertaining.

Maybe we rely too heavily on Wes. Maybe that is a responsibility he should not have to bear. Hopefully, I will run into him again. Only this time I will be able to strike a conversation and show him my "Accidentally Wes Anderson" photo collection.

"Asteroid City", A Theatrical Piece of Art Taking Place in 1950's

[umutoncul-66053 · 7/10 · 20 June 2023]

A theatrical piece of art taking place back in 1950's in a town called "Asteroid City", with a chaotic ambiance. But, what actually makes me like that film is that we (the spectatorship) get to see how this theatrical work within the real life is created. We witness all the efforts and worries of the luvvies striving for giving their best performance and also trying to fully comprehend what in fact the moral of the play is. Hence, in terms of story, it did an unparalleled work thanks to the brilliant editing as well. Having 2 main stories is an uncommon situation compared to a vast majority of films. Nevertheless, it achieved to arrange the course of events of the two stories and reflect them simultaneously. We can clearly see how much labour has been put in the work by the editor.

Regarding the cinematography of the film, Robert D. Yeoman used colors very well especially in this one. He utilized both vivid and black-white colors just for aiding us in distinguishing easily to which main story we pass throughout the picture. Besides, in a few particular scenes with profuse dialogue , he fit two shots going on at the same time in one single screen,giving us the impression of no matter how far the characters stand , they talk as if they have really close distance between them.

The casting was tremendous and was plenty of numerous familiar faces. Of course, a couple of them had major roles than the others. According to the successful performances, I can tell all of the leading actors and actresses embraced the project. But, I cannot disdain the performances of the ones with minor roles such as Edward Norton, Adrien Brody, Margot Robbie, etc.

Aside from the ones that we know, new acting talents showed up. The triplet girls are literally gifted in terms of acting. The way they complete each other with their lines and mimics is stupendous and exquisite. Seemingly, they have a bright future in the industry.

This picture is may not be the best of Wes Anderson, yet it deserves a solid 7 out of 10. I suggest that it will be a good experience if you want to see it in theatres. Don't miss this one!

A Postcard

[statuskuo · 7/10 · 21 June 2023]

"Asteroid City" is a diorama to behold.

The story is of a man who recently lost his wife and is raising his 3 daughters when their car breaks down in remote "Asteroid City" he has to come to terms with grief.

But that isn't the real story. This is a stage play told within the bright eye popping 1950's postcard colors of the time. And the production design is killer! It's Neco wafer in tone. And the movie plays as such. I told a friend Jason Schwartzman is now much older than "Rushmore" and moves like an adult now. Which is remarkable considering I kept forgetting he was in this movie.

The movie is full of whimsy. Moments between Jason and Scarlett Johansson are ruefully romantic. Yet, nothing will come from it. Two sad people meeting in a place where more things happen than any large city.

In this case, they are visited by an alien, which then triggers a response from the government. And so forth (again, story within a story).

To be fair, there isn't a story here. Most of it stems from it being a play we ONLY see in backstage ways. It taps into the artifice of storytelling. And how random a man (Ed Norton) who slaps together gibberish can get away with not having a point.

Director Wes Anderson loves these diorama sets and he is now an absolute expert when it comes to his guiding his performances. A funnier flick than his past efforts ("The French Dispatch").

Thoroughly enjoyed living in "Asteroid City" for a bit.

Anderson's uneven metafiction is flawed but still shot through with brilliance

[caleblimsw · 7/10 · 13 August 2023]

Wes Anderson's sci-fi romantic-comedy romp may not be his best, but there is just enough brilliance in between the flatter sections of the script to generate some genuine cinematic emotion at portions of the movie.

Following a star-studded cast of characters who head to a Nevada town for a stargazers' convention that quickly takes a turn for the extraterrestrial, the premise is instantly brilliant, providing a perfect testing ground for the kind of story which Anderson rolls out.

Credit where credit is due, Anderson and co-story creator Roman Coppola's screenplay is ambitious, audacious, and creative, with a particularly intriguing structure that blends fiction with reality, taking multiple different formats and generating something unique as a result. However it also suffers from pacing issues, especially in the first act, where the focus of the story is unclear and the vast number of characters unable to make a proper impact on the screen.

