Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
292 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Sartre and Satire
jdesando25 November 2009
Fantastic Mr. Fox is acclaimed director Wes Anderson's first animation, specifically stop-motion, and it's, well, fantastic.

George Clooney's voice as the head fox of an animal clan that shouts diversity is straight out of Danny Ocean-- cool and witty with an overlay of sentimentality that would convince you to open your hen house door to let him have his way. That's after his little speech that tries existentialism on for size, foxwise that is: "Why a fox? Why not a horse, or a beetle, or a bald eagle? I'm saying this more as, like, existentialism, you know? Who am I?"

As the animals pull a caper against farmer Bean (Michael Gambon) and his thugs, the animation pulls away from the gloom of another winner this year, Where the Wild Things Are, and confirms the fun of a well told beast fable with loads of anthropomorphism to reaffirm our love of humanity and confirm that animals, like us, will always be animals. The ease with which Anderson/Clooney convince that this stealing and mayhem are what animals do is a tribute to script and performance that seduce us into the stylistic den of thieves known as the fox lair and all its attitude and custom, sanctioned by mother nature herself.

Mr. Fox: "The cuss am I? Are you cussing with me?" Badger (Bill Murray): "No, you cussing with me?" Mr. Fox: "Don't cussing point at me!"

Such an exchange is indicative of the fun Anderson has with kids and adults by not bombarding the youngsters with profanity but winking at the adults as if to say, "You know what I mean." And the most violent moment comes not from scenes with guns but rather where the animals steal chickens and break their necks, done so gingerly and quietly that it seems what it is: Just what foxes do and what humans must do to eat the chickens. Darwin meets the cartoons: Mr. Fox: "And how can a fox ever be happy without, you'll forgive the expression, a chicken in its teeth?"

That's Wes Anderson for you: Sartre and satire with a dash of dashing fox.
93 out of 116 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Truly 'Fantastic' Fantastic Mr. Fox
amarcordforever12 November 2009
In recent years, Disney's Pixar division, with their monopoly over animation, has churned out some of the biggest, funniest, most emotional material to hit theaters in the last ten years. By this point, the public knows their aggressive marketing campaign and knows it well. Adult humor and themes geared not only toward the kids, but the parent's as well. The mass appeal? Mom and dad can now take their eight year old to the local multiplex and fork over the steep price of admission without wasting it on a two hour long power nap. Last quarter's CGI constructed Pixar extravaganza "Up" captured audiences' hearts, imaginations and pocket books, raking in a less than modest 292 mil at the box office, making it one of the highest grossing animated films of all time. Along comes "Fantastic Mr. Fox", helmed by auteur Wes Anderson, a crack team at Twentieth-Century Fox (Yes, I said Fox) and Indian Paintbrush, one of Wes' collaborators on his predecessor "The Darjeeling Limited". If there's one thing that's detrimental to the Trump-like successes of the Disney powerhouse, it's a new found competition…let the games begin.

"Fantastic Mr. Fox" is a pure delight. A feast for the eyes. From frame one, it takes no time at all to draw you into its beautiful visuals of vast countryside's, running streams and falling foliage, all in marvelous stop motion. That's right I said it, stop motion. From the course hair on Fox's face to the cotton ball chimney smoke of Boggis, Bunce and Beans warehouse smoke stacks, everything's been designed from scratch, much of which involves simple household items. After just a few minutes in Wes Andersons world inspired by written cues from the mind of the British children's author Roald Dahl (inspired by Dahl's own hometown) you're dragged out of the theater and immersed in a faraway land for the entirety of its modest and to the point one hour and twenty minute runtime. The real treat lies in the notion of how long it actually must have taken these top notch art designers to bring everything to life. There are forces at play here that give one a clear sense of the fact that stepping away from a computer screen and getting things done the hard way pays off when witnessing the final product. Production value is staggeringly noticeable and truly memorable. I for one am still transfixed by the universe of Mr. Fox.

Among one of the droves of Wes Anderson fans, I had high expectations going into the film. Anderson is one of those rare writer/directors that manage to separate themselves from the societal norm, branch out and go their own way. With Fantastic Mr. Fox, he effortlessly supersedes his reputation as one of the most unique Directors of this century. You may be asking yourself how you direct a bunch of puppets, but Andersons 'puppets' are among some of the most realistic and complex that you're likely to meet. With human emotions, expressions and actions, it is clear that Mr. Anderson took great time and preparation during the film's production and pre-production to make sure everything came off as smoothly and impactful as possible. Look out for a particularly funny scene during one of the nightly stake outs portrayed wholly through images on security camera monitors. Very, very well thought out and clever.

Fox, for being aimed at children, is probably one of the most adult animated films I've seen to date. Think Pixar Redux. There's smoking, 'cussing' and above all some extremely heavy handed adult humor and themes. In Wes Andersons sharp, funny, unbelievably witty script, he keeps all of that classic dry comedy that's become synonymous with his trademark, the only exception being that it's coming from the mouths of the animals he's intricately created. Parts had me gasping for air; others had me rolling in the aisles. It's clear to me that by now Wes has really honed in on his craft and gets marginally better with each new picture.

Wes Anderson, with his creative brain that can only be compared to an Einstein of the medium, lays all his cards on the table and ups the ante for Pixar Studios. When asked if he wanted to continue to make animated films he commented by saying, "I would certainly love to make other animated films in the future." Could this be his new calling? Truly focusing on the niche market of animated movies tipping the scale more in favor of adult audiences? One would love to think so (of course without turning into another Robert Zemeckis and taking a permanent vacation from live action). Fantastic Mr. Fox is something to be experienced. Children will love its adorable characters while adults will marvel in its ability to connect with them. After all, each of us was a kid at one time or another and because of that there has never been a better excuse to pretend again.
176 out of 230 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Wonderful Return to Classic Animation
conversequeen6410 December 2009
I'll admit it: I love stop motion animation. From the crude Christmas classics that are always on TV this time of year to the elegant masterpieces of Tim Burton, I never miss the chance to see classic animation at work. Needless to say, when I heard about Fantastic Mr. Fox, I was excited. A wonderful Rhold Dahl book, beautifully crafted animation, and an illustrious cast all in one package – this was exciting. I'm happy to say that my excitement was justified as Fantastic Mr. Fox is perhaps one of the best new movies I have seen this year.

