In Theaters Nov 25 2009 @ 06:00 am
REVIEW: Fantastic Mr. Fox
Directed By: Wes Anderson
Written By: Wes Anderson and Noah Baumbach, from the book by Roald Dahl
Starring: George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray, Owen Wilson, Willem Dafoe
Running Time: 87 minutes
Rated PG for action, smoking and slang humor
Wait, Wes Anderson is trying something new?
Yes, Wes Andreson — the guy who directed Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, and The Darjeeling Limited; in other words, essentially the same comedy-drama hybrid about the same dysfunctional families and individuals, four times in a row. I don’t mean to be harsh — they weren’t bad films, by any stretch — but by the time Darjeeling rolled around, it was clear the returns were diminishing. Audiences stayed home, and the Academy pretty much ignored it (after giving an award to the Tenebaums’ screenplay a few years prior). Clearly, he needed to shake things up a bit.
And wow, has he. Fantastic Mr. Fox, his latest, isn’t only a different genre — it’s a different medium altogether. Gone is his usual motley crew of pseudo-indie actors, replaced by stop-motion figurines. Gone are his mostly-plotless screenplays, replaced by a children’s storybook by English author Roald Dahl (writer of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and James and the Giant Peach). And — strangely — gone are all the usual four-letter words, replaced by the word “cuss” (“What the cuss!”; “This has become a total cluster-cuss!”; etc.).
The result is easily Anderson’s most accessible film to date, even as it retains much of his oeuvre’s baroque, esoteric charm. As the story of a strikingly anthropomorphic fox (voice of George Clooney) who has to protect his family and friends (a menagerie of woodland creatures that includes Meryl Streep, Owen Wilson, Bill Murray, and others) from an onslaught of vengeful farmers, the story has quite a bit more thrust to it than any of Anderson’s recent films, making it much easier to sit through for the casual viewer. At the same time, its animation style — mostly fur-covered stop-motion figurines against hand-painted backgrounds — gives it a rustic, provincial (and somewhat retro) charm.
It’s beautiful, it’s funny, and the cast is top-notch — but more than anything, it left me wondering exactly who it was made for. One usually assumes that animated fare is intended for children (at least on this side of the Pacific), and the PG rating would seem to confirm that, but it has an edge that makes it hard to recommend for any child younger than ten (the morals here are pretty complex, and one of the “bad” characters dies a pretty violent death). Additionally, while animation is “big” right now, it’s increasingly difficult to sell people on anything other than CGI. (Coraline was a moderate success last year, but it had something of a polished look to it; Mr. Fox intentionally looks a bit unfinished.)
But I’m sure finding an audience isn’t really the first thing on Anderson’s mind. The usual crowd of college hipsters will probably show up (heck, they probably made up half of the audience for Coraline, anyway), and — along with the families who take a chance on this one — they won’t be disappointed. Mr. Fox has a vitality to it that was missing from some of Anderson’s recent work — instead of being ponderous and self-indulgent, it’s light on its feet, adventurous, and fun. It’s not the best animated film to come out this year, but it’s definitely worth a look.
on Nov 25 2009 @ 10:45 am 1. Jay said …
Honestly, just like Where the Wild Things Are, it does not really bother me on who’s the target audience of Mr. Fox. Not to underestimate children but I’m assuming that kids are really more into visuals than dialogues or content.
As a kid I enjoyed Willy Wonka or Tron even without understanding the story. I just like seeing the effects. Meanwhile, Labyrinth, even with all those cute Jim Henson puppets, gave me terrible nightmares (must be Bowie’s tight pants), I have to be taken to a therapist.
I took my son to the WTWTA screening. I’m afraid my kid would beg us to leave the theatre as my Labyrinth trauma came rushing in but surprisingly my son loved it. It is now his favorite movie next to Alvin and Chipmunks. Later, I took him Ponyo, a film that garnered 97% rating from RT, and he just slept the whole time.
Going back to WTWTA, he had his own interpretation o the film. Which is really nice because the film has no plot anyway.
Right now, he wants to see FMF, but I’m not going to lecture him that it’s retro, the dialogues are dry and sarcastic, it’s full of obscure Brit music and it’s got animals we never heard of (opossum) and Mario Batali. I’ll just let him be the judge.
In the mean time, I’m just happy he is not asking me that we see Twilight.
on Nov 25 2009 @ 12:32 pm 2. Sam Juliano said …
Well Luke, once again you and I are have assigned the exact same star rating to a film (4 of 5). And once again we have a similar issue, which in this case is the intended audience. Yet, I certainly agree that this film is Anderson’s most accessible and for at least the first two-thirds this is an inventive and sardonic piece that captures the essence of Roald Dahl’s satire, an incomparable force in children’s literature. But Dahl’s brand of humor could never be completely understood or navigated by the younger ones, and therein lies the caveat. Even CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY and JAMES AND THE GIANT PEACH, aimed at the youngest don’t completely resonate, as beloved as they are. Unfortunately the brilliance does eventually disipate, and the latter part of the film is rather tedious, but prior to that the presentation was on the highest level of animation. The voice work was superb, and your description here of the animated style makes a strong case:
“At the same time, its animation style — mostly fur-covered stop-motion figurines against hand-painted backgrounds — gives it a rustic, provincial (and somewhat retro) charm….”
Yes indeed. I am no fan of WTWTA, but I would still say Pixar’s UP is the best animated film this year, with FOX as the runner-up.
on Jan 08 2010 @ 9:27 am 3. Roy Boals said …
Lol, sehr gut. Komme nun
on Mar 18 2010 @ 8:48 pm 4. Bill F. said …
cool article
on Sep 26 2010 @ 10:26 am 5. Kandy Foyer said …
Hello, I found your weblog in a brand new listing of blogs. I dont know how your weblog came up, should have been a typo,Your weblog looks good.Have a pleasant day.
on Nov 14 2010 @ 2:41 am 6. Horacio Privalsky said …
I must say it’s really hard to find good stuff of it. fabulous website,