Reseñas de usuarios

I guess if you're a fam of the whimsical style of Wes Anderson this is a great movie? Against public opinion, I don't think his movies live up to the hype and Fantastic Mr. Fox is no exception. I salute the effort to bring old school stop motion back in style but Kubo and the Two Strings is orders of magnitude better for example. And while I can appreciate the usual Wes Anderson cinematography, I found it sorely lacking here. A resounding meh from me.

I can only say that for whatever reasons this had little appeal to me. It is not even 90 minutes and I felt the film dragging. I liked the animation style but this only held me for so long. The story is kind of repetitive – a series of chase and hunt scenes. Also it is overly wordy – hardly a few seconds go by without someone saying something that is allegedly witty, amusing or humorous. The whole thing became rather drab with characters being constantly added to make up for the lack of a substantial story-line.

It fact, overall, it lacked in emotion and was on the dry side. I would hardly say this is for children – I'm sure they would be as bored as I was.

Fantastic Mr. Fox had it's British elements torn from the roots, butchered, Americanised, and in result of this we get to see the laziest stop motion displayed in cinema history. If you watch Nick Park's work on Wallace & Gromit, there is so much charm because of the attention to detail. This really does look rushed, and when ever there is a adventure or action sequences the camera cuts miles back so you can only just make out the card board cut outs. Wes Anderson could argue it's for effect, but perhaps all the budget went into it's divine A-list voice cast that there was just no money or time put in it's appearance. It doesn't look cute, in fact at times it's almost disturbing. The voice cast are fine here, the only problem is that there is just no need for these big names. Someone 10 times cheaper than George Clooney could have pulled off Fox's vocal chords with out breaking a sweat. It's just one massive marketing technique. The only voice actor here that was so vital to the film is Jason Schwartzman, his delivery is where the movie get's its greatest comedic injection.

Having said all this, this isn't particularly a bad movie at all. It's really well write and the dialogue is charming a very witty. Never laugh out loud hilarious, but it keeps the viewer much more interested, seeming so there's not much else to fall back on. The plot, although taken from the novel, still isn't great, but things do pick up in the last couple of acts and as annoying and frightening it may look, it is still entertaining. It's adult for kids, to kiddie for adults, Mr. Fox really can't settle a target audience and really can't hold a worthy contender for the Best Animation Film.

Overall: Far from fantastic, but it's quirky, cooky and a bit of a hoot. But in the end of the day it's just another ash for the animation pile.

Sadly completely ruined by Americanized Hollywood voice acting. An utter and complete fail in that aspect.

Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009) Director: Wes Anderson Watched: April 2018 4/10

Where is Roald Dahl? Fine start but soon became bored, Siding with bad guys. Have pause button ready though, For set design and knolling!

Tanka, literally "short poem", is a form of poetry consisting of five lines, unrhymed, with the 5-7-5-7-7 syllable format. #Tanka #PoemReview #WesAnderson

A fox trying to beat 3 human neighbors they r having business relationship

I used to love reading Roald Dahl's stories when I was a kid, so this stop motion version of one of his favourite works intrigued me. Also, I'd never seen a Wes Anderson film before, so I was eager to see what all the fuss was about surrounding this maverick director.

My feelings about FANTASTIC MR. FOX are mixed. There are many elements of the original story present and correct here, but at the same time the story has been muddled and become very Americanised. I don't mind the fact that the animals have American accents (George Clooney et al) but I hate the intrusive pop music that keeps playing on the soundtrack in order to evoke emotion - I always despise films that play this cheap trick.

The heart of the story - humans vs. animals - is a good one and there are a lot of funny and quirky moments, but other parts of the film left me cold. The characters of the young foxes are played by a couple of adult voice actors and the effect is a distinctly odd, and slightly creepy, one. Still, it's not all bad, and it's hard to dislike a film that utilises so much stop motion as this one does.

I watched this movie when I was younger. All I can remember is being bored.

It's interesting to see the treatment that this story has been given. I think that if I'd been making it, I probably would have gone more along lines of 'The Snowman' (1982) and 'Father Christmas' (1992), but that is purely based on the small fractured elements I can remember of it from my childhood. My Mother used to keep reading after I fell asleep, so I probably missed quite a lot of it.

