Read Mixed User Reviews for Moonrise Kingdom

4

BrianMcCriticMar 16, 2013

Wes Anderson films are just not for me. This one has some really good performances including my favorite Edward Norton, but for me like all of Anderson's movies I got bored.

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

4

BradySmithMar 15, 2014

Moonrise Kingdom is certainly unique, but it's ultimately an extremely slight, and morally confused film. Anderson's quirky style couldn't be more evident throughout. His visuals are striking, but the pretentiousness becomes grating after aMoonrise Kingdom is certainly unique, but it's ultimately an extremely slight, and morally confused film. Anderson's quirky style couldn't be more evident throughout. His visuals are striking, but the pretentiousness becomes grating after a while. The movie can be funny and sweet, but this is all tarnished with one shocking scene. The young couple starts French kissing in their underwear. Inappropriate, but whatever, I can deal with it. I thought it wouldn't go any further. How could it? But it did. The boy fondles the girl's chest, and the girl comments on how hard a certain thing is and how she likes it. What!!!????!! Are you kidding me?! How could Anderson put two young kids into this situation? The movie's a perfect example of how immoral Hollywood has become.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

4

dushetMay 19, 2013

i know everyone has different taste .but the 2 movies that have been the least entertaining to me in my life are american beauty and moonrise kingdom i really enjoyed true blood and rushmore

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

6

InductivistJun 29, 2012

The film has strong and weak elements. On the positive side, it is really, really easy on the eyes. I could watch it with the mute on. But you don't want to miss the music. Hank Williams and classical music on an old phonograph took me backThe film has strong and weak elements. On the positive side, it is really, really easy on the eyes. I could watch it with the mute on. But you don't want to miss the music. Hank Williams and classical music on an old phonograph took me back to my childhood. The quirkiness is amusing. Negatives: Amusing is not the same thing as funny. I chuckled maybe twice. It might be funnier with friends. The movie was not very emotionally involving. It seemed a bit formal, somewhat two dimensional. Sometimes the plot seemed to be just going through the motions. The movie was not boring but was far from engrossing. Quirkiness, audiovisual perfection, and good acting keep the canoe afloat.… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

6

TVJerryJun 28, 2012

Wes Anderson's latest takes place on a New England island in the 60s. A pre-pubescent couple runs off, while a group of family and others tries to find them. The director has taken his deadpan style and dense visual statements to it'sWes Anderson's latest takes place on a New England island in the 60s. A pre-pubescent couple runs off, while a group of family and others tries to find them. The director has taken his deadpan style and dense visual statements to it's extreme. I kept waiting to be charmed and amused, while everyone around me was delighted. It's an interesting stylistic escape, but just too twee for my taste.… Expand

4 of 6 users found this helpful42

All this user's reviews

5

MichaelDNOct 14, 2012

This is a cute movie, with some witty dialogue, and some mild emotion attached to it. However, like most Wes Anderson movies, it is pretentious, self-indulgent, and tries to be a deep, profound statement, not realizing that it's merely just aThis is a cute movie, with some witty dialogue, and some mild emotion attached to it. However, like most Wes Anderson movies, it is pretentious, self-indulgent, and tries to be a deep, profound statement, not realizing that it's merely just a cute, quirky comedy. That honestly takes away a lot of its appeal for me, and that's why I docked it a points. I would put this movie in the same boat as something like Crazy, Stupid, Love. It was cute, funny in some parts, and heartfelt in others, yet there was nothing groundbreaking about it. I would have given this movie a slightly higher score if Wes just allowed the movie to just be the cute little movie that it was. When it's reaching to be a profound statement about the lives of these kids, it fails to do so, and it just leaves a bad taste. The most emotional moments have all been done before in many other movies. It does feature a cast of strong, respected actors, like Frances McDormand, Edward Norton, Tilda Swinton, and Bill Murray, although I wouldn't put this in the discussion for being one of the betters performances, or one of the better movies, for any of those people. They were cute and quirky, just like the script. Something both Wes Anderson and his pal Noah Baumbach need to work on is knowing their limits though. That haughtiness they seem to have comes across in their movies, and ruins their appeal.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

6

moviegeekMay 30, 2012

This film will obviously have Wes Anderson's fans drooling all over... It had all the ingredients to become my favourite Wes Anderson's movie too, and yet the overloaded music (which really never stops for a single second!) and moreThis film will obviously have Wes Anderson's fans drooling all over... It had all the ingredients to become my favourite Wes Anderson's movie too, and yet the overloaded music (which really never stops for a single second!) and more importantly, the cartoony nature of everything else around the central heartfelt story of adolescent love pulled the film in too many directions and actually took a lot away from what could have been a very moving and sweet story.
This is my review
http://wp.me/p19wJ2-z8… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