The story of Fantastic Mr. Fox follows the lives of the Fox family – Mr (George Clooney), Mrs(Meryl Streep), and their son(Jason Schwartzman) – and their animal neighbors and friends. Mr. Fox, once a professional chicken stealer, decides to settle down with his wife after she becomes pregnant and instead take up a career in writing. After moving to a new home in the trunk of a tree, Mr. Fox takes notice in three massive fowl and fruit farms. Risking everything. Mr. Fox decides to embark on one last big job – stealing from all three farms. What happens after that can only be described as pure confusion and debauchery.

As with most Rhold Dahl stories, the book Fantastic Mr. Fox works to both excite kids and humor adults. As a result, the original short story is considered a classic for many families. Though some adaptations of Rhold Dahl classics (see BOTH adaptations of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) have strayed from Dahl's dry, quirky humor, the film version of one of his best loved stories have honored this side of Dahl's story, projecting a humor perhaps more suited to adults than children, but creating an overall story that will appeal to all.

This movie would likely have been impossible without the work of numerous wonderful voice actors. George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray, Willem Dafoe, Michael Gambon, and Owen Wilson all provide voices in the movie, among other lesser known but still wonderfully talented actors. As a result, the voices blend beautifully into the animation. Instead of feeling like characters with a voice shoved in, the voices and the characters are one.

The animation is perhaps the most appealing aspect of the movie. The script and humor works with the animation in ways traditional or digital animation could not. In many instances, the animation itself provides part of the story. By using a more traditional method, Fantastic Mr. Fox is also able to provide very specific quirks and personalities to each character, something often lost in newer animation. Adding to the animation is a muted, fall palette of colors, giving the entire film a homey, comforting feel.

Animation has become so perverted in recent years. Throwing away emotional appeal for visual appeal, the plethora of slick, computer animated, shiny films are almost unnerving. In such an atmosphere, choosing to make a use traditional animation can often spell anathema for the film. As a result, Fantastic Mr. Fox shines, choosing to pick traditional animation techniques to allow the viewer to relate to and communicate with the film in a way few films are able to do anymore. Though perhaps not for everyone, I would recommend Fantastic Mr. Fox for anyone interested in quirky humor, stop-motion animation, or simply a beautifully crafted and well written story.
80 out of 103 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Nutshell Review: Fantastic Mr. Fox
DICK STEEL22 November 2009
I'm pretty much the sucker for stop motion animation, so this naturally comes with that wee bit of bias, because I surely take my hats off to the filmmakers, especially the modelers and pretty much everyone who has to painstakingly move everything a little bit at a time, which for folks who are impatient (like myself), would already have driven one nuts.

But this crazy effort in bringing to life Roald Dahl's story of a sly fox, is pretty much worth every frame of it. The man hours and intricate designs are something of an old school technique when compared to the latest computer wizardry, but you'll be amazed at what director Wes Anderson and his team managed to come up with, complete with a solid story, likable characters, and plenty of fun.

George Clooney voices Mr Fox, a smug (what else, since Clooney chews these type of roles for breakfast) and wily erm, fox whose specialty is being the chicken thief that he is, providing for family. An incident cutting too close to death has Mr Fox promise Mrs Fox (Meryl Streep) that his thieving days are over, but you know how a leopard cannot change its spots. Soon he moves his family near three farmers Bean (Michael Gambon), Boggis (Robin Hurlstone) and Bunce (Hugo Guinness), and crafts his final hurrah in hitting all three neighbours, only for them to retaliate and demolish Mr Fox's lifestyle, and not to mention his relationship with wife, family and friends, resulting in a battle of wills and wits.

Despite the relatively short run time, the film managed to pack plenty of subplots, characterization, and comedy into one well oiled narrative. You'll surely be one without a sense of humour should you not be able to laugh at anything and everything that Anderson had put on screen, from slapstick to really smart and funny lines that make up every moment of enjoyment in this film. The A-list voice cast also includes the likes of Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray, Willem Dafoe, Owen Wilson, Brian Cox, Adrien Brody et al, some of whom you'll know are regulars in Anderson's past works.

And if you had enjoyed his past quirky films, then you'd come to expect the same for Fantastic Mr. Fox, with Wes Andersen's signature touches all over the shop, where he made some departures from Dahl's book, but manage to retain the essence of the story, and through a stroke of luck, finding an alternate ending from Dahl's original manuscript which got adopted here in the film. It's comical, it's smart, it's stop motion and it won't be too long before fans will soon adopt Mr Fox's trademarked whistle-whistle-click-click.
48 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A feast for the eyes and ears. No Roald Dahl in sight though
rosiblonde16 November 2009
After reading the reviews on here I wasn't put off watching this film. As a huge fan of animation, as well as Wes Anderson films this film definitely did everything and more for me. There's so much going on in every scene, I found it even funnier than other Anderson films, and as usual I loved all the characters. Anderson manages to keep all the coin facial expressions/awkward silences between characters/quirky background stories that appear in all his films. It's a true work of brilliance! This film has a 'kids film' label on it, but it's not really for children in my opinion, I urge anyone who appreciates animation and is looking to watch something quirky and intelligent to go for this film. Don't be put off due to the hordes of children. Anderson films are best watched on the big screen, so go see it now before it finishes at our cinemas.

The only criticism I will say about this is that I don't think Anderson should have kept the original title of Roald Dahl's story 'Fantastic Mr Fox'. Mainly because it has been adapted so much to Anderson's style (as well as being Americanised) that it isn't really in keeping with Dahl's story, and fans of the acclaimed writer who want to experience the film adaptation of his story will be disappointed I feel. I think he should have given it a different title, like 'Foxxed' or something (that's a rubbish suggestion, but you get what I mean), as I loved it, and wouldn't change anything else, but marketing it as an adaptation of Dahl's book is a little mis-leading (definitely for British people anyway).

-As a side point I think that as much as Dahl supplies a brilliant story and tons of material to make a very good film, I think Dahl's stories are best kept where they belong, and that is on paper. It is his literacy genius where the magic of his stories lie, and reading them (rather than looking at them) gives me the most enjoyment than I could ever get from watching a film of one of his stories.

I left the cinema with a huge grin on my face and felt like bouncing along the pavement as I made my way home. It definitely has been the highlight of my week, and will be without a doubt one of the best films I've seen this year.
112 out of 152 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Top 10 Favorite Movies
ninjachewit25 April 2018
I love this movie. The visuals, the endearment from the characters, the ARCS oh boy the character arcs in this movie are SO SO AMAZING. Anderson makes you feel and care for the characters from square one which is a supremely difficult task to do (most directors/writers instead employ making them dislikable because it's way easier). The visuals are top notch and super original which deserves + 1 star on its own so really this movie gets a 11/10 from me.

