I've been there. I prefer Mars. I'll never go there again.

Wolf

into any Wes Anderson movie for me. I've tried, but my tastes just aren't compatible with his style.

The “suspension of disbelief” is so necessary for me to enjoy a movie, and I can’t watch one of his films without sensing the director in the room, the camera person, the grips, hell, even the makeup artist just outside of frame. And the dialogue is nowhere near clever enough to hold my attention.

I've tried with three or four of his movies and can't make it through them. I might have watched Rushmore all the way through but it was a chore. He is so overrated for exactly the reasons you mentioned. Here, loook at me, I'm the director. All style and no substance and unfortunately too many critics and fans buy into it.

I was going to sat the same. His movies are boring as hell.

SPOILERS BELOW!!!

Although the black and white scenes explain the bulk of the story in Asteroid City, they should have been cut along with much of the pointless conversations between Schwartzman and Johansson. The movie should have focused exclusively on the asteroid and the surprise guests. I think a good movie could have been made from that. What Anderson gave us instead was barely above dreadful.

There’s a saying that goes “Don’t ever let them catch you acting.“ I guess this was supposed to be a wry take of it, were you caught everybody acting all the damn time. Didn’t work for me.

and in that one I remarked about how disappointed I was by this particular effort. I found the framing device he employed to be absolutely jarring. Each time it occurred and we got more play/actor exposition, I was pulled completely out of the story. It was wholly unnecessary.

In my book he hit his zenith with the one-two punch of Moonrise Kingdom and The Grand Budapest Hotel. Since then it's been three dogs in a row. Well, The French Dispatch had its moments, I guess.

Where the lines are weak and the plot is shitty?

Thanks for the heads up, though I rarely watch movies anyway.

I found it funny and fascinating and I’ve continued to ruminate on it every day since. I’ve seen all of Wes Anderson’s films but one (his first), and while it may not have been the one I liked most, it was near the top. From several people’s comments, it sounds to me as though you were expecting or at least hoping for the film to be more traditional, and that’s not what Anderson does.
The several other theatre goers at the late showing I attended liked it too, I would say. There were lots of laughs and chuckles throughout, and no one left early. My two cents.

"The several other theatre goers at the late showing" Several? At a Late Friday Night showing on opening week???

Even the Anderson culties didn't show up?

And I didn’t interview the other theatre goers (who I didn’t know) to see if they were culties I also didn’t know there were Wes A. culties.
I was just reporting on my reactions and my experience at the theatre, and I can understand why some people wouldn’t care for Anderson’s work and this movie. It’s not for everyone.

Thanks for responding!

I'll probably watch it tonight.

The first time I got 3 minutes past the opening credits and the 2nd time I got another 3 minutes, maybe 4.

I will try again and then fast forward to the end. I dont seem to care for it either.

What I want to see is Oppenheimer.

I guess either you like Wes Anderson or you don't. I love his whacky sense of humor.

and not like this movie. Practically everyone in this thread is a testament to that. I too enjoy his sense of humor. But, he made a clunker IMHO. Better luck to us all with his next film.

The story was a bit weak. But the visuals were very entertaining. Not his best film, but enjoyable none the less.

The color portions looked like a live-action Roadrunner cartoon, and I say that with sincere praise.

Whenever his next theatrical release occurs I'll go and see it. Unfortunately, I believe his next project is with Netflix, so I won't be seeing that.

Based on a Roald Dahl short story.

instead its candy colored dreck.