Moonrise Kingdom (2012) ☆ ☆ 1/2

As a general rule I enjoy quirky, different movies like Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom because their originalities put typical Hollywood product to shame in terms of quality and impact.  That is again true in this case, though I must admit that I find the film a little too quirky and inconsistent to recommend wholeheartedly.

A young Khaki Scout, Sam (Jared Gilman), persuades a local girl he likes, Suzy (Kara Hayward), to sneak away with him for a few days from a quaint New England island community, which puts many of the adults tasked to find them into a tizzy.  Anderson satirizes the situation, and mostly the relationship between kids and adults, in various ways in his usual mannered style.  This style is not realistic, but is intended to create a world of its own — and it largely succeeds.  I liked this movie more than previous Wes Anderson films like The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou and The Darjeeling Limited, probably because the young characters really resonate.

At least Suzy does.  Kara Hayward is a dusky-eyed knockout who, it seems to me, easily steals the show.  Jared Gilman fulfills the physical aspects of his role quite effectively, but I never felt that that I understood his motivations.  The scenes of the kids hiking and camping together, getting to know each other, and discovering the first stirrings of young love, are very well done.  I wish the same were true regarding the story’s adults.

Some of them are also well done: Edward Norton as the scout leader and Bruce Willis as a local policemen are very good and well suited to the material.  Bill Murray and Frances McDormand (as Sam’s parents) less so.  Then Jason Schwartzman and Tilda Swinton show up in thankless roles, only to be outdone by Harvey Keitel, whose character is atrociously underwritten.  The movie veers from satire and parody to silliness and even stupidity as a storm rolls through to put the kids in peril.  Add to this odd mix the execution of a dog and a few uncomfortable sexual moments, and the result is a really mixed bag.  Overall it seems like a project that wasn’t planned through as thoroughly as it should have been.

One other odd fact is that Anderson shot it on 16mm film rather than the standard 35mm or the now common digital video format.  The granier film, plus Anderson’s penchant for static — though picturesque — camera shots gives the film a visual style that hasn’t been seen in a long time, which is appropriate since the story takes place in the early 1960s.  As much as these elements bolster its creativity and singularity I still wish that Anderson had paid as much attention to the story (which he developed with Roman Coppola).  Ah, well.  At least it’s not a summer sequel!  ☆ ☆ 1/2.  9 July 2012.

Leave a Reply