Quick Synopsis: An alien lands in a city, steals an asteroid, then goes back home. There’s more, but it can’t really be done in one sentence.

I am a pretentious film watcher. I can’t hide that. I have genuinely talked about how much I loved a film’s aspect ratio before, and I’ve definitely used the phrase mise-en-scène in casual conversation. I also love films that have a unique look, something that visually stands out among the sea of bland visuals in modern cinema. Plus, I like weird character-driven pieces. So with that in mind; I should LOVE Wes Anderson. Yet for some reason, I’ve never liked Wes Anderson’s stuff. Some directors’ styles just don’t mesh well with my cinematic tastes. It’s not just Wes, I’m also not too big a fan of Paul Thomas Anderson, so it’s possible the only time I like an Anderson is if they’re investigating possible alien activity, or delivering Spinebusters to Dusty Rhodes.

I like his animated stuff though, I just feel his live-action feels feel a bit…..I dunno, a bit too Wes Anderson. Everybody speaks in a stilted and rigid manner. I suppose in this case it could make sense because the film is a 1950s play, so all the actors are speaking like 1950s American theatre performers would. This has the unfortunate effect of making it seem a bit like every actor is giving the same performance. Every male is a quick-talking emotionless person who feels like they smoke cigars and call people “sonny boy”, whereas every female is either a nervous “need a hug” or in a sexy French depression. There are also too many of them, multiple side characters seem to have no purpose or reason. That’s to be expected with the story though. They mention an on-ramp to nowhere, so it’s just a road that goes up and ends up nowhere. That’s what the story is like. So much nothing happens, but it’s not that interesting to watch. There are moments which go by and you assume mean something, and they probably do, but there is no attempt to explain or discuss them, so they’re just stuff that happens with no pay-off.

I’m sure there are some people who will love this, who will love all the references to obscure radio plays and stories gone by. But the idiosyncrasies are so prevalent that unless you’re fully onboard then you’re not going to be interested. I kept waiting for it all to come together, to be shown a reason for some of it, but none came. More importantly; I kept waiting for a reason to actually give a shit about what was happening, but it’s difficult when character deaths occur in narration, important characters too.

As to be expected, it looks great. Visually, it FEELS like the 50s. Normally, directors just play some 50s music, maybe adjust the colour a little bit, and then consider it done. Anderson has put SOOOOO much work in to make it look period appropriate. Importantly, there are important visual distinctions between the moments in AC which are the play, and the parts which are in real-life about the production of the play. Not just the colours, but the set layout and shot composition seems different too. As I said, Anderson is a very talented visual storyteller, and there are some absolutely sublime pieces of cinematic genius in here (the vending machine bit still makes me laugh when I think of it). I just don’t vibe with his stuff. To me, it’s the cinematic equivalent of a fancy deconstructed pie. It looks fantastic and it takes SO MUCH F*CKING TALENT to be able to pull it off, but after you eat it….well to quote The Menu; You’re still fucking hungry. If you like his stuff, you’ll like this too. But if you’re not already a fan, this will do nothing to convert you.