fantastic_mr_fox_review.jpg
I Think There's a Real Air of Mystery About Me


Fantastic Mr. Fox / Daniel Carlson

Film Reviews | November 30, 2009 | Comments (43)


Not to sound like a lazy freshman trying to coast through Introductory Composition and Rhetoric, but I think we should start this off by remembering that the original and primary definition of “fantastic” is not “excellent” but rather “based on fantasy … conceived by unrestrained fancy.” In that sense, the word could easily and accurately be applied to the works of writer-director Wes Anderson, whose filmography increasingly reads as a personal quest to place very human problems into very unhuman surroundings. With each film, he’s grown more obsessed with exercising a kind of fetishistic control over the style, turning the movies into dioramas writ large. The best example of this was The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, which dealt awkwardly with an estranged father and son amid an oceanic research vessel searching for an endangered shark. Anderson’s periodic cuts away to the boat on a stage, with the fourth wall gone and the camera sliding between rooms, marked the moment he finally figured out what he wanted to do, and how he wanted to do it. So thinking about all that, it’s appropriate that he’s the one who’s adapted Roald Dahl’s Fantastic Mr. Fox for the big screen. The detail and conception are gorgeous, as if Anderson’s been dreaming of doing this all along, and he and co-writer Noah Baumbach have done an excellent job at transposing very human attitudes and concerns onto a bunch of wild animals just trying to survive in the woods. It’s energetic and kind, and the splendid stop-motion animation doesn’t look or feel like any other film out there. The film is, indeed, conceived by unrestrained fancy, an explosion of style and grace that feels like a storybook come to life, packed with incisive humor and genuine heart.

Anderson’s film takes the book’s story as its core and beautifully expands it into something grander that’s as much about life, family, and the struggle to accept your place in the world as it about animals and farmers. Mr. Fox (George Clooney) and Mrs. Fox (Meryl Streep) are middle-class inhabitants of a valley being slowly taken over by Boggis, Bunce, and Bean, a trio of farmers and businessmen intent on industrialization. Mr. Fox is reminiscent of many of Anderson’s quirky heroes: He grapples with a fate he can’t fathom, and he imagines himself destined for greatness even as things crumble around him. He began life as a wilder animal, but in order to provide for his wife and cub, he’s given up stealing food and turned to writing a column for the local paper to make ends meet. (Casting him as a member of the print media is one of the film’s joyfully anachronistic touches meant to recall the 1960s and the period leading up to the book’s publication in 1970; another is the music from the Walk-Sonic transistor radio Mr. Fox occasionally clips to his pants while walking.) The nut of the children’s story is about Mr. Fox’s thieving antics inviting the wrath of the neighboring farmers, but Anderson and Baumbach’s screenplay hinges on Fox’s desire to pull off one last major score, the results of which send the farmers after him and the rest of the valley’s inhabitants. It’s an important and telling piece of the puzzle. Mr. Fox was actually out of the game, but his desire to go back to thieving is what brought down the heat. Anderson’s heroes — even when they’re foxes — are always haunted by their own grandeur.

From the start, the technicality of the sets and characters is amazing. Stop-motion has long felt like the uglier stepsibling to more traditional animation, especially now that Pixar has so dominated the CG-cartoon field. But under the guidance of animation director Mark Gustafson (whose credits include specials from Will Vinton Studios), Fantastic Mr. Fox is a dazzling tribute to a marginalized method of moviemaking that’s glorious in the way it so thoroughly realizes the ins and outs of its own particular universe. The foxes, badgers, weasels, and other characters cavort like springy super-beings; explosions release smoke made of whispy cotton tendrils; everyone’s fur keeps moving even when they’re standing still. The film feels above all else alive, bristling with anticipation at its own existence.

