But, I am a Wes Anderson completist, so “Moonrise Kingdom” is on the list. If you’re an Anderson fan, you‘re not allowed to skip this one, even if it is the slightest of what’s admittedly a rather slight genre. What we have here is a sort of charming bauble that meanders about for an hour and a half and ends up nowhere in particular. But the usual Wes Anderson stuff accompanies this trip, so, worth it.

Detailed miniatures, total artificiality, warm lighting, eccentric performances, the usual cast of players, and a lot of twee. This is maybe the most twee of the whole oeuvre, in fact, since the leads are children.

Children who do not act in any recognizable way as children, of course. Deadpan is an Anderson trope, and these kids, particularly Kara Hayward as Suzy, are so affectless as to be circling catatonia. For whatever Andersonian reason, this purported 12 year old is wearing enough eyeshadow, eyeliner and fake lashes as to, well, perfectly channel Gwyneth Paltrow in “The Royal Tenenbaums”. Who also used an affectless delivery. I guess Suzy will grow up to be Margot Tenenbaum?

Sam is not quite as deadpan, but nobody who’s been or raised a 12 year-old will recognize him as being one. He’s doing the part that ordinarily goes to Jason Schwartzman in Anderson movies, and doing them the same way as Schwartzman did in “Darjeeling” or “Mr. Fox”. Not to worry, Schwartzman is in the cast as a shady Khaki Scout higher-up. “Give me the nickels.”

Both Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward, and all the child actors, use an odd adult-like diction and the lack of affect that’d worry any psychologist. I guess it’s part of the Anderson Artificial Artistic Magic Realism thing. But also, kind of creepy.

As is the romance between these two kids. First, because of the ages, but mostly because both kids are pretty creepy even without the romance.

Everyone delivers their lines in what I could call Bizarro version of Mamet-speak That is, characters still talk fast, in clipped sentences, but with flattened emotions. The exact opposite of Mamet’s equally artificial but emotionally heightened speeches, where every fleeting feeling is indicated every second. It’s the Wes Anderson way, and it’s funny. And there are a lot of funny bits in “Moonrise Kingdom”. The scout camp stuff is good, and there are great visual gags like the tree house and a motorcycle in a tree. And the hallucinatory small church production of Noah’s Flood (or Noye’s Fludde, I should say, Benjamin Britten being source music for a lot of this) is something I would pay good money to see.

Similarly, I’d love to walk through the immense set constructed for Frances McDormand and Bill Murray’s house. This cross section of a life sized cottage is fantastic! Picture Steve Zissou’s ship on land. That the house is much bigger on the inside than the outside is a nice joke, too. It must be great to be a set constructor on a Wes Anderson movie. You get to build such wonderful things. The set dressers, too, must love working for him. Every prop, every background detail, every color, is meticulously curated. There are no happy accidents in these movies. It’s like a Steely Dan record. Every second is planned. Anderson must go through a whole lot of storyboards.

The flattened perspectives and symmetrical framing are here, too, especially the Khaki Scout tents. Lovely stuff. The look of “Moonrise Kingdom” is excellent. The child actors, as noted, are doing that precocious affect-less delivery. Bill Murray is even less present than usual. Frances McDormand, I will never say a word against, but this is a very small part. Smaller still is Tilda Swinton’s, and I always welcome anything with Tilda Swinton in it. Here, not much more than a cameo. But still. Ed Norton is probably best, doing the hapless scout leader. Bruce Willis is in full hangdog mode, and really, almost anybody could do his part. He’s not bad, not particularly good, just there.

So. Is “Moonrise Kingdom” good? Well, it’s no “Grand Budapest Hotel” and not close to “Tenenbaums” either. About on a level with “The Life Aquatic” or “Darjeeling”. If you like this stuff and aren't overly annoyed by twee or the sort of heightened unreality Anderson specializes in, I’d go for it. I wouldn’t make it your introduction to Andersoniana. Do “Budapest” first, and if you like that (and you should) then start doing the back catalog. This one is a very slight comedy, but if you like it wry, try it. It’s short, too. And actually could have done with being a little shorter, some scenes drag towards the end.

First, let me get something out of the way: I'm a brainless Wes Anderson fan and couldn't possibly offer you an actual review of this movie. I'm a hipster twit who would love this movie even if it were just a blank screen for 2 hours, etc., etc. If you don't like Wes Anderson's films, and he is entrenched in his style enough that you know what that means, please save yourself the frustration of reading my review...because I do like Wes Anderson and I won't respond to any comments along the lines of the above.

I don't think Anderson is a one note director even though there is no debate that his films all share a particular feel, style, and tone. When the opportunity presents itself in this film, quite a bit of it takes place outside in larger spaces, his typical meticulous mis-en-scene is showcased. The dialogue is as spare, direct, and tight as ever. Some people apparently find this off-putting since the two leads are children...I think this betrays a lack of familiarity with Anderson (maybe more, but at least this) since he has always handled children /as they are/ - as young adults. I mentioned RT in the title because I think it is the closest to MK in terms of emotional tone. There is a desperation in all of these characters that cuts through my defenses as a viewer. I won't deny being a willing audience, but I have no trouble finding my way into each moment. Finally, to wrap up the general stuff, there is a touch of the fantastic in Moonrise Kingdom that seems like a holdover from the Life Aquatic - but I don't think it is central to the film and it doesn't change the overall tone.

This is an adventure story, and a love story, and an escape story...at times it's tragic, at times funny, at times awkward, and it's almost always exciting. In short this is a movie about being a young (pre-)teen. The leads are in that embarrassing moment in which hormones, desire, and passion meet with inexperience. They are isolated from the world in many ways and alienated from their peers and most of the adults around them. It's the two of them against the world. And the really lovely thing about this film is the way they succeed.
The adults are all disconnected from the children to different degrees (for different reasons), but one of the many exceptional things about the film is the way that each adult is a foil for the leads. One easy example is the failed marriage of Suzy's parents contrasted with the feverish and indomitable love between Suzy and Sam. As is always the case with Anderson, not a moment or exchange is wasted or empty.

I'd like to say more about the movie, but it would really be best for you to just see it.

Product note and two tangents:
- The blu-ray release is very fine in terms of picture and sound, but many fans will find the lack of additional features somewhat disappointing. I am sure that a future release (Criterion maybe) will include such features. In the meantime this bare-bones release will either sate your appetite for the film, or just seem like a money grab, etc. I'm not disappointed enough, or cynical enough, to feel cheated...and besides, I don't want to wait...
- If you're on the fence about this film because you've heard that there is something voyeuristic, pornographic, or indecent about Suzy and Sam's relationship (a particular scene really seems to have bothered some viewers)...please do yourself a favor and put that out of your mind. I have no idea how anyone could find this so offensive...I could venture a guess, but it would be very mean...if you live in a world in which teenagers do not think sexual thoughts, utter sexual sentences, or do sexual things, then you may very well be offended.
- Along the same lines, if you're on the fence because you've heard there is gratuitous violence against an animal...please put that out of your mind also. If you think a good film CANNOT portray an animal being harmed, then you will not think this is a good film. If, instead, you think that a film can portray an animal being harmed as part of a larger story, as part of a particular moment in a character's development, then you should not hesitate to watch the film on this account. For anyone suggesting that the death is unnecessary, callous, or in poor taste, I implore you to watch the film again and consider this moment more carefully. Some people have pointed to RT - since an animal dies in that movie as well - and drawn a larger conclusion about Anderson's lack of concern/care for animals. I worry that these people are not watching the films...these deaths are catalysts for the story, triggers for changes in certain characters, and are deeply emotional moments.

Of course, this film is not for everyone. The leads are children, but the film is not for most children. If you have a strong opinion about Wes Anderson, let that be your guide. I think this is Anderson's best since the Royal Tenenbaums and I cannot break the tie between them for my favorite of his movies.

My family and I LOVE this movie. The imagery, the writing...it is a journey that I will gladly go on any day or night. I like quirky and beautiful, this is both.

As ever, Wes Anderson delivers another instant classic (ala "Herald and Maude"). His work has always been a reliable security blanket that blends: 1) heart-wrenching dysfunctional emotions most of us have felt with 2). Lovably flawed characters -- which we all are, but 3). Set in an idealistic, nostalgic meticulously arranged dollhouse dream world, with 4). some of the best soundtracks in the history of film. 5). A familiar core of insanely talented rotating cast member but 6). always showcasing/introducing new ones.

His films are love letters that have become family in an odd way. I think a person either loves this about a Wes Anderson film or they can't stand it. It's understandable that people can be put off by them. His format is almost a frequency you have to re-calibrate your brain to because there's always something that's just a bit off, quirky, comical, unsettling, overly stylized, non sequitur, symbolic or vague happening -- often many of these at the same time. That's what I love about his films, that they all exhibit these bizarre attributes that start to feel like Michel Gondry was somehow involved in the co-production. I love most every one for the way they send very real ideas into this odd dream space.

Moonrise Kingdom in particular can be summed up in my mind as, "a version of the childhood romance we had mixed with the childhood romance we wish we knew to have." We all had that crush and most of us had the awkward experience where we were the oddball out but what if I approached my middle school crush with that level of confidence and conviction? What if I didn't care what anyone else thought about me and was able to be honest about my feelings at 12? Don't we wish we were all that clear headed? I think the moral of the story is that sometimes we're a hurdle when we mean to be a platform and other times we're a platform when we mean to be a wall. The adults in the film are far more out of touch than the children, which is something I think we can all relate to.

As for those screaming "sex scenes!!" and "oh the children" --oh please. If anyone found that scene arousing, it says more about them than what the scene was intending to say. I found it awkwardly funny, endearing and not unlike the first time any young kid discovers puppy love. I thought the scene was honest and true to how I remember it being at that age. What, you think that's never happened between two middle school aged kids? Have you completely forgotten what those years were like for you? If you're upset over this, you may want to avoid more critically acclaimed films such as "Taxi Driver."

Moonrise kingdom is great. What I received was a copy burned to disk and what seemed like a home-dot-printed-on-regular-paper cut to size copy of the front cover. Would have preferred the real deal.

If you’re looking for something that is aesthetically pleasing, wholesome & a fun time, watch this. You won’t regret it!

I was born in 1946 and was in the Scouts. My wife was born in 1954. We grew up in that America: in the Summer, as long as we were home when the street lights came on, our parents didn't worry. In the 1980s & '90s we raised free-range kids in upstate NY.

Ignore the hysterical reviews by humorless scolds asking "Where are the actors' parents? Where are the adults?" Adults & kids in the movie are often wrong, but they are all doing the best they can, even if they have to change their minds first, and when an heroic effort is needed, some of them rise to the occasion.

Nevermind the blather about "adolescent sexuality". Honi soit qui mal y pense.

Has anyone noticed that leads Sam (an orphan with glasses) & especially Suzy (likes stories with magic) look like Harry Potter & Hermione Granger? Like Harry & Hermione, the characters' names even start with the same letter: S & S, H & H.

Best described as one part "A Christmas Story", one part "Stand By Me", and one part "Lord of the Flies", with an extra helping of young estrogen from newcomer Kara Hayward to help balance out all of the snakes and snails and puppy-dog tails. Confused? At the end of the day Moonrise Kingdom is a very unique movie, one that is worthy of the copious amounts of praise that is being heaped upon it.

Set on a small, sparsely populated chain of island in the 1960s that has more boyscout camps on it than townspeople, a twelve year old boy and girl decide that even if nobody likes them that they love each other. They set off into the wilderness with a coon skin cap, bb-gun, a yellow pup tent, some french records, and a few stolen library books. When they turn up missing, their parents, the police, and fellow scouts set out to try to find them, even though in many cases they were the ones that drove them away in the first place.

This is all done in a light-comedy, tongue in cheek kind of way, but because you end up caring about the characters so much the movie carries with it a fair amount of emotion. The funny scenes predominate, but there is also a lot of suspense towards the end when you realize the fate of the kids and the movie itself is entirely up in the air. It has been a long time since I've seen a film where I sensed it was about to end but did not know what was going to happen.

Although littered with many well known stars for the adult roles, both of the leading kids are played quite well by unknown newcomers. Jared Gilman reminds me of Ralphie from "A Christmas Story", wearing thick glasses and relying on his Red Ryder as he tries to navigate the perils of both the wilderness and his tween years. He may be a little more take charge than Ralphie, having already taken Scutt Farkas' coon skin cap from the school of hard knocks, but you'll see many similarities. One of Kara Hayward's on screen brothers is also interestingly the spitting image of Ralphie's younger brother Randy.

Hayward plays the female tween misfit in this backwoods Romeo & Juliet, and would remind you a little bit of Wednesday from the Addams Family if not for the fact that she wears all pink and carries a kitten with her instead of being dressed in black with a headless doll. But she definitely carries Wednesday's personality, dry wit and style. Whereas Jared Gilman plays an orphan, Kara's character comes from a dysfunctional family who makes her feel like she wishes she had none. When she tells this to Gilman he quickly responds "I love you, but you don't know what you're talking about". While sometimes seemingly vulnerable and filled with self doubt, her trusty pair of "lefty-scissors" are quick to leap into action when she's forced to defend her man against some jealous boyscouts who have played with too many GI Joes.

While that may sound a little violent, this is all delivered in the very quirky tongue in cheek style of Wes Anderson movies. This is probably his most accessible work to date. It does not feel too highbrow, and does not come off like it is trying too hard. He has really created a movie that is incredibly hard to define, and the more you try to do so the more all of your efforts seem lacking; he's really made his own genre here, with a nostalgic light-comedy coming of age love story kitchen sink suspense backwoods adventure.

Ultimately I can see some people describing this as a chick flick and others as a guy's movie. Both would be right.