I just watched Asteroid City with a group of friends, and the divide in reactions was really interesting to witness. Those of us who picked up on the layers of meta-commentary on storytelling, performance, and the artificiality of narrative found ourselves laughing at the absurdities and dry wit throughout. The film-within-a-play structure, along with the documentary-style interludes, was hilarious and self-aware in all the right ways. But the others, who weren’t really into those layers, just found the whole thing quite confusing. They were completely lost, unsure of what the movie was even trying to be. It was one of those experiences where the more you understood the joke, the funnier it got, and if you didn’t, it just felt like a very elaborate puzzle with no picture on the box.

That said, even as someone who enjoyed the film, I think Asteroid City might be a case of Wes Anderson going a little too far into his own aesthetic. The visual composition is so obsessively perfect that it begins to feel more like a distraction than a storytelling device. In something like The Grand Budapest Hotel, the stylization supported the narrative and enhanced the tone. Here, it sometimes feels like the style is the point, and it ends up distancing you from the characters. On top of that, the sheer number of A-list actors all delivering that signature Wes Anderson deadpan starts to flatten the emotional range of the film. If just a few characters had that kind of delivery, it might have had more impact, but when everyone talks the same way, it loses its charm and starts to feel repetitive. In addition to that, while having a few big-name actors can add gravitas or surprise, when nearly every role is filled by someone extremely famous, it starts to take you out of the story.

As a more general review, I would say that I liked the movie, but with some important caveats. Asteroid City is visually stunning, clever, and packed with interesting ideas, but it’s also a bit bloated and, at times, emotionally inaccessible. The film juggles multiple storylines and characters, many of which feel underdeveloped or unnecessary. Trimming down some of these subplots would have helped sharpen the focus and allowed for a more cohesive, character-driven narrative. As it stands, the film doesn’t really have a strong narrative throughline or emotional anchor. There's no central character with a clear arc, no real stakes, and no momentum that carries you through. Instead, it relies heavily on its meta-structure and style to do the heavy lifting. For viewers already familiar with Anderson’s work and sensibilities, that might be enough, but for everyone else, it risks feeling like an inside joke you weren't invited to.