User Score
8.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 514 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 37 out of 514

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. Apr 3, 2014
    3
    The Royal Tenenbaums was the first Wes Anderson film I watched. I liked it (I was 12 when I saw it.) Recently I watched The Grand Budapest Hotel, which I had mixed feelings about. More recently I watched Moonrise Kingdom, which gave rise the the thought: wow, why is this guy so acclaimed? As far as I'm concerned, this movie is just fool's gold. So, the diagnosis. I read up on film theory a lot as it is something I am strongly interested in, and there is a general consensus that you must play by the rules to begin with, but once you become a true auteur and expert in your field, you can basically do what you want. Wes Anderson thinks he has reached that stage, but he really hasn't. Do you know anyone who is a bit alternative, a bit artsy, supposedly 'generous', 'sweet', 'charming' and 'funny'; loved by everyone but you? For me, Wes Anderson is that guy. His characters are basically all the same: mini projections of his own quirky, oddball idiosyncrasies that not only his pseudo intellectual hipster cult love, but his staunch aficionados who also happen to be critics. I really don't see it. He directs the film the same way a 12 year old girl plays with her dollhouse, the characters are shallow and daft. I really couldn't bring myself to care about them. The only scene which moved me was the kissing scene on the beach (I moved my hands over my eyes.) The storyline is slightly risqué, and it doesn't help that the two main characters are precocious brats. I found it shocking that the romanticisation of mental illnesses (something greatly criticised these days) was completely overlooked. Mental instabilities are SERIOUS. They do not make you quirky or cool! The movie felt like taking a cold shower with a toothache. However I suppose a lot of the things I criticised about him are typical of many other directors, even directors I love, for example Fellini always had absurd characters, but I loved them. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that he has a very particular style, you can try and pick his films apart but you'd be splitting hairs: you either love them or hate them. Expand
  2. Mar 31, 2014
    2
    Genuinely the first film I fell asleep in, the start of the film seemed to be kicking off well, but the story is beyond boring and at times is really creepy. Especially a scene where they are dancing together/kissing. They're both barely out of the womb
  3. 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 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
  4. Mar 11, 2014
    3
    moonrise kingdom is 1965 craziness two campers have disorders and then go camping as they go camping they find what they have in common they both have disorders the girl has an anger problem . the boy scout has been rejected into foster homes and the other scotts thinks he werid . i find the girl insane in this wes anderson film including the fact that this is a 2012 film and it is a 1965 film . go see the dark shadows instead Expand
  5. Mar 9, 2014
    2
    I know this guy is the critics' favorite and has a dedicated groupie following; but I just don't get it. The few I've watched, or tried to watch, were bland and droll. Seems to be his syle. What really amazes me is his ability to get so many big name actors to appear in these financial bombs. I would think they wouldn't want one of his box office disasters on their resume.

