Moonrise Kingdom

Wes Anderson is a unique character who you don't see in world cinema too often. He always manages to surprise me, whether positively or negatively. Moonrise Kingdom is supposedly heavily inspired by his own childhood, and in that case, I wouldn't want to be his father or scout leader. Just as Miloš Forman became a role model for firefighters, Anderson has become one for scouting. Moonrise Kingdom is a film about children, love, determination, and bad weather. This film about rebellion against the adult world and the journey to fulfill a first love resonated with me. So far, this has been my most delightful encounter with Wes Anderson's work. The director's sense of absurdity, irony, and nonconformity definitely triumphed here. Overall impression: 95%. (26/04/2018)

Like a heretic, I confess that I have only seen Wes Anderson's Fantastic Mr. Fox, which didn't quite fit my mood at the time and has been waiting for a second chance ever since. After Moonrise Kingdom, I will definitely give it that chance. And I'm definitely going to (finally) watch Anderson's older films too, because this one literally charmed me - with everything. An original, funny, endearingly childish adult spectacle, perfectly cast, even better written and directed, and with a great Desplat score. What more can I ask for? (09/03/2014)

Anderson's scout sale - contrived, copied from previous deeds, atypically unfinished (so many ideas simply just fade out), and more than anemic in terms of the storytelling. I accept the poetry of the first loves and boy's camping, but I expect more from Wes than the amusing shallowness, which mainly turns into a total spasm in the end. (07/07/2012)

At the idea level, Moonrise Kingdom is basically a live-action version of Fantastic Mr. Fox, but with greater interest in the juvenile protagonist, who in Anderson’s film is equal to the adult protagonists (which is nicely shown in the partner relationship between Captain Sharp and Sam). This time, the king of indie films expresses his reluctance to leave the realm of childhood and to give up the wilderness and his own nature in favour of civilisation with a strong tinge of nostalgia (which somewhat clashes with several unexpectedly grown-up scenes of youthful first love). Even his inimitable playfulness sometimes has to give way to it. The banality of some of the plot twists and character transformations, which is the result of having too many characters and the effort to appropriately reward each of them, contrasts with the incredible degree of care put into each shot. The jokes don’t scream for our attention and it perhaps isn’t even possible to catch all of them or, as the case may be, find them in the mise-en-scéne on the first viewing. Anderson is able to work with the setting with a similar imaginativeness and poetic sense of space as, for example, Jacques Tati. Unlike Tati, however, he works with smaller areas (the Bishops’ home gives the impression of a dollhouse thanks to its “fragmentation” into individual rooms) as well as panoramas of more expansive exterior spaces so that they seem very flat (perhaps like side-scrolling video games). My admiration for the meticulousness and imaginativeness with which the film was made (i.e., not made up) outweighed my enchantment this time, but even so, it is still a huge shift in my attitude, since a few years ago I ranked Anderson among the directors that I would never even remotely be friends with. 85% (19/07/2012)

An oddity for indie lovers, hipsters and various other weirdos who will probably drool over the film of the year. For a normal viewer, however, except for a few moments, it is almost non-stop suffering with oddly chosen music and a convoluted ending. At least in terms of actors there is someone to lean on. (17/01/2022)