What exactly is the Fantastic Mr. Fox? Since it's a feature cartoon based on a Roald Dahl story one might assume it would be a movie for kids, or a movie for kids of all ages, but it's not. The dysfunctional family and the arch dialog and the low-key performances all make it clear this is something for adults, something aiming to be a quirky way to deliver Anderson's typical fare. Or perhaps it actually does aim to be a kid's film and this was simply the closes Anderson could come.
In either case, the movie doesn't totally work for me. Even though I never read the Roald Dahl story, I know his work well enough to know that this has little to do with it. Anderson and Dahl have very different sensibilities. But at the same time, they are both quirky. I think if Anderson wanted to take a kid's story and give it a modernist twist he would have been better off with something less quirky, a more traditional children's story like The Wizard of Oz. As it is, the two varieties of quirkiness work against each other. Anderson is small and thoughtful and acerbic, Dahl is over-the-top and ironic and somewhat savage. And while Anderson wins this debate, because he has the final word, the vestiges of Dahl make it all feel a bit off.
This is not to say I didn't enjoy the movie. I generally did. It's mildly amusing and the animation is kind of interesting in places. I didn't particularly mind watching it. But I was never drawn into the world, I never felt connected with the characters or concerned about their plight. The movie, like all Wes Anderson films, keeps you at a distance from the characters, but unlike his best movies, it doesn't make up for that with enough eccentricity to keep one engaged.
It doesn't surprise me that the critics loved this movie. Critics tend to get jaded and immediately latch onto anything different, and this movie is decidedly different. But Anderson would have been better off either making a cartoon aimed at kids or making a live action show aimed at adults. Instead, he just confuses the two.
In either case, the movie doesn't totally work for me. Even though I never read the Roald Dahl story, I know his work well enough to know that this has little to do with it. Anderson and Dahl have very different sensibilities. But at the same time, they are both quirky. I think if Anderson wanted to take a kid's story and give it a modernist twist he would have been better off with something less quirky, a more traditional children's story like The Wizard of Oz. As it is, the two varieties of quirkiness work against each other. Anderson is small and thoughtful and acerbic, Dahl is over-the-top and ironic and somewhat savage. And while Anderson wins this debate, because he has the final word, the vestiges of Dahl make it all feel a bit off.
This is not to say I didn't enjoy the movie. I generally did. It's mildly amusing and the animation is kind of interesting in places. I didn't particularly mind watching it. But I was never drawn into the world, I never felt connected with the characters or concerned about their plight. The movie, like all Wes Anderson films, keeps you at a distance from the characters, but unlike his best movies, it doesn't make up for that with enough eccentricity to keep one engaged.
It doesn't surprise me that the critics loved this movie. Critics tend to get jaded and immediately latch onto anything different, and this movie is decidedly different. But Anderson would have been better off either making a cartoon aimed at kids or making a live action show aimed at adults. Instead, he just confuses the two.