Wes Anderson's best work seems behind him. I loved The Royal Tenenbaums and Fantastic Mr. Fox, an animated movie very similar in style to Isle of Dogs. Anderson's films however have taken a downturn, like The Grand Budapest Hotel, which was disappointing farce. "Dogs" is no less disappointing.
I think the problem Anderson's last few movies have is that the plot is too thin for the run time. "Hotel" was 100 minutes but felt like it should have been 80. Isle of Dogs is 97 minutes, but it takes a long, long, long time for it to get going. Wes Anderson sacrifices "artsy shots" and style for storytelling; that is, plot and pacing. The numerous pull away and flat establishing shots drag the movie down so much watching "Dogs" is a chore. "Dogs" also features a tedious amount of people speaking, at length, in Japanese, and then having a character translate it for us. Is it meant to be a joke? It's quirky, sure, but isn't it also, I don't know... tedious? Since when is quirkiness a joke? Since when is listening to people speaking Japanese a joke?
The whimsical "quirk factor" of this movie is compounded by how the (English speaking) characters all talk; as if they're all trying to do a Jeff Goldblum impression (which is funny as he is also in this movie). But people don't talk like this, not unless it's late at night and you have to talk to your spouse about something bothering you but you don't want to wake the kids.
I can't shoot the movie down completely, however: this style of animation is charming and filled with character, but it's not enough to save the movie. Fantastic Mr. Fox had the same kind of animation but "Fox" also had stronger storytelling, acting, and humour. Animation alone isn't enough to save a movie.
I think the problem Anderson's last few movies have is that the plot is too thin for the run time. "Hotel" was 100 minutes but felt like it should have been 80. Isle of Dogs is 97 minutes, but it takes a long, long, long time for it to get going. Wes Anderson sacrifices "artsy shots" and style for storytelling; that is, plot and pacing. The numerous pull away and flat establishing shots drag the movie down so much watching "Dogs" is a chore. "Dogs" also features a tedious amount of people speaking, at length, in Japanese, and then having a character translate it for us. Is it meant to be a joke? It's quirky, sure, but isn't it also, I don't know... tedious? Since when is quirkiness a joke? Since when is listening to people speaking Japanese a joke?
The whimsical "quirk factor" of this movie is compounded by how the (English speaking) characters all talk; as if they're all trying to do a Jeff Goldblum impression (which is funny as he is also in this movie). But people don't talk like this, not unless it's late at night and you have to talk to your spouse about something bothering you but you don't want to wake the kids.
I can't shoot the movie down completely, however: this style of animation is charming and filled with character, but it's not enough to save the movie. Fantastic Mr. Fox had the same kind of animation but "Fox" also had stronger storytelling, acting, and humour. Animation alone isn't enough to save a movie.