wes anderson said “narrative clarity is optional” and then fully committed.
i genuinely don’t think i’ve ever been this confused by a movie. like not in a “oh it’s complex and i’ll get it later” way — i mean actively, constantly lost. and the thing is, i was trying to pay attention. every time a new subplot showed up, i’d be like wait… what’s happening? and just when i thought i’d finally figured it out, the story would pivot, introduce another arc, and i’d be right back at square one. rinse and repeat. for the entire movie.
but also… i kind of expected this. it’s a wes anderson film. going in expecting it to make total sense is kind of on me. his movies aren’t really about plot in a traditional way — they’re about rhythm, tone, and controlled chaos dressed up as precision.
visually, it’s exactly what you think it’ll be: symmetrical, curated, borderline obsessive. every frame looks like it’s been placed there with tweezers. it’s pretty. like, really pretty. and aesthetically pleasing. sometimes distractingly so, which might explain why my brain kept short-circuiting trying to follow the story.
benicio del toro is such an interesting lead choice — very grounded, very tired, very “i’ve lived a life.” he kind of anchors the madness, even when the plot refuses to be anchored. the supporting cast pops in and out like theatrical cameos, all delivering that signature deadpan, emotionally repressed dialogue wes anderson loves so much.
the humour is there, but it’s not laugh-out-loud funny. it’s more… witty. dry. “that was clever” funny. very wes anderson funny. you’re not bursting into laughter, you’re just quietly amused, maybe smirking, maybe exhaling sharply through your nose.
emotionally, it’s muted but present. the usual themes are floating around — fractured families, emotional distance, people who care about each other but absolutely cannot communicate it properly. it’s subtle, almost buried under the aesthetic and the chaos, but it’s there if you squint.
is it all over the place? yes.
does the plot kind of feel like it’s happening to you rather than with you? also yes.
and yet… i oddly enjoyed it. not in a “wow this is amazing” way, but in a “that was strange, mildly entertaining, and not terrible” way. it’s not life-changing. it’s not crazy good. but it’s also not bad. it exists in that weird middle space where you’re confused the whole time but still sort of vibing.
rating: 6.5/10
messy. confusing. aesthetically flawless.
a movie i didn’t fully understand and probably never will — but still kind of enjoyed anyway.
very wes anderson. very “don’t ask questions, just accept it.”
wes anderson said “narrative clarity is optional” and then fully committed.
i genuinely don’t think i’ve ever been this confused by a movie. like not in a “oh it’s complex and i’ll get it later” way — i mean actively, constantly lost. and the thing is, i was trying to pay attention. every time a new subplot showed up, i’d be like wait… what’s happening? and just when i thought i’d finally figured it out, the story would pivot, introduce another arc, and i’d be right back at square one. rinse and repeat. for the entire movie.
but also… i kind of expected this. it’s a wes anderson film. going in expecting it to make total sense is kind of on me. his movies aren’t really about plot in a traditional way — they’re about rhythm, tone, and controlled chaos dressed up as precision.
visually, it’s exactly what you think it’ll be: symmetrical, curated, borderline obsessive. every frame looks like it’s been placed there with tweezers. it’s pretty. like, really pretty. and aesthetically pleasing. sometimes distractingly so, which might explain why my brain kept short-circuiting trying to follow the story.
benicio del toro is such an interesting lead choice — very grounded, very tired, very “i’ve lived a life.” he kind of anchors the madness, even when the plot refuses to be anchored. the supporting cast pops in and out like theatrical cameos, all delivering that signature deadpan, emotionally repressed dialogue wes anderson loves so much.
the humour is there, but it’s not laugh-out-loud funny. it’s more… witty. dry. “that was clever” funny. very wes anderson funny. you’re not bursting into laughter, you’re just quietly amused, maybe smirking, maybe exhaling sharply through your nose.
emotionally, it’s muted but present. the usual themes are floating around — fractured families, emotional distance, people who care about each other but absolutely cannot communicate it properly. it’s subtle, almost buried under the aesthetic and the chaos, but it’s there if you squint.
is it all over the place? yes.
does the plot kind of feel like it’s happening to you rather than with you? also yes.
and yet… i oddly enjoyed it. not in a “wow this is amazing” way, but in a “that was strange, mildly entertaining, and not terrible” way. it’s not life-changing. it’s not crazy good. but it’s also not bad. it exists in that weird middle space where you’re confused the whole time but still sort of vibing.
rating: 6.5/10
messy. confusing. aesthetically flawless.
a movie i didn’t fully understand and probably never will — but still kind of enjoyed anyway.
very wes anderson. very “don’t ask questions, just accept it.”
6