The story and the overall effect of this movie to inspire artistic creations and not be afraid of telling a story from your unique perspective is what this movie should really be looked on about. It's a masterpiece.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Holy Cuss, This Film Is Great
Matt_Layden6 December 2009
Giving up his life of a chicken thief because of a child on the way, Mr. Fox gets a job as a newspaper writer and lives underground. Years pass, his child is older and he wants to move to a tree and not feel poor anymore. Along the way he takes in his nephew and decides to steal again, from the three biggest farmers no less. The farmers get wise and start a battle against Mr. Fox, his family and all their creature friends.

At first I didn't know if I wanted to see this, the animation looked really bad. But after thinking about it for a bit, I found that it fit into Anderson's style, it was something that he would do. So I gave the film a shot and I'm glad I did. This film has Anderson's signature style all over it, right down to the obvious voice casting, which has the likes of George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray, Michael Gambon, Owen Wilson, and Willem Dafoe.

A lot of people, and I'm including myself in this bunch, might think nothing of this film. After all, it doesn't have the bright, adventurous feel of the recent Disney/Pixar films that have been dominating the animation scene. I'd even throw Dreamworks into that bunch. Those films are done by people who are at ease in their field, animated director like Brad Bird and John Lasseter know their way around the animation style. Yet here comes auteur Wes Anderson, who has a unique style and sense of comedy. His transition to animation, stop motion animation no less, is smart, funny and a pleasure. Is it his best film? Of course not, but it's one of the more enjoyable ones.

The voice cast all work well, Clooney does a good job as the lead. He has that leadership tone in his voice, that arrogance that is needed for the character. Streep isn't given much to do, so her role as the wife is pretty basic, as is the character. Their son Ash, voice by Bored To Death star Jason Schwartzman was a stand out for me, as was Eric Chase Anderson, as Kristofferson. That name might not sound familiar, that's because his resume only consists of Anderson films. Bill Murray plays a badger and Fox's lawyer, who advises him not to buy the tree house. Fox does anyway and that's why he's in this mess. The animals are really small and live in this world where there are apparently small motorbikes for them to use. They can communicate with the human characters, no one seems to find it odd in this little world they live in. You won't find it odd either, you'll just be enjoying the fun.

Each chapter is subtitled, Fox's Master Plan A, Fox's Master Plan B, etc. They even tell you how time passes in human years and fox years and in a comical bit one human hour compare to one fox hour. You never know how long these hours are in comparison to each other, you don't want to know either, it just adds to the uniqueness of the film. At heart, these characters are still wild animals, as Fox even says this in the film, and the way they eat and "fight" each other proves this.

The film has that Anderson humour and might go over some kids heads. It's dark in some places, as one character dies, but I think they will enjoy it. They won't jump up and down for it like Up, or Finding Nemo. They won't want to go out and buy the latest Mr. Fox stuffed animal or toy. This feels more like a film for adults, it doesn't really cater to the kids, but they will have their bits to laugh at, like the possum who stares blankly at some people for whatever reason.

This film was made from scratch, this world Anderson creates is fun and I had a fun time being in it. The film flies by it's running time and I never found the film dragging. It was in and out. As stated before, the kids might enjoy this, but it's more for adults. There's smoking and there's even a unique way of swearing, which I found funny. The camera movements scream Wes Anderson and if you're a fan, then you will enjoy this very much.

One of my favourite films of the year.
56 out of 77 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Thoroughly Enjoyable
gilldominic26 October 2009
To put it simply, Fantastic Mr. Fox is unlikely to leave you disappointed.

For a start, the animation, is simply wonderful. Gorgeously designed backgrounds and scenery full of simply incredible attention to detail, the film is full of such loving care and attention. Each character feels full of personality and it's refreshing to see something other than a glossy 3D rendered animation film for a change most certainly. It feels like a return to a day where a little imagination was expected in films, which is nice.

Comparing Pixar releases and this film is besides the point. This film wasn't made to be compared or compete with others, it was made to tell a classic children's tale by one of the greatest authors at writing them. Dahl's wife Felicity herself has described her delight at how the film portrays the universe great author created and the modification of the story for film length is smoothly and smartly done. It is a beautifully told story, heart-warming and charming, witty and full of comedic moments.

While Pixar films play like films made for children that can be enjoyed by adults. Wes Anderson's film feels like one made for adults, that can be enjoyed by children. Some parents may not feel too comfortable of the less than subtle replacement of curse words with "cuss" or "cussing" it has to be mentioned however.

The voice acting is excellently done, Anderson took the cast outside, underground and indoors for the varying parts of the film to give it a real feel of authenticity which pays off. The soundtrack, as with all Wes Anderson films, is stunningly good and really elevates the film. After watching you may find yourself searching out the soundtrack as soon as you get home.

The film's style and direction screams Wes Anderson at the top of its lungs and so, haters of his previous work may need to be careful, but I would certainly suggest to give the film a try and see if it can convert you, if not at least not make you feel like you've wasted your money.

As a self confessed Wes Anderson fan I was doomed to love this film no matter what, but am genuinely delighted with the end product and believe that more than just the blind Wes Anderson lover will find this film a charming, witty ride of enjoyment.
92 out of 137 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
a marvelous clubhouse of a movie where we're all invited to laugh and feel happy
Quinoa198422 November 2009
I made a diorama in third grade of Fantastic Mr. Fox- a book which I loved fondly- and seeing this film brought me back to that, only better and bolder, but with the same handmade quality of someone awed by the world they read. It's also wildly funny and cheerfully light-and-heavy all at once. It brings director Wes Anderson's concerns as a filmmaker to light, as usual (dysfunctional family, idiosyncratic touches with the characters, absurd child-but-adult-like comedy), and in a setting that is a fantasy that anyone can attach to. Children will latch on to it because of its cute/creepy designs, and its raucous energy. Adults will eat it up because, like with Where the Wild Things Are, it brings us back to a time when we just want to have a fun time and do things, even if we might know or thing they're wrong, or maybe just to dance at very odd moments.

Mr. Fox (George Clooney, who else?) is a sly guy with a quick mouth and a caring manner. He is a wild animal though, which is why he breaks the promise he made to his wife to not go out and steal chickens after their first child is born. He can't help it really- those nasty trio of farmers, Boggis Bunce and Bean- have all of those chickens and deliciously alcoholic apple cider just waiting for the taking. As it turns out, this makes the farmers angry as hell (or rather Bean mostly, who at one point does one of those manic 'destroy everything in the house' reactions Kane might appreciate), and they go and destroy the Fox home and all the outlying areas.

