776 Moonrise Kingdom

[domino harvey]

That's basically DC

[jojo]

Caught a showing this afternoon, and Elegant Dandy Fop pretty much articulated my thoughts. It's definitely his most accessible film, dealing with children and many of the familiar universal ideas and themes associated with idealistic youth romance. It also has some pretty exciting action scenes! It definitely is a bit zany, but I wouldn't call it quirky, at least not in the same way as Royal Tenenbaums or The Life Aquatic were. And in my opinion it works all the better for it.

I also think Bruce Willis' general acting style and persona works quite well with Wes Anderson. I wouldn't mind seeing him in more Wes Anderson films in the future.

[hearthesilence]

Just saw it and liked it, but a quick question...

I saw this at the Regal theater near Union Square, one of the four theaters that have shown it since it first opened so I'm hoping plenty of others here saw it there too. I think they projected it with the wrong plate. During every credit or subtitle, the words were all nicked by the edges of the screen. I'm not sure how much more space was supposed to be around the words, but once I picked up on this, I wondered what else was lost. There are plenty of compositions where the character or something important was shoved to the bottom of the screen, and in some cases they'll do something like hold up something that wasn't that visible, possibly because it was chopped off.

Anyone else see this at that theater? I don't think it totally ruined the movie for me, but it still sucks and it's complete shit for them to do that when they charge $13.50 for a ticket. (I think a friend of mine saw this for $9 in Evanston, Illinois, and that was for a regular adult ticket.)

[mfunk9786]

This was an issue for The Life Aquatic when I saw it theatrically: Framing is the biggest nag I have with projection, even in arthouse theaters. I'd rather there be a little gray area around the edges than have everything over-zoomed and lose the edges of the frame, especially in a film like this, which is likely to use every inch of it. As for the price: you live in New York!

[hearthesilence]

As for the price: you live in New York!

I know, it's still criminal, even for NYC. Two friends paid $15 via Fandango ($1.50 fee). $15! It opens at BAM tomorrow, which I prefer but had to see this today with Manhattanites - would've been $12 there, $7 with membership.

[Jack Phillips]

Just saw it and liked it, but a quick question...

I saw this at the Regal theater near Union Square, one of the four theaters that have shown it since it first opened so I'm hoping plenty of others here saw it there too. I think they projected it with the wrong plate. During every credit or subtitle, the words were all nicked by the edges of the screen. I'm not sure how much more space was supposed to be around the words, but once I picked up on this, I wondered what else was lost. There are plenty of compositions where the character or something important was shoved to the bottom of the screen, and in some cases they'll do something like hold up something that wasn't that visible, possibly because it was chopped off.

Anyone else see this at that theater? I don't think it totally ruined the movie for me, but it still sucks and it's complete shit for them to do that when they charge $13.50 for a ticket. (I think a friend of mine saw this for $9 in Evanston, Illinois, and that was for a regular adult ticket.)

I also went to the Union Square Regal and had the same experience.

It doesn't matter what they charge; if you pay to see a film, you should be able to see it projected correctly. We don't have projectionists in cinemas anymore, so there's no one to complain to. The people who work in these places certainly don't care.

Home theater is the future of cinema.

[mfunk9786]

I don't want to gang up on Regal since I think their theaters are ultimately far superior to the other theater chain in my area (AMC), but a few years ago I had seen an early screening of Knocked Up, enjoyed it quite a bit, and went out with about five or six friends to see it the Friday it came out at a Regal nearby. The previews and the first 10 minutes of the movie were projected on the ceiling before someone finally came in and fixed it - in a sold out screening in the biggest auditorium in the place. Sigh.

[domino harvey]

It'll finally be in Baltimore next Friday, thank God

[mfunk9786]

I'm seeing it in a matter of two hours. Despite the hyperbole being thrown around, if I like this more than Rushmore and/or The Royal Tenenbaums, I will post a video of me eating my hat in this very thread.

[Jeff]

I didn't like it more than Rushmore or Tenenbaums, but it's right up there. It's got the heart of those two films too. It does as good of job as any film I've seen at articulating what it feels like to be 12 and in love. The awkwardness, sincerity, and the feeling that this is the most important thing that will ever happen to you are all captured beautifully. Neither of the kids has any of that unnatural precociousness that plagues so many child actors. They're both so wonderful and natural. Great casting work.

