Moonrise Kingdom: movie review

( PG-13 ) ( Monitor Movie Guide )

Wes Anderson's new film is sweeter than some of his other films and provokes nostalgia.

Niko Tavernise/Focus Features/AP
The central romance between two 12-year-olds is so awkwardly tender it doesn't wear out its welcome.

Wes Anderson’s “Moonrise Kingdom,” which opened this year’s Cannes Film Festival, has all of his trademark manic mannerisms: the color-coordinated visuals and mega-attention to detail; the arch, hyperclever dialogue; the performances that seem borderline cartoonish.

But it also has a sweetness that some of his other films (like “The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou” and “The Darjeeling Limited”) lack.

Set in 1965, it’s about a mini-romance between two 12-year-old renegades, Suzy (Kara Hayward), who lives with her family in a lighthouse on a New England island, and the orphan, Sam (Jared Gilman), who deserts his Khaki Scout troop to abscond with her. Sam is very bright and very nerdy, and he knows his way around the wilderness; Suzy, who likes French pop tunes and heavy eye shadow, is game but clueless – she totes along her battery-powered record player and pet kitten.

Various outsize adults join in the rescue mission, including a hapless troop leader (Edward Norton), Suzy’s off-kilter parents (Frances McDormand and Bill Murray), the town sheriff (Bruce Willis), and a Cruella de Vil-ish social services director (Tilda Swinton). Anderson keeps this whirligig in constant motion and, because the Suzy-Sam duet is so awkwardly tender, the film doesn’t wear out its welcome. It makes you nostalgic for the pangs of young love. Grade: B+ (Rated PG-13 for sexual content and smoking.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.