From there it becomes a battle of wills and, sometimes, real fire power and acorn-bombs and a rabid dog and other wild craziness. Oh, and the stop-motion. Thanks be to someone out there: there's filmmakers still going through the painstaking but endlessly creative process of frame-by-frame film-making where it takes dozens of hours to get just a few seconds of film. People like Anderson and Henry Selick seek out the limitations so they can break through them, or toy around with them as much as possible.

With the characterization of 'Mr. Fox', Anderson and his animation team gives us creatures whose hair is always slightly blowing in the wind (something that must have been hard to attain being shot frame by frame), have eyes that are motorized and look like real human eyes almost, and water (or apple cider) when it flows becomes rather dreamlike and appears like we haven't seen it before. That all of the characters have something amazing to their features, be it the way Mr. Fox gnarls his teeth and then does his trademark whistle or to how Rat clicks his fingers like a West Side Story villain, there's something happening every other second. You might figure out how this is all done, but it's not as much concern as what they do with their creations, like kids with action figures making an epic on 8mm film.

Fantastic Mr. Fox has the childlike wonder, the modestly dazzling sets and production design (art-Anderson is basically the way to put it by now with his films, from the title cards of species identification to maps and chapter-headings), and an original sense of perspective when it comes to action scenes and simple little camera moves that comes off extraordinary in this setting. But it's also, mostly, hysterically funny. It's not a crude funny like the Hangover or too bizarre like the Men Who Stare at Goats. It's sometimes just plain awkward, or just totally unexpected, or built around an absurdity that comes up and down like the explanation of how to play Whackbat, or Mrs. Bean and her blindness. Or just a line of dialog ("He's just another rat found in the back of a Chinese restaurant") sets off a belly laugh that's hard to contain. This is, at the least, the funniest of all the Dahl adaptations, keeping to the surrealism of animals and humans alike, while sticking to a perfectly dry, off-handed approach by its filmmaker.

As with everything else in the movie, the comedy feels home-grown, not in a Hollywood lab where everything's tested. This goes too for the excellent voice work that brings Anderson/Baumbach's dialog to fruition. In the theatrical trailer, when first seen, the voices of Clooney and Streep and Bill Murray almost distracted from the quality of the animation. But in full context, they all work, even Anderson himself as a real-estate agent creature. And the outdoor-not-in-studio recording of the voices does add something extra: you feel like there's something real going on, not just in fantasy, thanks to the actors and their "on-set" work. I'm sure some extra ideas or expressiveness came out of this, because the performances are a great part of what makes this world so tangible: we know these people and animals, sort of, at least as much as any other Wes Anderson movie.

And sure, they're foxes, but why not connect with the theme while we're at it? The film is lovely and insane, smart and silly, lovable and (for a few moments) a little scary, with a kick-ass soundtrack straight out of a record collection (and musical store) that connects just right right this spectacular place of someplace-England. And hey, why not some existentialism to top it off: "Who am I? And how can a fox ever be happy without, you'll forgive the expression, a chicken in its teeth?" How indeed? "I don't know what you're talking about, but it sounds illegal."
66 out of 96 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Brilliant, and utterly enjoyable. You will love this movie!!!
williamzim200016 November 2009
This is such an exceptional piece of work, I left the theater amazed at how talented Wes Anderson is. While I like much of his other movies, I was completely blown away by this. The imagination and creativity in this film is truly impressive. I enjoyed every moment of this, and so will you.

The plot centers around Mr. Fox (voice by George Clooney) who decides to start stealing chickens and things from his neighbor Walter Baggis, the owner of a chicken and agricultural empire. The battle that ensues between Mr. Fox's gang, and Baggis' gang, escalates into an all out war. That is the basic theme of the plot. What counts in this movie is the execution, the humor and sheer wittiness Anderson adds to the stop motion figures. They are rendered in a way I have never seen before. Funny, unusual, cleaver, intelligent, I was delighted by every scene at the inventiveness with which it was handled. This movie is so smart and bursting with originality, you'll walk away knowing you completely got your money's worth. I absolutely recommend this film for anyone who appreciates talent, and loves movies.
93 out of 147 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great movie, not just for kids.
owenladner05 July 2014
The beginning of the movie is simple, and a bit off putting, but if you sit back, and enjoy it as a work of art, and not a testament to real life, you will love it. It is beautifully and strangely directed by Wes Anderson and is meaningful not just for kids, but for adults too. The dynamite cast is another reason to watch this. This is relatively faithful to the book, and if you love Roald Dahl, you will love this movie. If you love Wes Anderson, you will love this movie. If you love animation, you will love this movie. If you love movies, you will love this movie. It is thought provoking, and fun for everybody, and I highly recommend it.
17 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
VERY conflicted feelings about this one...
nikki-folwell10 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
What a conundrum. It's impossible for me to give this movie one star because in many ways, it's far from a bad movie. The merits which it does have, and there are some, definitely exclude it from that general category. It is, in all fairness, visually stunning, technically brilliant, flawlessly directed, and an all-around treat for the eyes. It's loaded with a great voice cast, wicked creativity, witty dialogue, and a lot of clever ideas. Yet nor can I give it ten stars either. Because in spite of all of this, its stunning visuals and innovative imagination does not mean that I enjoyed it. I didn't. One bit.

For starters, hello? Helllooo, Road Dahl's story? Where are you? Look I understand that when you have a fairly short children's book you often need to pump it up with extra material in order to bring it up to the two-hour mark. No protests there. What I DO have protests about is when you not only add extra ideas but remove the old ones as well. Extra material can be forgiven as long as it's still entertaining and stays faithful to its inspiration. What isn't forgivable is when it's anything BUT faithful, to the point of betraying the book's spirit with its presence. Make no mistake, only a handful of references to the book manage to make it into this rendition - and even then, it almost feels like they're only there because the producers knew that they couldn't really get away with dropping ALL of the old stuff, so they added it as filler, as if to assert that they haven't forgotten what it is taht they're adapting. So woe big fans of the original story. Fantastic Mr. Fox was one of my favourite Road Dahl books when I was little but the manner in which they've twisted it here ensures that the joy which I remember is not captured. Spoilers FYI...