Anderson detractors will have a field day here, because he pushes his own style to new extremes, but boy does it work. The silhouettes, sped-up motion, etc. that Elegant Dandy Fop referred to earlier were wonderful. The "quirk," for lack of a better word, establishes the story for the magical little fantasy that it is. The production design and cinematography were great evocations of the era. It all feels more "lived in" than any other Anderson film.

If I had any complaint, it's that I wish there was more. I felt like there was more of Suzy's home life to be explored, and more of her backstory and anger issues to be explained. I'm convinced that Anderson must be a fan of From the Mixed-Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler. Beyond the rather overt reference in Tenenbaums, here we have a 12-year-old girl protaganist with three little brothers who runs away from home due to a vague sense of dissatisfaction with her everyday life.

The supporting roles all feel truncated and a little underdeveloped. The kids should absolutely be the focus, but it felt like there was something missing. The starry cast were all great, but most roles amount to little more than cameos. I loved the Bruce Willis role and his performance -- my favorite of the adults.

This is one I'm going to watch again and again. As you can imagine, there is so much to take in within each frame, it's overwhelming. I think I could spend a whole day with Suzy's books alone.

hearthesilence -- It must have been really badly framed at the theater you attended. I had your post in mind any time there was text on screen, and there was always a substantial margin around it.

[zeroman987]

The supporting roles all feel truncated and a little underdeveloped. The kids should absolutely be the focus, but it felt like there was something missing. The starry cast were all great, but most roles amount to little more than cameos. I loved the Bruce Willis role and his performance -- my favorite of the adults.

I agree with most of your assessment except for this. I felt that when I was watching the children interacting with each other or when I was watching Frances McDormand and Bill Murray interacting with the children, I got lost in the movie. However, Edward Norton and Bruce Willis did not reach the bar set by the rest of the cast. That is not to say that Bruce Willis did not have good scenes. However, as the film wore on, the character's realness slipped away. This is a shame because Bruce Willis worked so hard to build the character in to something honest and sincere in the first and second act. Edward Norton had flashes of brilliance as well. But, they were just flashes and never really developed into anything substantial. As a result, both characters drew me out of the film to such an extent, especially towards the climax, that it hurt my enjoyment of it.

I also thought the film had problems with finding its tone towards the beginning - which was very jarring.

Spoiler

You get one scene that is played straight (and is really well done and beautiful) and then the next scene is campy (also fairly well done) and then the rest of the film is so unlike those two scenes (or maybe where those two scenes meet in the middle).

However, once the film

Spoiler

evened out a bit

, I really enjoyed the performances, the beautiful cinematography and how the plot developed. I think it is a testament to just how good the film is that it was able to win me back after I turned hostile after the first 5-10 minutes.

[Shrew]

I agree that the film seems truncated in regard to the adults. While the performers are all good enough to give some sense of depth and history, it still feels like some scenes were cut out to trim the film down and keep the focus on the kids (who are great). Granted, everything also plays like one of Suzy's children's book where everything is myopically related to kids, but then Anderson often breaks that singular point of view to show the adults arguing and sorting out their own problems. The result feels like two films happening at the same time, both of which are interesting, but only one feeling fully fleshed out and explored.

That's particularly true in the last half where

Spoiler

Keitel shows up and... does nothing? He seems like a stock figure of authority who would fit into the kids' plot, but then he turns out to be part of Norton's redemption arc, and unsatisfyingly at that. I feel like there was supposed to be some history between the two (I got that Keitel obviously represented the kind of manly scoutmaster Norton felt he couldn't live up to), but it was all boiled down to a brief headshot of Keitel in a scout magazine, a reprimand, and a rescue.

Also, "the film evens out" may be the oddest spoiler tag I've ever seen. It's like

Spoiler

the film contains a climax and some possible denouement.

[hearthesilence]

hearthesilence -- It must have been really badly framed at the theater you attended. I had your post in mind any time there was text on screen, and there was always a substantial margin around it.

](*,) That really sucks. I guess that just gives me more incentive to buy it on DVD (or to see it again at BAM)...

[Brianruns10]

Anyone else find the whole "buzz building" distribution method really asinine? Buzz is built. Release the damn thing, instead of letting it trickle down from the big cities to the smallers, like we get the sloppy seconds. Sheesh, I live in KC, and we won't be getting this til the end of the month, and I'm one of the LUCKY ones. Others have to wait far longer. Very frustrating!