The bulk of the film deals with Fox’s efforts to repel the invading farmers and save his homestead and friends, but it’s his family life that gives the film its emotional weight. Fox’s nephew, Kristofferson (Eric Anderson, the director’s brother), is staying with the family for a while, which rankles Fox’s son, Ash (Jason Schwartzman), who dreams of being the natural athlete and charmer that Kristofferson seems to be. Ash is a classic outcast — one of his classmates calls him a “wet sandwich” in an attempt to pinpoint how weird he is — but he’s also endearing. He’s just a kid trying to win the approval of a father wowed by the new kid, and Ash’s journey to accept Kristofferson and reconcile with his dad is the quiet, beating heart at the center of Anderson’s whirling fantasy. The director, actors and puppeteers are able to evoke a staggering amount of emotion from twists of fur and wire, and the moments here of reconciliation, humor, and jubilation are just as hard-earned and pleasant to behold as they are in more traditional fare.

Clooney is pitch-perfect as Mr. Fox, bringing both the swagger necessary for the character’s grandiose schemes and the innocent kind of obtuseness typical of Anderson’s leading men (and, now, animals). But the rest of the cast is wonderful as well, bringing a low-key, droll sense of humor to the proceedings. Everyone is somewhat subdued, even within a certain range of emotions, most notably Schwartzman and Eric Anderson. But Wally Wolodarsky just about steals every scene as Kylie, an opossum and the superintendent of Fox’s tree-trunk house. He’s sweet and scared, the reluctant sidekick for Fox’s adventures. They’re also lucky to have some of Anderson’s funniest dialogue in a while. The jokes are wry and quick, playing off the characters’ foibles, but just as likely to veer into the absurd. Most importantly, they’re self-deprecating without being self-loathing. At one point, Mr. Fox ponders aloud, “Who am I? Why a fox? Why not a horse, or a beetle, or a bald eagle? I’m saying this more as, like, existentialism, you know?” His fumblings are meant to be funny and slightly self-involved, but Anderson’s genuinely letting the question be posed. Fox is philosophical without being a dolt. After working together on the unpleasant and self-loathing Life Aquatic, it’s refreshing to see Anderson and Baumbach able to churn out a script that isn’t choked with Baumbach’s penchant for self-flagellation.

It’s also interesting that Anderson has made what is ostensibly a children’s movie that’s bound to have almost no appeal to actual children. Yes, there’s a sense of happiness that comes through in the animation, but, well, this isn’t Toy Story. The style, tone, humor, characters, and execution are aimed squarely at Generation Y and above despite being wrapped in what looks like a kids’ film. It’s tempting to say that it should belong with Where the Wild Things Are to a new subgenre of films: Pseudo-Children’s Movies Meant To Be Enjoyed Solely by 25- to 40-Year-Olds Reflecting on Their Own Youths, perhaps. And there’s definitely something to that. But Anderson’s Fantastic Mr. Fox is more than a one-off or a genre exercise, both when considered on its own merits and as part of his larger body of work. It’s the latest and possibly ultimate realization of his goal to spin an earnest and offbeat father-son tale in a curious and hyper-specific world. He’s made a charming and original film, rooted in unrestrained fancy but possessed of a very real set of human souls. It’s a great fantasy that is, yes, fantastic in every sense.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a TV blogger for the Houston Press. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.



Paul Greengrass Quits the Bourne Franchise | Ten G-Rated Movie Titles that Appeal to Zoophiles





Comments

This movie makes me want to put on some super-skinny jeans and a scarf, then withdraw some money from my trust fund and go buy a pack of cloves, then smoke said cloves while listening to TV On The Radio and discussing cinematography.

Posted by: Farthammer at November 30, 2009 2:07 PM

Really looking forward to seeing this one. I know people always complain about Anderson films, but I haven't seen one yet I haven't enjoyed.

Posted by: Chalupa at November 30, 2009 2:11 PM

The preview kind of made my eyes hurt. It's creepy how their fur keeps moving. Looks like they're lousy with worms or something.

Meh.

Posted by: Kballs at November 30, 2009 2:11 PM

I loved this movie. It was pitch perfect with my mom and sister on Thanksgiving. And we spent the rest of the weekend giving each other salutes and saying "Good luck to you."