One of the things that made the book so heartwarming was the fact that Mr. & Mrs. Fox had such a sweet and loving relationship. In the movie, perhaps in an attempt to modernise it (and God knows why, it's a kid's story people! Why the cynicism?), Mr. & Mrs. Fox have been altered into a squabbling married couple. The sweetness of the story is almost entirely absent here. It crosses over the line into being depressing. It comes complete with a fight scene in which she hits him, making him cry, and leaving a claw mark across his face which he has for the rest of the movie (domestic violence?). Cripes, there's even a scene where she says that she shouldn't have married him; a comment which she never takes back. And by God, there's another scene where he goes on a suicide mission, agreeing to turn himself in so that the other animals can be spared, and she makes no attempt to stop him. This isn't exactly what I would call uplifting. OK, so it has happy ending, but by that stage I was so disheartened by what had happened up to then that it was impossible to feel moved. This is because the falling-out scenes were painfully drawn-out, while the make-up scenes were merely glossed over. The result, I have to say, makes the ending highly unsatisfying.

George Clooney has a sexy voice as always, and Meryl Streep is great for this kind of role because her voice is so maternal and softly-spoken that it creates the perfect Ying to George's Yang. As I mentioned earlier, the voice cast is great; Jason Schwartzman is brilliant as the son, as is Eric Anderson as the nephew, and everybody else fits their roles like a glove. But the charm of these characters has been so diluted that the actors behind them can't make up for the total lack of engagement, connection and poignancy. Even the jokes, which admittedly can be very sharp in a number of scenes, are not able to take your mind off just how uninvolving the story is. Basically, this is a movie in which they've tried to be edgy so as to appeal to older audiences. Which is fine because this CAN be done successfully; when done right you get a film which keeps adults and children ntertained in equal measure. When done wrong, you get the likes of this, which tries so hard to be watchable for adults that it ends up losing its heart.

Elsewhere, certain scenes are taken in totally unnecessary directions before they have a chance to really get interesting in order to make way for the story's new trappings. The best character in the movie, by far, is Rat, who is superbly and flawlessly voiced by William Dafoe. But what's this, Rat is in it for all of two scenes, and is then killed off. Man. There was so much more room for him, and instead they got rid of him early so that they could go into the all-new (and completely pointless) suplot of Fox's nephew being kidnapped. That's the all-around approach with this movie - bumping off things which could have been entertaining in favour of focusing on things which aren't. There's a scene involving a wolf which I asbolutely failed to see the point of; conversations which don't go anywhere; scenes which ended after two minutes without serving any integral purpose to the plot; and who knows why Owen Wilson was given fifth billing, he's in it for ONE scene!

So those who enjoyed the novel with have trouble with this. Its energy, slickness, animation and special effects are of such an astonishing standard that they're worth the five stars that I gave it alone. But due to the way in which they warped the story with only a pedestrian payoff at the end, that's all I'm giving it. Dahl virgins approach with open mind; Dahl fans beware.
38 out of 62 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Fantastic Mr. Fox -- Digging for Value
abengs5 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This film piqued my interest for two reasons -- the fact it was based on something by Roald Dahl (known for quirky stories) and the fact that Meryl Streep voiced one of the characters. I realize the second reason was a bit shallow, but the film turned out to be equally so. I had to work to find bits of joy.

The first third or so of the film was very slow. I cannot think of when the last time was that I considered walking out of a film, but the beginning of this one had me contemplating a walk out. Finally, the actual Dahl story kicked in at about that point -- and got a little more interesting.

Overall, the film lacked any real reason for me to care for any of the characters or what happened to them. Mr Fox (George Clooney's voice) was, from the start, self-centered and wanting to prove himself to the world, to be famous, as he admitted several times during the movie. But, he had no real, redeeming qualities. His son, Ash, was equally shallow. Kristofferson (nephew), was created as a too-good-to-be-real child. The evil rat (Willem Dafoe) was delightful, and the single-minded fury of Farmer Bean and his wife was somewhat engaging. However, Mrs Felicity Fox (Meryl Streep's voice) was only mildly intriguing, and while her husband was a less than admirable spouse, her blunt comment to him indicating her regret in marrying him to begin with did nothing to make her endearing.

Finally, there was a poorly coordinated side story - that Mr Fox had a fear of wolves, and in the film's culmination, Mr Fox meets a wolf and they show each other a begrudging respect in an overly long segment. Unfortunately, since the fear of foxes had been largely glossed over during most of the film and truly underdeveloped, this scene falls flat and feels completely out of place.

My favorite take away from the film - besides Bill Murray's voice as Badger (and, to a certain degree, Meryl's voice as an uninteresting Mrs Fox) - was the use of the word 'cuss' by any character wishing to swear. The first couple of times it was used, I pricked my ears in curiosity. But, then there was a whole scene filled with 'cuss' this and 'cuss' that. And, for some reason, I found it quite funny. Likely, the reason I was so easily amused was that I had been waiting, hoping, praying for something, anything, to be funny. So, when this came along, I grasped it with both hands and held on tight.

I have no doubt the studio is well aware the film is teetering, dangerously close to being a royal flop. Which is why it comes as no surprise that they are waiting to open it back home in the States on Thanksgiving weekend -- with the hopes that millions of young children will drag their parents to the film before turkey day festivities or as a break amidst 'Black Friday' shopping sprees. They may be able to recoup some costs this way, and, if they are lucky, audiences will be too mellowed out by tryptophan-induced comas from turkey feasts to notice that this movie seriously underachieves its ability to truly be 'Fantastic.'
32 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Too adult for kids, to smug for adults, and not even close to Roald Dahl
grasshopper-468277 July 2019
I wanted to like this film. I love animation, whether its the flashiest CGI or the simplest stop-motion, and I love Roald Dahl. I like witty, quirky unexpected humour and I don't get into a spin when a book adaptation does just that - adapts a story for the screen. The cast list looked terrific. What could I lose?

First I lost hope; then I lost interest. The trouble with this film was that it was trying to be a witty and stylish adult heist-film within a child's storybook - but there was never enough sense of threat to make that work. But they didn't stop there: a touch of spagetti-western with the showdown with a texan rat actually got me interested for the whole 3 minutes before they dropped back to the boring main threads. They squidged in a disaffected teen buddy story, with the jealous, overlooked son and his perfect cousin - unconvincing, tiresome, solved by the son suddenly becoming athletic and brilliant under fire for no reason. They made a stab at a dash or romance Mrs Fox the fiesty wife who lets him away with it anyway. Couldn't find enough clichés?

The Americanisation of the story wouldn't bother me at all if it was complete and wholehearted instead of half-baked. Why were the villains, in this rural American landscape, English? Why did Jarvis Cocker turn up singing bluegrass? Why did the helicopter spotter Australian? These things are so absurd they almost sound funny, but in the event they just seemed stupid and unconvincing.