As a result, we are treated to a series of dizzyingly beautiful shots, in composition, cinematography, and production design, complete from the Anderson signature of smooth single-take camera moves, but none of which gel together properly into a cohesive movie until about halfway through. Once it does, however, this movie becomes exactly what it's trying to be, sophisticated and a finely detailed look at a long-lost world.

The actors rarely extend the character beyond the script's quirks, and that only adds to the sterile feel of something pretty but ultimately pointless throughout the first hour.

As it gains momentum, however, and as actors of a calibre of Jason Schwartzman and Scarlett Johansson get the chance to flex their capabilities beyond Anderson-stoicism, the movie starts to come together, and towards the end is a deeply thoughtful meditation on art, performance, the stories we tell ourselves about deeper meanings, and even about grief and existentialism.

The music, provided by Anderson stalwart Alexandre Desplat, is also noteworthy in it's perfect encapsulation of the Anderson style, and his needle drops remain as joyously wonderful as ever.

Although not close to his best, it is still a work of extraordinary originality, and a visual feast of intricate details and quirkily entertaining cinema. This will win Anderson no new converts, but surely anyone can appreciate the effort and thought put into this movie, though somewhat unwieldy and inefficient.

Meep-Meep

[boblipton · 8/10 · 25 June 2023]

Like all Wes Anderson's movies, it has an eccentric design -- symmetrical, unreal, and cartoony, of course, but also a Fiestaware color pallette to go with its Southwestern location -- and a weirdly composed story. Nominally it's a TV special hosted by Bryan Cranston discussing the last play written by Edward Norton, a story about the goings-on at an almost non-existent American roadside attraction/motel/restaurant/gas station where families gather to attend an annual scholarship event for whatever Brainiac teenager has come up with the best space-related gadget for the US military and some corporate sponsor. The festivities are interrupted in the mid-1950s when aliens land and steal a meteor. An emergency is declared and no one can leave.

Some people didn't care for this movie, saying it seemed pointless, and the dialogue awful. As I have argued in my reviews of other Wes Anderson movies, so what? For the first point, and it's a 1950s stage play, so of course the dialogue sounds ridiculous. I'm more concerned with the jokes, the vending machines that make perfect martinis, a meep-meeping puppet roadrunner, and the references to Billy Wilder's ACE IN THE HOLE. Anderson doesn't have to make movies with an Important Message. It's enough that he entertains us for a while, and his large and distinguished cast seem content to show up, perform their roles, and claim they had a good time doing so.

I was certainly entertained. However, if you're looking for a Message to this movie, how about this: don't worry about the Answers To Important Questions. Maybe you'll stumble onto them, but probably not. One thing you can be sure of, though, is that even when things don't go to plan, even when they go disastrously, outrageously wrong, life will go on. So be ready for that. Or not. It'll happen anyway.

The way this movie is put together is pure magic. You feel like you're drifting through a fairy tale.

[kevin_robbins · 7/10 · 25 June 2023]

Asteroid City (2023) is a movie my wife and I watched at the Alamo Drafthouse last night. The storyline follows the making of a movie called Asteroid City and what went into the writing of the storyline, selection of the cast, how the movie came together and what's it's purpose.

This picture was directed by Wes Anderson (Moonrise Kingdom) and stars Jason Schwartzman (Rushmore), Scarlett Johansson (The Avengers), Tom Hanks (Big), Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad), Jeffrey Wright (The Batman), Liev Schreiber (Scream) and Edward Norton (Fight Club).

The way this movie is put together is pure magic. You feel like you're drifting through a fairy tale. The storyline is interesting, unpredictable and does a great job capturing your imagination. The sets, props, backdrops and attire are all beautiful. The camera angles and cinematography is top notch. The cast is brilliantly constructed and everyone delivers a tremendous performance. There's so many subtle details to grab your attention. I loved the road runner. The conclusion has magnificent depth but also leaves room for interpretation.

Overall, this is a fun trip with a worthwhile story and entertaining characters. I would score this a 7/10 and strongly recommend it.