    This one made
    less than $46,000,000 worldwide according to MOJO. None of his movies have actually made much more than that, and some a lot less. Why? Because no one likes what he is putting out. It's remarkable that he can keep getting financing for these bombs. Having said all that, I at least was able to finish this one before turning it off like I have done with some of his other films. Expand
  6. Jun 29, 2013
    3
    I can't get past the robotic delivery of the dialog...or the perfect wardrobe on everyone, or the perfect camera shot symmetry, or every delivery and set piece in perfect time. I'm dying in the rigidity. It bleaches the emotion out of the picture. I'm just not built that way.
  7. Rod
    May 27, 2013
    1
    I'm sorry, I try to appreciate Wes Anderson's work, and for some of his movies, there is some entertainment value. But this movie was just a waste of time and effort. I really hoped it would go somewhere, but "quirky and offbeat" for it's own sake, does not, in my opinion, make for a good movie or story. If you are not familiar with and already a fan of Anderson's work, this movie will have you shaking your head and asking, "Why?". Expand
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  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. Jan 10, 2013
    0
    Moonrise Kingdom isn't a movie, its is a disgrace to movies. Never has a movie been so brainless coupled with one of the worst directing jobs i have ever seen. The movie ask if the boy and girl need mental help, the real question is whether the people who made the movie need mental help. A movie i never want to lay eyes on again.
  12. Jan 9, 2013
    3
    While its beyond quirky and weird script, acting, and direction has been applauded by many, I fail to see what is exceptionally great about this film. The entire concept honestly seemed intriguing, but it just felt too...well that's just it...I don't know how to describe this film. I am not sure whether I thought it was a unique mediocre film or a complete blunder.
  13. Jan 2, 2013
    1
    Unrestrained whimsey does not a narrative make. Self-conscious directing, formal presentational acting and a broad sense of humor that shifts gears in an ungainly way makes character after character into unlikable buffoons. Last time I'm bothering to watch a Wes Anderson film. If you loved The Life Aquatic, this is more of the same with more of everything except story.
  14. Dec 23, 2012
    0
    Wes anderson must be the most over praised writer/Director working in films today. I didn't care much for Rushmore or The Life Aquatic. I hated the Royal Tenembaums and I absolutely hate this pointless
    drivel. I keep coming back for more because the majority of critics keep turning out superlatives for his work. All I can say is It won't happen again. Anyone who derives any enjoyment from
    this questionable film cannot have a clue about what real art is. Of one thing I'm certain it isn't this junk. Expand
  15. 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 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
  16. 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. 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
  17. Sep 30, 2012
    2
    This review contains spoilers. To depart from the other comments Ive read on this movie. I will not use this as a way 2 love or hate Wes Anderson. The people who say their in love with it, and Anderson classic style is nothing shrt of genius n this film.... These people r phony. They r followng a trend of seemingly hving 2 comment on Andersons work on this film and make some lofty type of remark 2 make sure ther not berated by the artsy crowd who worship Wes. And 4 those who say they hate it b/c Anderson took his style of film n used it 2 cmptly take out any persnality or character formation b/c of his need 2 stay ironic above all else, incld. the script. These people r phony. They wnt 2 slam Wes as hard as they can by trying 2 come up w/ a lofty type of remark tht makes them above all the artsy types who will no doubt love this film. As 4 me I will jst make simple comments on the movie tht I watchd. It was a coming of age film based on a classic love story of boy meets girl. After they meet they keep in touch from a far but they realize their both outcast types and bond on this commonality. Eventually they hatch a plan 2 run away together. Trapped on a small but well to do Island the boy, Sam has to escape a boy scout platoon where he is constantly picked on and bullied. The leader of the troop, Scout Master Ward is a naive math teacher who feels the Khaki Scouts is his real work in life. Its a purposely overblown way of life on the island. In the sense The Khaki Scouts are a very well, very regimented group of 10-13 year old boys, who eat, sleep, and live the scouts. Suzys challenge isnt as bad. She is the spoiled girl in a family of individuals who is prone to being overlooked and does as she pleases with no real parental involvement. So the plan is hatched n Suzy meets Sam n the designated spot that he plannd for her using his skills from the scouts. He has a plan to go to a certain part of the island, but 1st they have to pitch camp at another spot b/c the destination is futher off. Once S. M. Ward learns of a scout gone missing he contacts the authority since its a 1 cop town. Along with Ward Caption Sharp set out on a search for the boy. Ward makes plans with his troops for a rescue mission and Capt. Sharp learns of Suzys escape from home from Suzie's parents. Along with S. M. Ward, Capt. Sharp and the troops, the parents, n a tour guide of sorts from the Island set out on a massive search for the two star crossed lovers. Set as a satirical comedy the movie follows a supposedly innocent trail of two kids finding love for the first time and goes even further for no apparent reason. Through the clumsy run ins with their would b captures, and dark humor moments like Suzy stabbing a scout with her lefty scissors. The film takes a inappropriate and careless turn into what can only be described as soft core child porn. I understand that when your 12 or 13 years old or you first start your curiosity of the other sex, (or same sex) its a very innocent n sacred process Weather your 1st kiss or 1st touch a girls body and vice-versa for the girl feeling through a boys pants when he is aroused. Is something that most of us go through. And I am not saying thers anythng wrong with this process of innocence and curiosity of ones sexuality. But Im not sure what the point of it is in this film other than to push the envelope and stand behind the protection of artistic integrity. The only reason it bothers me is because of the two child actors, especially the 13 year old Kara Hayward have to act out their delicate sexuality for the camera and for the enjoyment of the filmaker and everyone else involved. He (the director) could have easily gotten his point across without going as far as he did. The only reason for someone to take a scene further is for information purposes. To let the audience know what the characters are going through. But I dont think ther is a lack of understanding of what happens between a boy and a girl, we know what happens w/o him havng to strip a 13 y.o. Suzy is the love interest in the film and the boy Sam finds a way to run away w her for a night or 2. She is wearing a short school girl dress with stockings and Sam is in his scout outfit. So as they set up camp their talking n interacting when u get ur 1st shot of n up-skirt of this 13 y.o. Ok not that big of deal but whatever But when he decides to later play out their first kiss and him touching her breast from the outside of her training bra, and then commenting on Sams hard-on I think he went to far. By what standard. The standard of protecting childrens innocence, mind, body and soul. I think they could hve kissd n he could hve touched her breast on the outside of her dress, rather tht hve her n her training bra and panties for a few mins. of tha film. Thers even 1 scene where she pushes her undevlp Collapse
  18. Sep 24, 2012
    2
    The premise seemed very interesting, an orphan loner escapes from scout camp to elope with a young girl. The authority figures (police, scout masters) search the island trying to find them, with the help of the girls parents and the rest of the scouts. It sounds like a classic coming of age story between two socially inept outcasts, were it conjures the isolation of adolescence and the awkwardness of youth as it enters into sexual maturity. But the film wasn't really about the story at all and this is were it fell massively short. Moonrise kingdom is basically about how many visually symmetrical shots Wes Anderson can put onto a screen within 1 hour and 30 minutes. The colour scheme is typical Wes Anderson, vibrant red, greens, yellows and blue's, little bobble hats on most of the characters. The man has a 5 minute sequence at the start of dolly shots going up and down a house. Then followed by a dolly shot that travels left to right tediously for about three minutes with Edward Norton as he wakes up and goes outside for breakfast. He repeats this shot about 3-4 times during the film for similar lengths of time. When a letter appears on screen it's shot from birds eye view from above, when the main character reads a map it's shot from a birds eye view from above....everything is perfectly symmetrical. When they go to open a tent it's shot dead centre, then it's shot inside perfect symmetry as you see the zip being opened Expand
  19. Jul 29, 2012
    0
    pe·do·phil·i·a/ˌpedəˈfilēə/
    Noun:
    Sexual feelings directed toward children