The adult humour came over as smug and self-indulgent - very different from Dahl's odd, daring and absurd charm. "Based on" is overstating it - they kept the 3 villains, a rat and Mr/Mrs Fox: most other things were changed. The one element from Dahl's story, which was published 1970, that they did not change was the gender balance. Hard to imagine a wildlife community with a male/female ratio of 9:1 lasting. Oh, and the females were 1. the wife/mother and 2. the possible love interest for the cousin (so the son could be jealous). No, no hold on... a villain's wife appeared briefly twice...

I did like the animation - the strange layers, the funny digging scenes, the narrow and tall thing. But it didn't make up for a muddled plot, no likeable characters, a tiresomely smug script. No joy and no surprises.

This film was selected by my youngest kid but the kids watched it pretty well in silence and said it was... "Mmm. Okay" That says it all really. Disappointing.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Erractic Mr. Fox
p-stepien17 January 2011
The base for "The Fantastic Mr. Fox" is the beloved children's book by British iconic author Roald Dahl. As in the original the film focuses on life ordeals of Mr. Fox and his family. The premise for the story is Mr. Fox's stealing spree of chickens, ducks, turkeys and cider, which make him top of the most wanted list of despicable farmers Boggis, Bunce and Bean. Unlike in the original instead of a fox basically trying to cater and feed his family in this outing we have a typical dysfunctional Wes Anderson family, whose papa is addicted to stealing. Not to mention that his son is an irritating little bugger, whilst you also get a key new addition of kick-boxing super-athlete cousin Kristofferson . Oh! And did I mention that all the animals in the forest are Americans (which really makes the movie jar throughout, as the characters are cool hipster forest animals). Meanwhile the farmers remaining outstandingly British.

I can and will forgive the scriptwriter (Wes Anderson) for basically taking a dump on the whole sense, premise and feeling of the story. I will in this case treat "Fantastic Mr. Fox" as something totally unrelated to the book (which remains outside of Anderson's capabilities to ever achieve as long as he resolves to sticking to his gameplan).

I will not however gloss over the fact, that the animation has neither the humour and wit of Nick Park, the intelligence and unforgettable charm of Hayao Miyazaki or the heart of Pixar. The only thing that Anderson has is... quirkiness. I have never seemed to be able to understand the almost unanimous critic appeal of Wes Anderson (albeit his cult adoration thankfully does not seem to extend too far outside American borders). I never found his movies profound, if anything to me they reeked of pretentious artsy drivel (including the underwhelming "Rushmore"). Additionally Wes Anderson seems to be incapable of directing movies with likable leads - even in "The Fantastic Mr. Fox" the charmless title character played by George Clooney sounds like a George Clooney with a persistent headache on Valium impression. The only actor that manages to ring true is Meryl Streep as Ms. Fox, but her role is relatively insignificant and secondary. As usual I also found the lines nowhere as deep, meaningful and brilliant as Anderson believes them to be. Actually they mostly felt flat and written by an adolescent during Sunday school. Whats worse the add-on quirky jokes are tragically unfunny and I found myself battling to even produce a single smirk during this ordeal.

The worst thing is however that I have no idea who the target audience is. The plot plods along at snails pace and the characters are whiny, cajoling, boring and unlikeable with a unrelenting need to spit out inappropriate inside jokes (not to mention they are constantly 'cussing' with standout lines like: ""This is going to be a total cluster-cuss for everyone". What the cuss?). Additionally they are hard to understand due to seemingly inherent articulation flaws. Not to mention that some of the animation (one of the few brilliant things in the movie) is eerie, creepy and frightful in a very inappropriate manner. That basically means the whole base audience of kids is not suited for this visualisation of the children's book making it an obscure attempt at mainstream by Wes Anderson, which easily explains the poor sales of the movie.

If we are to believe that this is an animation for adults, than well... I will never jump onto the Wes Anderson band waggon, even though I'm quite sure all the negative feedback I will get for my above review. I find Anderson's films unmemorable, unimaginative and tiresome dragging on like a snail with rheumatism. Basically a animation soap-opera.

I would really love to catch the drift and hop on-board the Anderson love-boat, but with this dreadfully boring animation of a brilliant children's book this revelation will have to be put on hold. Until than count me out of this adoration.
30 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Ali_John_Catterall29 October 2009
Warning: Spoilers
First, the good news: there's some sweetly nuanced stuff here, well-crafted little details and homages, such as Mr Fox's study being a meticulous recreation in miniature of Mr Dahl's garden hut, and the urbane Mr Fox, like the director, being quite the snappy dresser. While Mrs Fox, voiced by Meryl Streep, is indeed most foxy. "You're as fine looking as a crème brulee" leers Farmer Bean's sole security detail, Rat (Willem Dafoe), a finger-popping, flickknife-wielding Dennis-Hopper-with-a-tail from some 1950s B-picture. "Am I being flirted with by a psychotic rat?" is the wry response.

Suspiciously wry, some might say. If we reveal this film also features a Buddhist-chanting, yoga-practicing fox cub called Kristofferson, the least welcome new addition to a Roald Dahl story - or a canine family since Scrappy Doo; a soundtrack which includes the Beach Boys and the Ballad of Davy Crockett; assorted critters who talk like American co-ed hipsters; laconic musings on existentialism; and lines like "You really are a kind of quote unquote fantastic fox", then alarm bells might just start taking your eardrums apart, piece by jagged piece.

Watching this, we're reminded of the game in which you pair entirely unsuitable directors with other people's films: think 'Eli Roth's The Full Monty', 'Sam Peckinpah's Bambi', or 'Neil LaBute's The Wicker Man.' (Can you imagine how embarrassing that might be for everyone if the latter were actually made? Ah.)

This is a Wes Anderson joint first and foremost, with Dahl - and indeed Britain and Britishness - running an extremely poor second. Naturally, only those nasty old farmers have British voices, c/o Michael Gambon and Brian Cox, while even that most English of icons, Jarvis Cocker, contributes a forgettable bluegrass-style number. Turning AA Milne's creations into baffled little rednecks was bad enough. But dear old Foxy?

In the big scheme of things, this shouldn't really matter - but somehow it does. It jars tremendously. The counter-argument runs that story always wins out; that story crosses genre and geographical boundaries. Which would be fine if Anderson had bothered to even slightly subjugate his singular style in its service. If Dahl is all about the story, Anderson's films are all about the attitude. Again, fine. But you'd hardly turn The Royal Tenenbaums, Rushmore or The Darjeeling Limited into bedtime stories for your children. Not unless you were feeling particularly sadistic.