Worst of his movies, such a waste for this amazing cast

[fangel-31778 · 4/10 · 18 June 2023]

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.

Intriguing for the most part

[ldgkmkz · 9/10 · 7 June 2023]

This film had me interested from the beginning. Straight from the start I felt the Wes Anderson signature vibe. The film is what you would expect from this director. Full of suprises and the unexpected. Something else I loved was the similarity between one of the side stories and Moonrise Kingdom. However the epilogue pulled me right out. Suddenly I wasn't feeling it anymore and, even though it fit the story, I felt betrayed. This is all relative ofcourse. The film was a masterpiece. The ending was just a little less. This film had me constantly wishing I could just consume it in one go instead of having to wait for the story to play out(in a good way).

Enjoyable but a bit confusing

[sary_lfc · 6/10 · 25 June 2023]

I surfed through several reviews and some youtube videos but I am yet to find someone to echo my feelings about this film. I have seen the film this evening and while I believe it that I require a second watch to fully grasp everything about it, I will give my review for now.

Asteroid City is a film about a film about the making of a play. The film starts with a 4:3 black and white screen with Bryan Cranston playing a film host documenting the inception and rehearsal of a popular play called Asteroid City which ran hundreds of times by now in 1955.

The beautiful colored shots of the film are supposed to be the play rehearsal while the black and white ones are supposed to happen in the film's real setting. Thus, when we are watching the scenes in the desert it is supposedly people who are rehearsing for the play. For example, Scarlett Johansson is playing a successful well-known actress in the play but she is not well-known in real life. The distinction of what is and what is supposed to be can be discerned by this and other instances in Asteroid City where the actors and actresses break character from their rehearsal to converse about their real lives (such as when Augie reads the lines from the script on the window, and when Augie exits the set of the play itself).

Visually and aesthetically the film is an excellent addition to Wes Anderson's collection of features, and while technical aspects such as production design, cinematography and color saturation are beautiful, they do not totally vouch for the movie's storytelling itself.

The biggest problem with the movie is that it was unclear when actors were breaking their rehearsal on the set of Asteroid City, thus you would not get the insights needed to understand what the characters they are playing are going through, or what are the actors themselves going through. For example, at the end of the film Augie is questioning the director of the play whether he is playing the part right, an integral element of the film's thesis I would say, but we were unable to answer that question because we were unable to tell whether the developments we've seen in Augie's character has happened to him as an actor or to the widower he is playing. Another example of this is when Tom Hanks gives several remarks regarding the agent of Midge Campell. As a viewer I did not 100% understand whether he was being in character talking about the imagined character of Madge, and hence it would not totally make sense to brag about this about his son-in-law who he seems to not like all that much, or whether he was talking about the actress who was playing Madge which makes much more sense but I guess she's not supposed to be very famous (as I understand from the scene with the understudy in the train). Another example is multiple remarks about Augie sleeping with Midge and I could not understand whether this is supposed to happen in the play or whether it happened while they are rehearsing.

In some scenes I felt too much was going on. Too much movement and people and it was hard to keep track of what was happening exactly. Two examples of these are the scene with the teacher teaching the kids while they are dancing with the cowboys towards the end, and the scene when the General receives a letter from the president and he has way too may people around him. Finally, I would say that a big problem was also the number of characters in this film. There are so many of them, from kids to bigger kids to actors and actresses to behind the play producers and others. It was simply too much and the result is a feeling where we know nothing about what is going on to any of the characters.

To sum up, while the film is visually pleasing and certainly stimulating on an intellectual level, several flaws in its direction and story-telling lessens its efficiency while the size of its cast deprives characters from audience familiarity.

Walter KronkWhite

[owen-watts · 7/10 · 30 June 2023]

After the bloated French Dispatch, Asteroid City feels like a bright and breezy return to form for Anderson and has a pleasing drollness about it. If you're not a fan of his affectations then there's nothing for you here as he's rigorously doubled down on the artifice and confection so far it genuinely feels closer to Fantastic Mr Fox than anything live action. There's definitely a smattering of extraneous character work here but I found myself glad of a clear central theme which the previous film lacked. For those who can stomach it, it's genuinely one of his most digestible films in quite a while.