I've been thinking about how star ratings can be relative. Three stars for ELEMENTAL means one thing (a disappointment by Pixar standards) but three stars for NO HARD FEELINGS means another (hey, you might like this overachieving comedy with some very good performances). I always try to treat a three-star rating as "This is good," but then "good" means different things for different films, doesn't it?
I'm just a guy with a Letterboxd account but I spend a lot of time thinking in particular about 3- and 3.5-star ratings (out of 5), and how especially the 3-star territory includes both "I didn't really like it but I wouldn't say it's bad" and "I liked it despite a lot of flaws." Two very different spins.
This is why I love the "Heart" feature on Letterboxd. 1-star plus Heart: "I liked this terrible, terrible movie!" 4 stars, no heart: "I completely understand why this movie is important but it is was not for me."
Asteroid City has yet to come to San Francisco (finally opening this weekend), so I’ve spent a full month since Cannes living in that space of needing a second rewatch. “You can’t wake up if you don’t fall asleep” rippled backwards through the entire film for me, and I can’t wait to see it again informed by that context.
Saw this last week and my first reaction was “I can’t wait to talk about this over at The Reveal” and my second reaction was “I’ll have to see this again before I can talk about it over at The Reveal.” Anderson’s narrative framing seemed completely incoherent this time around, but in a way that presented no problems for me; it’s a spectacular and confounding wild pitch of a movie. What the hell kind of TV show is this supposed to be, anyway?
Anderson seems to have loved this one so much on a moment-to-moment basis that he couldn’t bring himself to impose his usual structural rigor on it, so he made its unruliness thematic and let it rip. I can’t wait to see it again.
Following up to say that it is *unbelievable* how much easier ASTEROID CITY is to wrap your head around on second viewing. For a good chunk of the runtime I needed to convince myself that he didn’t re-edit it in the four weeks between its Cannes and US premieres -- that’s how big a difference it made in terms of picking up its disparate pieces. Your review is spot on, and I still believe it to be major Wes.
I’m seeing Asteroid City at my earliest opportunity, which is tonight at 7:50 at my local AMC (aka the only game in town). I’ve been exposed to the trailer enough over the past few months that the cadence of some of dialogue is already etched in my mind, but I’m eager to see how it all fits into one movie.
Man do I want to like Asteroid City, but for me Anderson's movies have gotten so artificial and twee (yes, I know that's an overused word, particularly when it comes to Anderson, but I also think it's spot on) that it's hard to see the emotion underneath. There are just too many layers. I'm glad you mentioned Rushmore in your review, but I feel so many of his movies are now the "Max Fischer Players" versions of what his movies used to be that I can't get past the inherent silliness off it all. Max's "Serpico" was played almost entirely for laughs, and while "Heaven and Hell" provided a nice complement to the actual plot of Rushmore, it crucially was not the actual plot of Rushmore. Of course I'll go see this, but I'm unfortunately prepared to be disappointed yet again.
Totally. If something like Grand Budapest had been his first film, I feel like reviews would have held up character traits like Agatha/Saoirse Ronan's birthmark as the twee/precious hallmarks of a filmmaker trying too hard.
I've got a really weird, maybe not answerable question, but here goes: My 9 year-old has now seen the Asteroid City trailer twice, once in front of Past Lives (that she wanted to see that and found the experience positive may help guide any potential answers) and she really wants to see it. I was happy to see that it's PG-13, because I think that is something I can take her to.
I'm asking the content question: What should I know about going in? Modern PG-13 movies tend to be pretty tame overall, and I'm not expecting anything beyond what we've already talked about with her, but being honest and open about sex, drugs, violence, etc in conversation can be very different from onscreen.
Again, probably not easily answerable, but I thought if anyone had insight, it would be this community.
I haven't seen this movie so I have nothing helpful to add, but I'm giggling at the idea of a hard R Wes Anderson movie. I've been going through the Criterion Channel's Erotic Thrillers series and an Anderson entry is an SNL skit that writes itself (much like the Wes Anderson horror movie skit).
I think the things that I keep thinking about are the moments that make Anderson's R movies R, like depictions of attempted suicide and sudden violence, things that we have talked about but aren't ready to actually see (and to be fair, I never like seeing the attempted suicide in Tennenbaums).
The trailers for Asteroid City don't imply that anything even remotely sad or upsetting is going to happen, but then again, so did the ones for Budapest.
"Sarge, we've got a white silk scarf, tied around the victim's wrists in a double clove hitch!" Shot of an ice pick perfectly centered in frame, against a seafoam green background. Jason Schwarzman chainsmoking extremely unconvincingly.
I would think is it more about the actual content. Is a nine year old going to be bored/miss most of it? I was thinking the same for my 13 yr old daughter. She loved ISLE OF DOGS, FANTASTIC MR FOX, and MOONRISE KINGDOM, but I feel those are less baroque than THE FRENCH DISPATCH
No one has mentioned it yet, but there is a moment of fleeting female nudity. It’s not lingered on, though, and it’s easy to miss if you’re not looking in the right place at the right time.
Quick follow up for all three of you who may be interested: This is a VERY tame PG-13 (brief nudity, in a mirror, as mentioned, barely any swears, hardly any violence, two off screen deaths), and my kid really enjoyed it. The post movie dinner conversation was great, and gave us more insight into what she caught and what she missed, and helped all three of us better understand the structure. I'm excited to see it again. Thanks for the conversation around it too!
Glad to read the good review for Asteroid City! I was a bit nervous seeing a solo writing credit for Anderson, since I think he's always stronger with a co-writer around to give the characters some extra depth. For my money, I don't know that he's ever found anyone better than Owen Wilson.
I’ve always liked Jennifer Lawrence and I think the public backlash to her Try Hard Phase went on way too long. She’s a talented actress who is usually above the material she’s been handed the last few years so I’m glad this works.
I’m so checked out of that branch of pop culture I didn’t even realize there was a backlash for a long time. And, as with Hathaway, I think the Try Hard accusation is a) vague and puzzling and b) kind of sexist. I’ve been a fan since WINTER’S BONE. Nothing has changed that.
borrowing Scott's comment from another post where they were commenting on Elemental's trailer:
"just going by the trailer, it felt like I'd seen it, you know?"
This is exactly how i feel about Asteroid City / Wes Anderson. Like Elemental/Pixar, that is ok - i like what they do and will probably keep liking it, i think, but I won't love it.
Nit picks: (1) I feel that Tom Hanks played Jason Schwartzman's father-in-law, not his father, and is in mourning for his daughter. (2) Much less importantly, I think Scarlett Johansson's character was a film actor, not TV, given her level of 50's fame and talk of a nude scene.
I finally caught up with Asteroid City. I've only one watch under my belt and would concur that it feels ripe for a repeat now that I have my feet under me, so to speak. Even with one viewing, I found it to be a quite moving exploration of grief, as well as a self-referential wink and nod to all who dismiss Anderson's work as twee or fussy.
Asteroid City's framing device brings one aspect of grief to the forefront. The process of coping with the loss of a loved one has, at least for a period of time, a remove. It can feel like you are watching yourself grieve. You question whether you are doing it right. Why am I not crying? Why can't I stop crying? Should I be sadder? Should I act strong for the kids? Am I doing any of this right? The corollary to an actor, writer and director all figuring out how to depict a work of art is very strong and thought-provoking. The structural conceit of the film makes it possible to dramatize this inner conflict and its many dimensions as portrayed across the entire cast of waylaid characters.
We get this along with Anderson using his cinematic prowess to let us all know he is not only in on the joke, but also that the joke isn't even close to the punchline. He resolves to continue telling the story. I hope it never ends.
I've been thinking about how star ratings can be relative. Three stars for ELEMENTAL means one thing (a disappointment by Pixar standards) but three stars for NO HARD FEELINGS means another (hey, you might like this overachieving comedy with some very good performances). I always try to treat a three-star rating as "This is good," but then "good" means different things for different films, doesn't it?
I'm just a guy with a Letterboxd account but I spend a lot of time thinking in particular about 3- and 3.5-star ratings (out of 5), and how especially the 3-star territory includes both "I didn't really like it but I wouldn't say it's bad" and "I liked it despite a lot of flaws." Two very different spins.
This is why I love the "Heart" feature on Letterboxd. 1-star plus Heart: "I liked this terrible, terrible movie!" 4 stars, no heart: "I completely understand why this movie is important but it is was not for me."
Asteroid City has yet to come to San Francisco (finally opening this weekend), so I’ve spent a full month since Cannes living in that space of needing a second rewatch. “You can’t wake up if you don’t fall asleep” rippled backwards through the entire film for me, and I can’t wait to see it again informed by that context.
My behind-the-scenes take on this was... "Damn, I don't want to have to write about this now!"
Saw this last week and my first reaction was “I can’t wait to talk about this over at The Reveal” and my second reaction was “I’ll have to see this again before I can talk about it over at The Reveal.” Anderson’s narrative framing seemed completely incoherent this time around, but in a way that presented no problems for me; it’s a spectacular and confounding wild pitch of a movie. What the hell kind of TV show is this supposed to be, anyway?
Anderson seems to have loved this one so much on a moment-to-moment basis that he couldn’t bring himself to impose his usual structural rigor on it, so he made its unruliness thematic and let it rip. I can’t wait to see it again.
Following up to say that it is *unbelievable* how much easier ASTEROID CITY is to wrap your head around on second viewing. For a good chunk of the runtime I needed to convince myself that he didn’t re-edit it in the four weeks between its Cannes and US premieres -- that’s how big a difference it made in terms of picking up its disparate pieces. Your review is spot on, and I still believe it to be major Wes.
This is great news. I’m going again tomorrow, on a bigger screen.
I’m seeing Asteroid City at my earliest opportunity, which is tonight at 7:50 at my local AMC (aka the only game in town). I’ve been exposed to the trailer enough over the past few months that the cadence of some of dialogue is already etched in my mind, but I’m eager to see how it all fits into one movie.
Man do I want to like Asteroid City, but for me Anderson's movies have gotten so artificial and twee (yes, I know that's an overused word, particularly when it comes to Anderson, but I also think it's spot on) that it's hard to see the emotion underneath. There are just too many layers. I'm glad you mentioned Rushmore in your review, but I feel so many of his movies are now the "Max Fischer Players" versions of what his movies used to be that I can't get past the inherent silliness off it all. Max's "Serpico" was played almost entirely for laughs, and while "Heaven and Hell" provided a nice complement to the actual plot of Rushmore, it crucially was not the actual plot of Rushmore. Of course I'll go see this, but I'm unfortunately prepared to be disappointed yet again.
"Twee" is a very good word for Anderson's movies, but I am now thinking "precious" is a suitable substitute.
Totally. If something like Grand Budapest had been his first film, I feel like reviews would have held up character traits like Agatha/Saoirse Ronan's birthmark as the twee/precious hallmarks of a filmmaker trying too hard.
I've got a really weird, maybe not answerable question, but here goes: My 9 year-old has now seen the Asteroid City trailer twice, once in front of Past Lives (that she wanted to see that and found the experience positive may help guide any potential answers) and she really wants to see it. I was happy to see that it's PG-13, because I think that is something I can take her to.
I'm asking the content question: What should I know about going in? Modern PG-13 movies tend to be pretty tame overall, and I'm not expecting anything beyond what we've already talked about with her, but being honest and open about sex, drugs, violence, etc in conversation can be very different from onscreen.
Again, probably not easily answerable, but I thought if anyone had insight, it would be this community.
I haven't seen this movie so I have nothing helpful to add, but I'm giggling at the idea of a hard R Wes Anderson movie. I've been going through the Criterion Channel's Erotic Thrillers series and an Anderson entry is an SNL skit that writes itself (much like the Wes Anderson horror movie skit).
Wes Anderson's 8 1/2 Weeks. Constant cuts because no hair could be tousled and bedsheets would have to constantly be smoothed out.