Posted by: Nimue at November 30, 2009 2:11 PM

I loved this movie. Just a feast for the eyes.

Also, kudos to whoever was able to bring Bill Murray back to a somewhat comedic role, however small. It's morning in America again.

Posted by: Cat at November 30, 2009 2:19 PM

Foxes 11?

Posted by: BWeaves at November 30, 2009 2:23 PM

I enjoyed this movie. It was weird and true to itself.

Posted by: twig at November 30, 2009 2:24 PM

This movie makes me want to do some lunges, ironically of course, whilst wearing a Tenenbaums style headband.

Posted by: Dana at November 30, 2009 2:26 PM

I am not a fan of wes anderson. I hated rushmore, i hated life acquatic, and wanted to sleep during the Darjeeling Limited. I was dragged to this movie by the gf who loves all things wes anderson. I am glad she did. It is an excellent movie. The animation is incredible, the movie is funny, and I never once wanted it to end.

So, even if you hate hipsters (like me) or Wes anderson or directors like this you should still watch this movie. It is excellent.

Posted by: "luker" the barbarian at November 30, 2009 2:27 PM

The movie was amazing. The review was lovely. You all are beautiful people. The world is glorious.

That is all.

Posted by: esme at November 30, 2009 3:03 PM

But the animation is so bad. I want to like it, but it makes me feel low.

Posted by: Lucas at November 30, 2009 3:03 PM

I loved it, and my two girls (ages 6 and 10) did too.

Although we did have the "there's no way we're spending money on that stupid chipmunk movie sequel no matter how much you want to see it" discussion after the trailers.


Posted by: mswas at November 30, 2009 3:25 PM

I still don't understand the Pseudo-Children's movie thing, I am a father of two girls (four and eight) who both loved Where The Wild Things are - they still talk about it and we only saw it once on opening weekend - and they are both nagging the shit out of me about seeing Fantastic Mr. Fox. Kids are smarter than you're giving them credit for.

That being said, I keep wanting to get excited about this movie, but I'm just not. I know I'll end up seeing it soon, and maybe my mind will change then, but it's just not coming together for me.

Posted by: Gore Motel at November 30, 2009 3:26 PM

It’s tempting to say that it should belong with Where the Wild Things Are to a new subgenre of films: Pseudo-Children’s Movies Meant To Be Enjoyed Solely by 25- to 40-Year-Olds Reflecting on Their Own Youths, perhaps.

This is really getting annoying, if you want to make an animated film, you don't have to market it to children. The South Park Movie follows this example perfectly, and it made a ton of money.

You don't have to bullshit the audience with all this wink-wink nudge-nudge bullshit, this is why I hate pretentious douchebags like Wes Anderson.

But I'll still see this anyway, because it has George Clooney in it. Sharing his name with my own almost makes up for sharing my name with this douchebag and let's not forget this douchebag.

Posted by: George at November 30, 2009 3:26 PM

I absolutely loved this movie. The animation style is totally part of the charm of the whole thing. People have gotten to used too the CG and it is great to see someone take a chance and go old school.

Posted by: Tra at November 30, 2009 4:06 PM

"...estranged father and son amid a submarine..."

Wait, what? Well, there is a submersible in the film, although the son never boards it. Amid? Not aboard? Ok, whatever...

"...Anderson’s periodic cuts away to the sub on a stage, with the fourth wall gone and the camera sliding between rooms..."

Ok seriously? This isn't trivial. Submarine, under water, ship, above water.

I know there's some sort of bizarre lemming-hate for The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou around here, but when the first paragraph of this article clearly shows that the reviewer hasn't even seen Zissou, why read further? Does he talk about how good Clooney is at playing a wolf?

Posted by: laredo at November 30, 2009 4:08 PM

There was so much detail to take in from each scene that I could watch it 10 times without taking it all in. It was visually stunning.

I used my three year old daughter as an excuse to see it. I thought she would get bored, but she loved it. She barely spoke througout the entire thing. That was the truly stunning part.