It's also a stretch to imagine today's kids responding positively to the deliberately retro stop-animation, an earthier European-style familiar to elder generations, but which might seem abrasive to those weaned on Dreamworks and Pixar. By tying thousands of helium balloons to it, the latter has also raised the bar for family films to vertiginous heights. It's hard to see how Anderson's film, with its bafflingly charmless leading fox, could garner as much goodwill as Up, except among those who still think it's incredibly big and clever to smugly subvert family fare with some tiresomely idiosyncratic shtick.

The best children's stories find magic in the trash. They seek to elevate the everyday. In their droll, archly detached way, Anderson and his co-writer Noah Baumbach seek to reduce. When all's said and done, Mr Fox acknowledges that he's just a "wild animal". Felicity Fox says that, although she loves him, "I shouldn't have married you". Bean's cider-craving Rat may have ultimately redeemed himself, but in the end "he's just another dead rat in a garbage pail behind a Chinese restaurant." Way to go, Wes and Noah. Hope that babysitting gig works out for you.

Honestly, this really isn't some kind of Transatlantic stand-off on our part. But how much longer are we expected to stand impotently by while Hollywood arrogantly Americanises our every British children's icon, from Winnie the Pooh to Peter Pan? Who's next - Paddington Bear? (Yes, we know he's technically South American, but you get the drift). Clearly, it's time to fight back, starting with an all-new adaptation of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn. Starring Ant and Dec.
41 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I tried to like it...
lieksototally30 January 2010
After viewing the film, I was truly shocked to see such a high rating on IMDb.

'The Fantastic Mr. Fox' is an adaption of a beloved children's classic, portraying the story of the smooth, slick protagonist Mr. Fox (or 'Foxy') as he attempts one 'last' heist to steal from the dreaded Boggins, Bunce and Bean. That's right, one short, one fat, one lean, or however it goes.

I don't quite know where to start with my criticism.

Well, I'm in my late teens and was never a fan of Roald Dahl, but I like his material well enough, having read a few of his books as a child and seen Matilda and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory over and over again. This film, however, struggles for an audience. Is it aimed at children? Adults? I'm still unsure! Many of the 'jokes' would bore a child, especially as Mr. Fox visits a lawyer for example, or complains about being poor. Also, an audience of (I'm assuming) children is expected to sympathise with a character who steals and kills chickens. I'm all for the food chain, but you practically see Mr. Fox biting down on their necks! Surely that's a bit much? And also, the plot... well, it's kind of boring. I stayed only with the hope of it getting better, but instead I just got more and more annoyed at Mr Fox and his son Ash for making stupid decisions.

The humour, meanwhile, falls flat. I laughed only once or twice, even though I specifically recognised attempts at jokes. I think part of it is that the voice acting is so incredibly flat and monotoned. The voice actors have no sense of comic timing, instead aiming for the subtlety of humour that only works with certain mediums. George Clooney aims to portray Mr. Fox as charming and sleek, but his voice has no character. Meryl Streep shows no emotion, I didn't even realise Bill Murray had a role until the end credits, and Ash, twelve-years old in fox-years, sounds like he's about 30.

I love animation, particularly stop motion, but the visual style actually creeped me out a little bit. Characters are tall, spindly and lacking any warmth of design. They move with very little fluidity and often the animation is jerky and strange. There is also a distinctive 'mixed medium' feel, as 2D components are added in sporadically and unsuccessfully. Characters look straight at the camera and talked; it was very awkward. There was one or two moments when Kylie looked straight at the camera, didn't move and had swirls on his eyeballs. It actually freaked me out.

Fantastic Mr. Fox had so much potential. Lots of people still seem to like it - look at the reviews. Maybe it just wasn't for me.
31 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Fantastic Mr. Fox
WubsTheFadger2 March 2018
Short and Simple Review by WubsTheFadger

First off, Wes Anderson has created a wonderful and whimsical world with great characters and an amazing story. The film is rated for children but can truly be enjoyed by all ages. The story is perfectly told and the jokes are hilarious. The use of Claymation is amazing and makes the film look great.

The voice is good. George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman, Wallace Wolodarsky, Eric Chase Anderson, Owen Wilson, and many more all do a great job.

The pacing is usually good. The film starts off fast but slows down in the middle. The runtime is short and sweet.

Pro: Whimsical world with great characters, genuine story, good voice acting, fast pacing, and a short runtime

Cons: Some slow pacing in the middle of the film

Overall Rating: 9.0

P.S. This children's film is a gem and must be seen. It is in the ranks of Inside Out, Toy Story, Up, Zootopia, and Spirited Away.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great Dialog, Visual Make This A Winner For Adults
ccthemovieman-128 March 2010
I would think the audience is limited for this kind of animated film but, thank goodness, I'm one of those people who loved it. Apparently, a lot of other reviewers here did, too. There is a lot to appreciate about this movie.

"Fox" is written for other adults, let's be honest. This isn't a kids' movie because most of the dialog would go right over their heads. However, intelligent adults - people especially with a good vocabulary and a quirky sense of humor - should love "Fantastic Mr. Fox."

The hero is even voiced by a real-life elitist, George Clooney. The smug-sounding Mr. Clooney does a super job in the lead voice role of "Mr. Fox." The same goes for the villainous "Mr. Bean," voiced by the nasty-sounding Michael Gambon. The details in the drawings also come through nicely in the Blu-Ray version, so see it in that formula if you have a BD player and HD set. Thus, this film offers great visuals along with the wonderful dialog.

The story is typical; a father finds out his family is more important than anything else and his young son tries to win approval from dad - but how this is executed is really "clever" to both see and hear. Yes, it's a cliché story but it's done so differently with such unique dialog and humor that it's fantastically entertaining.

If you think animated films are strictly for the young; this movie will change your mind. Best of all, it's the type of movie you should be able to enjoy multiple times because there is so much to take in.
10 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
HUGE disappointment
beresfordjd28 December 2010
I am watching this as I type and can only say it is an abomination. When I was a teacher I read this excellent Roald Dahl story to my class of 8 year olds every year and it was loved by all of them, so much so that I sometimes had to read it twice to the same class within the year. My beef(s) with this film are as follows 1. This movie bore little resemblance to the book apart from the names of the characters. 2. The whole thing was americanised. 3. This was sit-com material. 4. It was boring as hell. Things I liked were as few and far between I enjoyed the sound of Clooney's voice and Meryl's too, but they should have been given a much better script. I like quirky and have no real problems with creative adaptations but this was poor on almost every level. Wes Anderson should be ashamed of himself.
22 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Wes Anderson: A Hero's Journeyman
rhinocerosfive-127 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
In a movie year so vapid that I found myself debating the virtues of Michael Bay vs Roland Emmerich (two sickening panderers, the latter of whom is at least less a Hasbro salesman than a bad filmmaker), I just about gave up on going to the movies. Just about. Then Wes Anderson released the best filmed fairy tale since the invention of the zoetrope.