[mfunk9786]

I still feel like I didn't really see Moonrise Kingdom. Don't get me wrong - it was sweet, charming, brimming with childhood nostalgia - but it didn't feel very much like it took place on planet Earth. Fantastic Mr. Fox was an animated film, which is very well suited to this kind of frenetic pace, but I reached the end of Moonrise Kingdom, which is pretty much the same length, feeling like I didn't know any of these characters as well as I wanted to. Pulling off Wes Anderson's style of dollhouse filmmaking feels like less of an achievement when he sees fit to completely rid himself of the shackles of conveying realism or the rhythms of real life. Whereas Rushmore's characters (it is ultimately this film's spiritual cousin) and world believably lived and breathed before and after the film's runtime, Moonrise Kingdom is only a real place during the time we're watching this movie, and that makes a big difference to me. Is it a very good film? Yes, absolutely - the attention to detail and craft here is baffling. But is it one that I found easy to warm up to upon my first viewing? No - I often found myself a bit exhausted trying to keep up with the million little things we're ideally supposed to pick up on as Moonrise Kingdom rolled along like a speed train - but I can absolutely see where this will be a grower. Hopefully repeat viewings can make me feel as if I know these people (particularly the adults) more intimately than I did after one go-around, because I do really wish I could have gotten to know them better before Moonrise Kingdom closed, tore down its sets, and went back into a trunk in Anderson's closet.

[Professor Wagstaff]

I loved being immersed in a film that seemed as wild as the adventures Suzy might have found in her many stolen books, daydreams during those lonely afternoons before she met Sam. Even with the detailed framing of a Wes Anderson the picture book quality about the photography really sold the idea to me. Everything about this film had me feeling like I was watching a movie adaptation of a great children's novel I never read. This whole film made me wish Anderson made more pictures about children, with this movie at its best feeling like a cousin to Truffaut's Small Change. I'm excited to gather more people for another viewing.

[mfunk9786]

If you count Fantastic Mr. Fox and a good amount of The Royal Tenenbaums, four of Anderson's seven films have been about children.

[Professor Wagstaff]

Mfunk, that did cross my mind and, personally, I wouldn't include them. To me those are more about families with emphasis on the father. Both Fantastic Mr. Fox and The Royal Tenenbaums have terrific child characters in them, but are they're secondary to the adult characters and their dilemmas.

[andrewyi1114]

I found it disappointing.. Not a bad movie by any means (I mean purely for the visuals and theatrics alone, it's pretty amazing), but I was hoping to have a new favorite of Wes Anderson. However after the first time I don't even think it makes top 3. I think most of it is the acting and the dialogue. I'm always the first one to defend Wes when people talk about how unrealistic and artificial his dialogue is, but with this one I have nothing to say in response.

And I think most of it is the delivery...The adults with the exception of Edward Norton pull off their parts almost perfectly (especially Murray), but the kids can't do it. It's like I'm not being thoroughly convinced that these kids would say this or behave like this in these situations. I also believe that mainly it's because I didn't like the little boy. I didn't think he was cast well honestly. When I was reading the screenplay I imagined a cooler, darker, much more rebellious little boy (and maybe that was a mistake), but with this little kid I felt like I was watching an 80s TV movie or something.

And also the story and character development leave so much to be desired. This is the first film I've ever seen having read the screenplay first, and I don't know if that's what made it so painstaking to watch or what but there's nothing really that I took away from this emotionally. Though having said that, the music and costume, production design were top-notch of course. I'm sad because To Rome with Love is getting mediocre reviews, and I'm pretty damn sure Django Unchained is gonna be a lot worse than Basterds. (Read the screenplay to that as well)

[HypnoHelioStaticStasis]

Anyone else notice the totally random and delightful Preminger reference?:

Spoiler

The child psychology book Frances MacDormand wields seems to have a cover lifted from Saul Bass' Bounjour Tristesse titles! Couldn't find a comparison image from the Anderson, but take my word for it.

[Jeff]

Anyone else notice the totally random and delightful Preminger reference?:

I noticed it and thought the same thing. Definitely an intentional reference.

[wattsup32]

Since we are noticing references to other films, did anyone else think that

Spoiler

when the kids are being pursued on top of the bell tower at the end was a Butch and Sundance reference? The boy says something like, "I hope it's not too deep. I can't swim." And the girl respond with something like. "Don't worry. If it's not deep enough, the fall will kill us."

I'm paraphrasing there, but as soon as I saw it my mind went straight to that same scene with very similar dialogue in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.

[tartarlamb]

Does Wes Anderson Hate Dogs?

[knives]

Probably should put a spoiler tag on that.

[mfunk9786]

The New Yorker really dropped the ball by not putting a spoiler tag on that article.