Posted by: DRE at November 30, 2009 4:21 PM

@laredo: You're right. I mistakenly referred to Zissou's Belafonte as a sub. I don't know why; call it a brain misfire. But, well, I don't think my dislike for The Life Aquatic is "bizarre" or "lemming"-like (I don't remember jumping to my death with any other critics). I simply feel that there's an argument to be made that it's his coldest film. Anyway, thanks for pointing it out, even disdainfully.

Posted by: Daniel Carlson at November 30, 2009 4:23 PM

This movie made me wish I could climb into the screen and play with those characters.

And how odd that the movie truly felt like both Wes Anderson and Roald Dahl: like apples and sharp cheddar. You wouldn't think the combination would be delicious, but after you have a little you want more!

Lovely film.

Posted by: Gigi at November 30, 2009 4:30 PM

My 5 year-old was bored. Just a bit too much above her maturity level. Older kids, like the aforementioned 6 & 10 year-olds would enjoy it.

Posted by: idiosynchronic at November 30, 2009 4:35 PM

This review was great, and fun to help me relive seeing the film with my BF and siblings this weekend. Our group's ages ranged from 10 to 24. The older the viewer, the more he/she marveled at the film. There were so many clever little touches, like the song from Disney's Robin Hood and the slurping of juice boxes and the texture of the animals' clothes. I can't wait until my littlest bro sees it again in a few years and realizes more stuff, like what a "clustercuss" is. Also, he'll realize he's an idiot for wanting to see the Chipmunk sequel.

I hate to invite spoilers, but I'm curious about what ya'll thought of the final resolution. Selling out, or just the facts of modern life?

Posted by: Empress of All the Russias at November 30, 2009 4:44 PM

I absolutely loved this movie. What the wife and I found strange were the previews for every single animated/live action children's movie coming out in the next 18 months. Yes, the movie's animated... but it's a Wes Anderson film. I would imagine most kids would be bored with it. And, honest to Godtopus, our theater was filled with adults. I didn't see one kid.

Posted by: JH at November 30, 2009 4:48 PM

Agree with Dan, this is the best Wes Anderson vehicle in awhile. And I agree with Gigi. I really want some toys of the characters.

Posted by: BAM at November 30, 2009 4:54 PM

DC: Thanks for fixing the disdainfully revealed goofs. Zissou is probably the coldest work of Wes Anderson, but, then again, this guy is the Joseph Cornell of cinema.

Posted by: laredo at November 30, 2009 5:12 PM

Great review, Dan. And what a great film as well. I especially liked your bit about Ash and Kristofferson.

And regarding Baumbach/The Life Aquatic, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at November 30, 2009 5:58 PM

Great review Dan and I’m glad to hear this one worked out. Not a huge fan of Wes Anderson's films, but can see how he and Roald Dahl would work out.

I can’t wait for the boys to grow into Dahl, he wrote such brilliantly twisted tales. The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar was my favourite, would love to see it adapted for the screen. Danny Boyle would be perfect for the job.

Posted by: Squirrelgripper at November 30, 2009 6:02 PM

I brought my 4 year old nephew. The kid loves Alvin and the Chipmunks, despite my many attempts at nudging his tastes towards more nuanced fair (the red balloon, buster keaton shorts).

I really wasn't sure how seeing this would go over.

His review?

"Fantastic Mr. Fox was cuter than Up! and cuter than planet 51!"

Then, later, over chicken fingers...

"That movie was PECTACULAR."

Suck it Alvin!

Posted by: kinda fancy at November 30, 2009 7:35 PM

@laredo: No worries. Also, after heading to Wikipedia to learn about Joseph Cornell, I can say: Probably?

Posted by: Daniel Carlson at November 30, 2009 8:18 PM

Cool. I've been an Anderson fan since The Royal Tenenbaums, and haven't disliked any of his films since (yes, including The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou). This review just makes me even more excited for Fantastic Mr Fox.