    Can someone please explain how watching 11 year-olds kissing and fondling one another is NOT pedophelia? This movie was disgusting.
  20. Jul 22, 2012
    0
    Moonrise Kingdom by Ivette Fred-Rivera

    I loved the movie, I recommend it.

    Excellent ambience of the sixties era, great music used as a narrative element adding drama and rhythm, the use of the reading of the letters by Sam (Jared Gilman) and Susy (Kara Hayward) to show how their friendship as pen pals progresses into love in a linear sequence, actually, excellent performances of
    both, dynamic and unusual camera angles such as the ones seen when two scenes in different places are presented simultaneously because the screen is visually divided in half, and how we spectators identify with the left side of the screen where the good and concerned characters about the welfare of Sam are located because we have already identified ourselves with orphan Sam! (how could we not)? Exquisite composition and use of light. Very careful visual arrangements to advance the plot. I have to say that the detail of the mother Expand
  21. Jul 14, 2012
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. A pre-teen's fantasy of rebellion and how adults might act in reaction to a runaway by two unlikely misfits. A failed satire of military organizations that tries way too hard to be precious-cutesy at the same time. We're given scenes from "Peter Pan" wtih the ersatz Wendy reading to the "Lost Boys" and every military movie in which the soldier "busted" before the group with his emblems ceremoniously removed, who later commits acts of heroism in defense of the group and the clueless leader who 'busted' him. The 'adults' alternately act realistically in one scene, then as caricatures in the next. This is a disappointing mess of a movie. Expand
  22. Jul 8, 2012
    0
    Watching this movie I felt like a Democrat stuck in a Republican convention. I understood that everybody seemed to be liking what was going on in the movie but for the life of me couldn't figure out why. Liking whimsy and fair tales is a must for all Wes Anderson fans who, in my opinion is Tim Burton lite. Chacun a son goute.
  23. 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).
  24. Jul 6, 2012
    2
    This movie is pointless. One of the worst films I have ever seen. Simple metaphors made lifeless and absurd. I can't believe that this cast chose this script; maybe the problem was with directing? The kids are smarter than adults formula made even more unpleasant than usual because the kids in this movie are just as unpleasant as the adults. This is not art, it's fools gold. Just being weird is not enough. Ugh. Expand
  25. Jul 4, 2012
    0
    One of the worst movies I have seen recently. It is as though these talented actors intentionally acted as amateurish as possible. This is another example that "the emperor has no clothes."
  26. Jul 2, 2012
    0
    This movie is really Anderson's best. Everyone in the theatre was laughing hysterically. MK is really movie of the year material.................................................................................................................................................................................................
  27. 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.
  28. Jun 22, 2012
    3
    Can you walk into a movie theatre, park your logic at the door, and accept that a boy could be struck directly with lightning and just wind up with a dirty face and clothes? Do you think a 12 year old boy, not 15-16, would listen to a 12 year old girl describe a French kiss and ask for one without his going
  29. Jun 4, 2012
    1
    This movie is just another sad excuse for Anderson to waste time and money of decent film enthusiasts with his asinine and deluded films. I have yet to enjoy any of his films to date but everytime he makes a new one I try to give him the benefit of the doubt only to be let down everytime.
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).