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.
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.