Posted by: Daniel Hall at November 30, 2009 9:56 PM

I really want to watch this, and not because it's Anderson; I don't really have strong feelings about him either way. But I do love innovative, bizarre animation, and from the previews alone I gather that the animation is amazing in this movie. A little creepy, but amazing.

Posted by: figgy at November 30, 2009 10:20 PM

George I feel ya on the name, it's like George Clooney is almost single-handedly saving the name.

My boys want to see this so we probably will be seeing it. However the local cinema seems to think that they need 2 theaters devoted to Twi-tards and not one for this, fingers crossed, it will get here eventually.

For those interested Coraline is on sale for $8.89 at Amazon.

Posted by: Mebe at November 30, 2009 11:09 PM

I didn't hate it, but... it just didn't feel like Roald Dahl to me. I'm a Wes Andersen fan, but my Roald Dahl fandom is like one hundred times bigger than that. My Roald Dahl fandom will never die. And... I just couldn't find him in the movie. As for Clooney, he might have been perfect in the role had he been less famous and not so recognizably GEORGE CLOONEY.

Finally, Roald Dahl was English (yes, I know his parents were Norwegian). Didn't anyone think it was a little too ironic, only to give English accents to the bad guys? And in any case, isn't that a little tired by now, that particular shorthand?

Posted by: J. K. Barlow at December 1, 2009 4:06 AM

I agree with J.K., the movie wasn't very Dahlian at all, at least compared to the book. Not sure anyone can truly capture what's Dahl did on the page. Still, a thoroughly enjoyable interpretation by Wes Anderson.

But seriously: fuck these previews ahead of the movie. The Squeakquel? Jesus I skipped that one intentionally on this site but got bombarded anyway.

Posted by: Mick J at December 1, 2009 7:40 AM

i loved the book so much i don't think i could bring myself to watching this.
leave dahl alone, dammit!

Posted by: gem at December 1, 2009 10:51 AM

This was a lovely review that hit the proverbial nail on the head. The diorama comparison is perfect! While I've often felt alienated by Anderson's scripts or storylines, I've always been drawn in by the beauty and quirkiness of the visual aspect of his films.

And, Farthammer, I'd love to join you in your skinny-jean-wearing, TV-on-the-Radio-listening, art-film-discussion. Are we Generation Y'ers so easily pandered to? Unfortunately, I think the answer is "yes." I've totally been enamored with "Where the Wild Things Are" and "The Fantastic Mr. Fox." Nostalgia junkie? Um, yes, I am.

Posted by: Wren at December 1, 2009 12:13 PM

Quoted from above:From the start, the technicality of the sets and characters is amazing. Stop-motion has long felt like the uglier stepsibling to more traditional animation, especially now that Pixar has so dominated the CG-cartoon field. But under the guidance of animation director Mark Gustafson (whose credits include specials from Will Vinton Studios), Fantastic Mr. Fox is a dazzling tribute to a marginalized method of moviemaking that’s glorious in the way it so thoroughly realizes the ins and outs of its own particular universe.

I haven't yet seen this film, but this one quote tells me that I can believe nothing in your review. Claymation may be considered the "uglier stepsibling to more traditional animation," but stop motion animation has been standing on its own for a while now and if anyone gets the credit for taking a "marginalized method of moviemaking" and making it "glorious in the way it so thoroughly realizes the ins and outs of its own particular universe," its Henry Selick.

The way the fur on the puppets flies in random directions while they are moving is just lack of skill or laziness on the part of the animators and, ultimately, the director. I know this has been defended as Anderson's unique and quirky style, but if he meant to do that, it was a bad decision.

From just having seen the previews, I can confidently say that, if this film does anything for stop motion animation, it takes it back about 40 years, and if I want to see stop motion animation that poorly done, I'll go watch Clash of the Titans.

As for the Academy awards, this film is in direct competition with Coraline, and if there is any justice in the world or any rational thinking among the Academy judges, Coraline, a truly beautiful and well done stop motion animation film who's director took two and a half years to painstakingly oversee every single aspect of the production and produced a truly stunning work of art, will win over Fantastic Mr. Fox, where the director, quite literally, phoned in his direction from another country.

