Search

[linkogecko]

Wes Anderson's newest. Based on the children's book by Roald Dahl, and done entirely in stop-motion animation. Brilliant colors, cross-sections of things, fancy dressings, yep, pretty much on par for a Wes Anderson film.

I'm not too much into the animation, specially the facial expressions, or the jokes so far, but the plot seems quite interesting and George Clooney voicing the title character is brilliant casting.

[Sublex]

This was my favorite book as a child, and I'm really looking forward to the movie.

[Sanchez]

NNNNNOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO

[stressbunny]

Ssssh...there, there...it's okay, Sanchez...the mean people can't help destroying a childhood institution. We have to feel sorry for them. Lack of originality and foresight is a handicap, you know. Ssssh. And I'm sure that they are very, very sorry for what they've done.

[nathan_birch]

I like the animation...reminds me of the old Wind in the Willows series on PBS.  Not so sure about the voice cast though.  Bill Murray as the badger seemed to be particularly odd casting.

[Allen]

The Fantastic Mr Fox was the first book i ever read.  I sort of want to cry and never stop.  Fuck wes anderson, fuck george clooney and fuck movies.

[ZombieAsuma]

The Fantastic Mr Fox was the first book i ever read.  I sort of want to cry and never stop.  Fuck wes anderson, fuck george clooney and fuck movies.

Having never read the book, what is it that they are getting so wrong with this movie?

[Allen]

You ought to have read the book when you were a kid, you'd probably be a happier person now, but the tone, mainly.  Roald Dahl tells good stories for kids like they're good stories for kids.  Wes anderson seems to be trying to tell a good story for kids like it's the Royal Tenenbaums for furries.

I'm sure it's going to be interesting for a lot of people, but that book is too important to me to have it be made into a Wes Anderson Movie (you know the type).  And i generally like Wes Anderson.  He's just crossed a line here, i don't expect anyone to feel the same way about this as me. 

After my initial shock, i realized that maybe the way the trailer is cut together is not necessarily a good indicator of how the movie will handle the content of the book.  I mean, it's just an ad with Wes Anderson written all over it in big capitol letters. That's a business decision because there are more people waiting for the next Wes Anderson movie than the next Roald Dahl movie.  They just turned the Wes Anderson to full volume on it, and there wasn't any room left in the trailer for what i love about the story to begin with.  And maybe they'll capture it in the theatrical release, i dunno.  That trailer just made me really really sad.  I got flashes of what the trailer for The BFG might be like if directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet, or The Twits as directed by Ang Lee.  I started to see my history of reading books start rotting and the root.  It was excruciating. 

[Sanchez]

Judging by that trailer, the book's been mutated beyond recognition. The names are about all that's left. Why not just make up his own characters and deliver a quirky project of his own devising? I'm not seeing this as an interesting bit of cinematic eccentricity, I'm seeing a hideous deformity of a classic kids book.

[College Binary]

Bill Murray? Jason Scwartzmann? Owen Wilson? Who could have predicted this casting?

I have some memory of this book. I was a big Dahl fan in primary school, though my favourites were James and the Giant Peach and The Minpins.

This movie seems a little like that Mike Myers Cat in the Hat movie, in which the Cat goes to a nightclub and meets Paris Hilton (that wasn't in the original story)

[MiguelAtlavazcar]

This sort of ruins my hope that the next Wes Anderson movie would have a slow motion sequence of Bill Murray melancholically taking a shit to the tune of, I don't know, Simon and Garfunkel. There's always next year.

[Samwise]

The Examiner questions how involved Anderson was with the creation of this film.

But, yeah, I got a distinctly "Ocean's 11 but with furries" vibe from this trailer. I'll probably still see it, as stop motion animation is my favorite form of anything.

[tomroadrunner]

So far, so good. It's got a pretty large number of reviews already, so it's looking like the consensus is pretty solid.

I think it might have been a case of the company wanting to show the "Wes Anderson-ness" of the film instead of just the film in itself, as Allen mentioned.

[ihateyoukenny]

The critics over at Metacritic seem to be liking the movie so far, too. I agree with TomRoadrunner. While it's utterly possible that Wes Anderson might ruin the book with a desperate desire to be quirky and unique (and some misguided need to not be too slavishly devoted to the source material), I think he's also capable of making an adaptation that manages to be its own movie while still remaining faithful to the book.

Of course, many people (like me) would argue that pretty much any change to anything in the book would be a travesty. Still, call me naive, but I think this book is too good for Hollywood to mess it up that badly. I know it's possible, but I think this is going to be good, even after seeing that trailer.

[tomroadrunner]

Even if it is completely different than the book, at least interest around the original will grow. The week after the movie comes out, I guarantee the book is going to be on the "featured" tables at Barnes & Nobles, Books-A-Million, Borders, etc.

So I think it's a win/win for the book, as long as the movie is high-quality.