It may be argued that Anderson is not the most consistent director working. That attribute is better attached to Bay, who consistently insults my intelligence. But consistency, while a virtue, is not the mark an artist ought to hit. Excellence is a better target. Michael Bay thinks that excellence is measured by ticket sales, that transcendence is related to expenditure, that success is found in delivering the lowest common denominator of good time to the broadest possible spectrum of children. Every shot in a Michael Bay movie feels test-marketed. Which is why his movies tend to last exactly as long as their initial release.

So, yeah, I am a big Wes Anderson fan. I still don't like BOTTLE ROCKET all that much, but it is better than any movie I saw this year not directed by Wes Anderson. This guy is so defiantly not a populist that with every new release, I grow a little more afraid of his never getting funding again. His movies don't tend to make money. His audiences are necessarily educated, open-minded, analytical, patient, compassionate. Does this sound like your America? Anderson seems uninterested in selling a single ticket. He clearly has no desire to make a movie that will help him to make more movies. Any question remaining on this point after LIFE AQUATIC was answered by DARJEELING LIMITED. Here is a man who can only make art for himself. He will starve before he makes any other kind. So I worry, because he happens, tangentially, to be making it for me too.

And hey - this is a kids' movie. Anyway, I'm sure Fox thought so when it signed up. I mean, it's animated, it's from a kids' book, it's got talking animals. But the kids in the theater with me did not experience my ecstasy. They will not clamor for Mr Fox dolls on Black Friday. Mr Fox is in fact a scary, villainous, superficially charming ne'er-do-well. He is boorish, a dangerous egotist. A bad father. A bad husband. His excuse ("I'm a wild animal") sounds like a wifebeater's apology. The movie does not celebrate his deeds or personality. At the end of the picture, he has reduced his community to living in a sewer, eating synthetic versions of the real food they used to enjoy, with none of their former freedoms, listening to his speeches about how THIS is the good life while the rest of the world tries to kill them. (What kind of metaphor for suburban values is this? Mr Fox as Mr Bush? Am I reaching? I am not.) So this isn't a movie for kids. It isn't a movie for imperialists. It isn't a movie for 20th Century Fox, who would surely have preferred another STAR WARS-type toy delivery system.

It's a movie for me.

There's my G.I. Joe from 1975, blowing up the Fox home. There's Roald Dahl's repeated line about "little electric sparks" dancing in the characters' eyes, finally brought to life. There's the opossum that keeps invading my mother's house. What? Yes. It's a movie so god damn personal that it achieves the universal through minutiae. In doing so it achieves my dream of a fairy tale so much like a pre-Disney Grimm version that 80% of the characters behave with total self-interest and abuse everyone else.

It's a myth that performs the essential function of mythology: it reminds me of my responsibilities to my society, which are legion. I must be all I can be; I must not bring harm to my friends; I must not make bad art to buy another Lamborghini.

It's a movie from Wes Anderson, for Wes Anderson and me and you. And if Michael Bay sees it, perhaps it'll do us all some good.
12 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
To be avoided at ALL costs
jburtroald958 January 2010
Appalling ego-induced carelessness from director Wes Anderson, betrayal of the great Roald Dahl, and just sheer stupidity are present in the worst adaptation of Dahl's work since the abominable 'Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory' (1971).

Those sensational chapters from the delightful children's story are simply glossed over quickly and emotionlessly.

Instead, the enthusiasm has gone towards the pathetic and most unnecessary additions. It has also idiotically been filled with adult American sit-com-style humour – one can hardly think of anything more inappropriate for a Roald Dahl children's story. Such a sickening amount of time is wasted as numerous failed attempts are made to be sharp, witty and funny.

The results are very lifeless and cynical and share 9's problems with narrative and audience.

Yet despite all this it is somewhat enjoyable, and one cannot hate it entirely.

This is most likely owing to the honest, home-style animation, which is by no means perfect as the work characters' facial expressions are downright awful, but it is definitely the best thing on offer here.

Or perhaps it is the novelty of having a voice cast of well-known and well-loved actors – George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Michael Gambon... – but sadly most of them are underused, miscast, or just simply don't deliver.

Bottom line: avoid this at all costs.
34 out of 80 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Can't Stand Wes Anderson!!!
tendobear9 August 2012
To me - and I know many, many people will disagree - Wes Anderson is another one of those directors whose movies I only like one of - I actually quite enjoyed The Life Aquatic (mostly because of Bill Murray and the quality stop-motion animation), but that's it. Everything else he does is just irritatingly boring, dull and completely unfunny. I've tried to like his movies, but I just can't. I hate directors whose movies are odd for the sake of being odd, and not because it's funny or it makes sense; it's just downright pretentious. He's not even weird or odd in a good way like David Lynch. Some might argue that his humour is too sophisticated or high-brow for my caveman mind, fair enough, I'm just here to speak my mind. This review is applicable to all Wes Bentley films (except Aquatic), so hopefully I won't have to keep repeating myself. Oh, another thing; I absolutely can't stand Jason Schwartzman! SOMEBODY PLEASE kill his acting career!
12 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
a complete waste of time to watch especially if you are not American
alper_peker1 March 2010
I was personally expecting this film as a competitor for my favorite animations. However it turned out to be a complete disappointment. I was definitely bored from the beginning to the end. There was probably some of American humor that I didn't get at all. The script was nothing special, including all the Hollywood family clichés of unhappy marriage, problem child etc. I could hardly laugh at most in a couple of scenes. I'm not an expert in animation techniques and this movie might have brought something new in that aspect however, there was not a bit of creativity in story telling especially when compared to Miyazaki animations or even Toy Story and Wall-E. I did not even understand why the director made a movie like this. I want to forget it as soon as possible.
14 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A real mystery of a film
maxandria2 October 2010
There was nothing appealing about Fantastic Mr Fox. The dull plot and freaky "looking into the camera" moments were bad, the jerky and slightly creepy animation was (to me) unsettling. Thankfully, the characters voices were so mono tonal that they put me out of my misery and I fell asleep after about 40 Minos. I woke up up at intervals, glad when I woke finally and the end titles were playing! My dear wife and 11 year old son had somehow endured the whole film without snoozing, they didn't enjoy anything about it either.

An absolute mystery to us how it's managed to score 8/10 on the usually spot on IMDb, it's like some people have watched a different film! Anyway, our advice is that it's utterly awful. Avoid at all costs.
11 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed