User Score
8.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 586 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 40 out of 586
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Oct 14, 2012
    5
    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 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 sameThis 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
  2. Mar 15, 2014
    4
    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 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 theirMoonrise 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
  3. Mar 16, 2013
    4
    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.
  4. May 19, 2013
    4
    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
  5. Jun 28, 2012
    6
    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'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.
  6. Jun 29, 2012
    6
    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 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 withThe 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
  7. Nov 2, 2012
    5
    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 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.
  8. May 30, 2012
    6
    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 more importantly, the cartoony nature of everything else around the central heartfelt story of adolescent love pulled the film in too many directions and actuallyThis 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
  9. Jun 30, 2012
    4
    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 like a meal that still leaves you hungry. Then re-watch Napoleon Dynamite, Donny Darko, Little Miss Sunshine, Coraline.
  10. Feb 8, 2013
    4
    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 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.
  11. Jul 7, 2012
    4
    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 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).
  12. Dec 8, 2012
    6
    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 to have your mind wandering on a regular basis.
  13. Oct 20, 2012
    4
    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 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.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 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
  14. Dec 18, 2012
    4
    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 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 ofIt 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
  15. Dec 22, 2013
    5
    Sometimes solid direction, an ensemble cast and an interesting premise just isn't enough.. I found out the hard way. I wouldn't say I'm a huge fan of Anderson's but I did in fact love the royal tannenbaums. For all of the promise that this movie had I thought It was a disappointment. One dimensional characters, Woden acting from the child actors and an overall boring story had me wonderingSometimes solid direction, an ensemble cast and an interesting premise just isn't enough.. I found out the hard way. I wouldn't say I'm a huge fan of Anderson's but I did in fact love the royal tannenbaums. For all of the promise that this movie had I thought It was a disappointment. One dimensional characters, Woden acting from the child actors and an overall boring story had me wondering when this movie would end. Expand
  16. Dec 21, 2014
    4
    You know, I just found out this movie was 1hr 30min long. I had assumed all this time it was at least 2hr 30min, because that's what it felt like. Good grief.
    Yeah, I know people love it, but I really found Moonrise Kingdom to be a drag. The main kid actor is rather annoying, and I feel that this is partially the fault of direction. He tries to act serious sometimes, and other times he's
    You know, I just found out this movie was 1hr 30min long. I had assumed all this time it was at least 2hr 30min, because that's what it felt like. Good grief.
    Yeah, I know people love it, but I really found Moonrise Kingdom to be a drag. The main kid actor is rather annoying, and I feel that this is partially the fault of direction. He tries to act serious sometimes, and other times he's just a cute little boy. Is he supposed to be a tough kid, or a geeky little boy? Watching him feels like watching a commercial more than a good film. The story is drug out more than it should be, and Wes Anderson's typical charm isn't really there from start to finish. In the end, I found it to be a forgettable experience and not really worth watching. Some of the visual charm remains, and the climax is actually a bit interesting, (contrasting it with the rest of the film), but Moonrise Kingdom felt like a failed project overall, without much potential for success to begin with.
    Expand
Metascore
84

Universal acclaim - based on 43 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 42 out of 43
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 43
  3. Negative: 1 out of 43
  1. Reviewed by: Steve Persall
    Jun 27, 2012
    83
    These characters don't realize they're funny, and the actors are determined not to push it. Willis fares best, playing against in-control type; Murray fans expecting a comedy explosion won't find it here.
  2. Reviewed by: Mike Scott
    Jun 22, 2012
    100
    A thoroughly endearing journey, and one of the most enjoyable and touching movies to land in theaters so far this year.
  3. Reviewed by: Rene Rodriguez
    Jun 21, 2012
    100
    The film is precious and adorable, but it isn't naïve, and the movie breathes so deep that Anderson even gets a real performance out of Willis (this is his best work in years).