It also seems quite unusual for it to have been made with stop-motion animation, especially when you consider when it was released. The style feels quite old fashioned in a world of CGI, but I wish there was more of it. Give me more Wallace & Gromit! Make Bob The Builder, Postman Pat and Fireman Sam proper again!

I can't wait for viewers and filmmakers alike to realise that everything has balance and that their is room for all animation styles. The Oscars will have to have categories for Claymation films, Cartoons, CGI and Stop Motion because there will be so much variety and they will all be good and the world will be a better place of happy kids films with morals!

Other than that, it's really not quite the way that I remember it. It's definitely got Wes Anderson's stamp on it and I don't mind that at all. There are some very clever bits, funny quirks and oddments and the characters personalities have all been carefully thought out, not to mention the superb voice acting from a stellar cast.

It is quite cute in its way, if a little radicalised, but I just don't know how I feel about it.

They have modernised it well and I like the way they say "Cuss" instead of actually cussing, but then there are also some slightly scary elements too, especially Bean, played too brilliantly by Michael Gambon.

I think perhaps that like a lot of Wes' films, you need to be in the right frame of mind to watch them and with the right company. When I first watched 'The Grand Budapest Hotel' (2014) with friends I was in hysterics, but on its second viewing with the Mothership, it didn't seem to hit the same notes.

Maybe this one would be more fun if I was watching with a younger audience, although mature would never be a word that I would use to describe my Mother or her filmic tastes.

As I am in turmoil about my thoughts on this film, it has made it hard to score. It is almost in a category of it's own and certainly difficult to compare to the collection of films that I have on my list.

I know I don't hate it, but I can't confirm that I liked it either, it's a tad Marmite like that.

502.02/1000.

Neither fantastic nor a flop, Wes Anderson?s infringement on Nick Park?s (?Chicken Run, Wallace & Gromit) stop motion animation territory presents an uneven mix of elements. Extrapolating from Roald Dahl?s children book the film mixes some concepts the kids will find confusing (Felicity Fox announces she is ?pregnant? twice and Mr. Fox has an ?existential crisis?) with elongated frantic chase scenes, many in tunnels, which eventually get tiresome for the adults. Mr. Fox kills ?Rat? on screen in an extended scene but during his killing of squabs and chickens the camera demurely looks away. Ultimate both constituents will find the film entertaining but unmemorable. There is a lot to like here, however, Clooney is pitch perfect as the self-centered Mr. Fox and Willem Dafoe dials up his trademarked brand of creepiness to the extent that you are happy to see the end of Rat. Anderson?s detailed set decoration lends a needed air of realism but his animation skills are not in the same league in terms of rendering characters attractive and endearing as Nick Park. In short, walk but don?t run to see it with the kids and be prepared to do some explaining.

Having read the Roald Dahl book with my kids, I was looking forward to seeing this film.

The movie has a lot of good points: the animation and creative details in the sets are fantastic. Clooney and Murray are both very funny - I thought Meryl Streep was pretty flat. A lot of the visual gags and the witty, modern script is funny for adult viewers.

I have 2 beefs with this movie: 1) It strays very far from the tone and conception of the book. Probably any attempt to turn a short children's book into 90 minutes of screen time requires lots of padding, extra characters, story, and scenes. The characters are all turned into hip modern (sub)urbanites. If you haven't read the book, this won't bother you.

2) This film is marketed as a kids movie, or at least "family-friendly". Unless you're comfortable with a lot of transparently-veiled swearing, you may conclude (as I have) that this movie is not for family viewing. As stated in the parent's guide, "Instead of using profanity, characters say sentences that would contain a swear word, but the word is replaced by the word "cuss". What is not stated is that not 5 minutes goes by in this movie without a swear replacing "cuss" for f*** (apparently Anderson has an infatuation for the f-word). Also, the characters use the same tone and inflection as if they were really swearing - "What the cuss!?" "cluster-cuss", etc. The ratings board was really asleep at the wheel giving this film a PG rating with all the transparent swearing going on. Ruined an otherwise good movie for me.