Asteroid City (2023) Review

In the 1950s a documentary is presented about the creation and production of Asteroid City, a play by famed playwright Conrad Earp. In the play, a youth astronomy convention is held in the fictional Asteroid City.

⭐️⭐️

The film is split between different settings and moves across and between them throughout, showing the documentary being filmed and breaking that third wall down between it all. In an attempt to tell the different stories. Here’s the thing though, this is a Wes Anderson film and I have to admit that I still massively struggle to get into his films (hence not actually bothering to see this on its cinema release).

Wes Anderson is known for his distinct visual style, meticulous attention to detail, and quirky storytelling. From “The Grand Budapest Hotel” to “The Royal Tenenbaums,” his films often feature eccentric characters, vibrant color palettes, and intricate set designs that create a whimsical and enchanting world for the audience. Despite his unique approach to filmmaking, some viewers may find it challenging to connect with his storytelling or fully immerse themselves in his cinematic universe.

One of the defining characteristics of Wes Anderson’s films is his deliberate and stylized cinematography, which can sometimes create a sense of detachment or remove the audience from feeling deeply involved in the narrative. This formalistic approach, combined with offbeat narratives and idiosyncratic characters, may not resonate with every moviegoer, leading to a polarized reception of his work.

While some cinephiles appreciate Anderson’s artistic vision and off-kilter humor, others may find it difficult to engage with the idiosyncratic storytelling and visual aesthetic. However, it’s important to recognize that artistic preferences are highly subjective, and what resonates with one person may not necessarily appeal to another.

Despite the mixed reception among audiences, Wes Anderson’s films continue to captivate and intrigue viewers with their whimsical charm and unconventional storytelling, sparking ongoing discussions and interpretations within the cinematic community. Whether his films resonate with individual viewers or not, there’s no denying the impact of his distinct creative voice in the world of contemporary cinema. Which is where I just don’t find myself fitting in at all.

Having that mixture of showing the play being filmed was one way to show how it was all shaped and came together, I guess. Always a difficult task to take that approach and risk some confusion amongst the audience.

The blending of scenes depicting the filming of the play served as a unique method to illustrate the shaping and culmination of the entire production. It presents an intricate approach that, I suppose, could pose a challenge by potentially causing some bewilderment among the audience. Balancing the two perspectives, the live performance and its behind-the-scenes creation, requires careful execution to ensure a seamless and coherent viewing experience for the audience.

Anyway I just wasn’t really taken in by the plot at all, and I find it quite tough to admit that a film with such an incredible cast wasn’t engaging enough at all. I do quite like the way some of the shots are done, which feels as though you know your watching a Wes Anderson film, and the colours used looked impressive at times. But that wasn’t enough for me to enjoy the film.