I think the things that I keep thinking about are the moments that make Anderson's R movies R, like depictions of attempted suicide and sudden violence, things that we have talked about but aren't ready to actually see (and to be fair, I never like seeing the attempted suicide in Tennenbaums).
The trailers for Asteroid City don't imply that anything even remotely sad or upsetting is going to happen, but then again, so did the ones for Budapest.
Wes Anderson's Basic Instinct.
"Sarge, we've got a white silk scarf, tied around the victim's wrists in a double clove hitch!" Shot of an ice pick perfectly centered in frame, against a seafoam green background. Jason Schwarzman chainsmoking extremely unconvincingly.
I would think is it more about the actual content. Is a nine year old going to be bored/miss most of it? I was thinking the same for my 13 yr old daughter. She loved ISLE OF DOGS, FANTASTIC MR FOX, and MOONRISE KINGDOM, but I feel those are less baroque than THE FRENCH DISPATCH
I was honestly worried about that during Past Lives last weekend, but she sat through that and enjoyed it.
That’s wild
No one has mentioned it yet, but there is a moment of fleeting female nudity. It’s not lingered on, though, and it’s easy to miss if you’re not looking in the right place at the right time.
IIRC, it was rated R but got downgraded on appeal
Quick follow up for all three of you who may be interested: This is a VERY tame PG-13 (brief nudity, in a mirror, as mentioned, barely any swears, hardly any violence, two off screen deaths), and my kid really enjoyed it. The post movie dinner conversation was great, and gave us more insight into what she caught and what she missed, and helped all three of us better understand the structure. I'm excited to see it again. Thanks for the conversation around it too!
Glad to read the good review for Asteroid City! I was a bit nervous seeing a solo writing credit for Anderson, since I think he's always stronger with a co-writer around to give the characters some extra depth. For my money, I don't know that he's ever found anyone better than Owen Wilson.
Roman Coppola gets a "story by" credit with him. (But I'm guessing you knew that. Just dropping that info in case you didn't.)
Does this mark the return of the hard R goofy romcoms?
I’ve always liked Jennifer Lawrence and I think the public backlash to her Try Hard Phase went on way too long. She’s a talented actress who is usually above the material she’s been handed the last few years so I’m glad this works.
I’m so checked out of that branch of pop culture I didn’t even realize there was a backlash for a long time. And, as with Hathaway, I think the Try Hard accusation is a) vague and puzzling and b) kind of sexist. I’ve been a fan since WINTER’S BONE. Nothing has changed that.
Totally agree.
borrowing Scott's comment from another post where they were commenting on Elemental's trailer:
"just going by the trailer, it felt like I'd seen it, you know?"
This is exactly how i feel about Asteroid City / Wes Anderson. Like Elemental/Pixar, that is ok - i like what they do and will probably keep liking it, i think, but I won't love it.
Nit picks: (1) I feel that Tom Hanks played Jason Schwartzman's father-in-law, not his father, and is in mourning for his daughter. (2) Much less importantly, I think Scarlett Johansson's character was a film actor, not TV, given her level of 50's fame and talk of a nude scene.
I finally caught up with Asteroid City. I've only one watch under my belt and would concur that it feels ripe for a repeat now that I have my feet under me, so to speak. Even with one viewing, I found it to be a quite moving exploration of grief, as well as a self-referential wink and nod to all who dismiss Anderson's work as twee or fussy.
Asteroid City's framing device brings one aspect of grief to the forefront. The process of coping with the loss of a loved one has, at least for a period of time, a remove. It can feel like you are watching yourself grieve. You question whether you are doing it right. Why am I not crying? Why can't I stop crying? Should I be sadder? Should I act strong for the kids? Am I doing any of this right? The corollary to an actor, writer and director all figuring out how to depict a work of art is very strong and thought-provoking. The structural conceit of the film makes it possible to dramatize this inner conflict and its many dimensions as portrayed across the entire cast of waylaid characters.
We get this along with Anderson using his cinematic prowess to let us all know he is not only in on the joke, but also that the joke isn't even close to the punchline. He resolves to continue telling the story. I hope it never ends.