5

Lambo442Nov 2, 2012

A great story but Wes Anderson's trademark tweeness and arty shannanigans just take me out of the moment. There's that air of unrealism that typifies most of his films. Also a bit dissapointed to see great actors like Bill Murray being wastedA great story but Wes Anderson's trademark tweeness and arty shannanigans just take me out of the moment. There's that air of unrealism that typifies most of his films. Also a bit dissapointed to see great actors like Bill Murray being wasted in shallow roles. I switched this film off when the two kids started dancing on the beach. Was too cheesy and made me want to vomit.… Expand

3 of 7 users found this helpful34

All this user's reviews

6

DTDunnDec 8, 2012

Quirky for the sake of being quirky. Too cute for its own good. Take the star talent from the film and it never makes the screen. I have to give this film a weak six. It is interesting enough to keep your attention, but weak enough toQuirky for the sake of being quirky. Too cute for its own good. Take the star talent from the film and it never makes the screen. I have to give this film a weak six. It is interesting enough to keep your attention, but weak enough to have your mind wandering on a regular basis.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

4

MelcherFeb 8, 2013

Didn't like the characters (the lead boy and girl), the flat 2D cinematography was nauseating (every shot is either side on, front on, top down, no angles, no depth), and the story was just a little too quirky for me, although I appreciateDidn't like the characters (the lead boy and girl), the flat 2D cinematography was nauseating (every shot is either side on, front on, top down, no angles, no depth), and the story was just a little too quirky for me, although I appreciate the attempt :)

Great cast, but ultimately the whole thing just felt like it was a movie made by a hipster, featuring hipsters, for hipsters.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

4

metamotivcriticJul 7, 2012

Not particularly sweet or charming or clever, but rather a fairly stilted, posturing attempt to be all three (or at least the first two). A waste of a lot of talented (adult) actors. I loved the music, though (which, of course, was fromNot particularly sweet or charming or clever, but rather a fairly stilted, posturing attempt to be all three (or at least the first two). A waste of a lot of talented (adult) actors. I loved the music, though (which, of course, was from Britten and others), and I thought the musical joke/take off during the credits was the best part (and maybe reason enough to stay to the end).… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

4

LesfromSanDiegoJun 30, 2012

Always a warning when people really like the acting. MK is just such a movie. Several superb actors hamstrung by the script. (Spoiler alert: there are no characters that you really care about.) Go and enjoy the quirkiness but it will be likeAlways a warning when people really like the acting. MK is just such a movie. Several superb actors hamstrung by the script. (Spoiler alert: there are no characters that you really care about.) Go and enjoy the quirkiness but it will be like a meal that still leaves you hungry. Then re-watch Napoleon Dynamite, Donny Darko, Little Miss Sunshine, Coraline.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

4

BHBarryJun 25, 2012

3 of 12 users found this helpful39

All this user's reviews

4

EludiumQ36Oct 20, 2012

This was an odd film across the board mainly due to the visuals, the actors, and their acting. First, the story is just a run-of-the-mill coming of age story centered on some 11 year olds. It's the type of story you've seen a dozen timesThis was an odd film across the board mainly due to the visuals, the actors, and their acting. First, the story is just a run-of-the-mill coming of age story centered on some 11 year olds. It's the type of story you've seen a dozen times before on Lifetime, A&E, CW, etc. But this particular film stands apart from them because of the elements I noted above, but doesn't apart in a good way. The film is set in 1965 and the film is quality is intentionally set to be grainy with yellow tinting, so my Blu-ray experience was obviously dampened. Then the actors - the principal stars (two kids) are unknowns but the supporting adult cast are all-stars. You'd think that would be great, but not so much. In fact, none do any better than unknowns could've but then this would've been an art-house flick instead of mainstream. Finally, I have to agree with "dafuq" below who notes that there's no emotion or passion in any of the performances. Much of the dialogue is done in emotionless monotones and it's just a horrible shame. Obviously director Wes Anderson did this intentionally but why ?? It's not a fully wasted effort but it could've been so much better.… Expand

1 of 5 users found this helpful14

All this user's reviews

4

lancekozDec 18, 2012

It is perhaps the best Wes Anderson film, but that fact almost made me angry because he is close to creating something engaging yet missing in the same trite ways he always does. This demonstrates he is not willing to take a risk in anyIt is perhaps the best Wes Anderson film, but that fact almost made me angry because he is close to creating something engaging yet missing in the same trite ways he always does. This demonstrates he is not willing to take a risk in any meaningful way. I can endure the quirkiness, I can appreciate the calculated compositions and mise en scene... but they really should serve a story of some gravity, passion or humour. Here the acting is wooden (puppet wooden), lines spoken too fast (as if to emphasize their meaninglessness), the child characters generally acting like adults, adults acting like children, all running around in a simple story, but even more, after awhile, you realize it is about a bunch sets and objects that look like a kid's dreams of military heroism and futile activities carried out in an oddly precise manner. All this makes me think he should use his artistic styling, which is appealing enough, on an entirely different kind of story written by someone else.… Expand