Posted by: Brian at December 1, 2009 4:00 PM

By the way, I have now seen this movie,and I stand by everything I said in the comment above. Actually, it was worse than i thought it was going to be.

Posted by: Brian at December 2, 2009 12:12 AM

Oh stuff it, Brian, you pretentious git. The movie was lovely--every moment of it. And I'm 41 and my son is 10, so neither one of us fit into the urban hipster demographic. But we are admirers of clever and snarkastic storytelling and beautifully designed imaginative worlds.

Posted by: Jamie at December 2, 2009 9:47 PM

This film is almost garbage. Clearly, Mr Anderson knows how to make a film. His films are all technically flawless and have a look that is unique. But alas this is not enough.
I hate to be hard on a fellow Houstonian but is it not about time he stopped treading the waters of post-adolescence and actually make something more serious than colorful candy?
The sentiments are saccharine to the point of absurdity. At least Mr Anderson gets to the point earlier now. At least I do not have to sit through an hour or so of the cinematic equivalent of fifteen year-olds tossing themselves about their bedrooms whining about the lack of meaning in their lives.
Get a grip, Wes. Here's an idea: make a serious film about something serious instead of slick superficial film about how to deal with boredom.
About ten minutes in Mr Fox stands on a bridge and asks, "Who am I?" I found the moment silly; it was a caricature of Mr Anderson's entire oeuvre.
If you enjoy swimming in the shallow end of spiritual ennui this film is for you. In fact, any Wes Anderson film is for you. He has been remaking "Rushmore" for years. And now he has revved up the pace and done it again with foxes. When will this clearly talented filmmaker create something worthy of his gifts? Or will he continue to wallow in this narcissistic existential backwash? I fear that he will continue making such superficial garbage as long as his audience continues to praise it.

Posted by: David at December 3, 2009 4:20 PM

David,

I couldn't have (and didn't) put it better myself. It's too bad that Jamie, from above, feels the need to try to shout me down by refuting nothing I've said, but just calling me names and proclaiming exactly how great the film was... to him.

Jamie,

I'm so happy for you that you and your son loved the movie. I know some very intelligent and well respected people who absolutely love watching Michael Bay movies, but they can also admit that the special effects are the only thing they are watching them for and that the actual movie making is far below sub par. You enjoyed the movie. Great. Admitting that everything in David's post, (I'll just ignore mine for the far superior one) won't lessen your enjoyment or tarnish the memory. Just because you liked it, that doesn't make it great, and just because it isn't great doesn't mean that you can't enjoy it. Taste is subjective.

By the way, I'd love to know how my post as, in any way, 'pretentious.'

Posted by: Brian at December 4, 2009 10:09 PM

@David and Brian,

I'd rather "[swim] in the shallow end of spiritual ennui" than try to drown myself in the deep end.

I loved this movie. I thought it was very well done and really appreciated that it effectively said what it wanted to say about family, finding your place in the world, etc. while occasionally poking fun at itself. I thought Clooney, Streep, and Schwartzman did excellent work and really only missed Angelica Houston as my love for her knows no bounds.

Posted by: tanotice at December 5, 2009 1:48 AM

tanotice,

This is a perfect example of what Anderson is doing in all his movies. Just like you, he tries to sound very deep and meaningful, but fails. Let's take a look:
'I'd rather "[swim] in the shallow end of spiritual ennui" than try to drown myself in the deep end. '

So, you'd rather not do something deep and meaningful because you might fail and it is preferable to do something trite and shallow because you will always succeed? You'd rather excel at the mediocre than even attempt the incredible?

Anyone can crank out tripe. It takes a special type of person to create something great. Perhaps you are saying that you'd rather Anderson continue to do the same, old thing, over and over, than fail at doing something more and prove that he is nothing special?

Posted by: Brian at December 5, 2009 2:57 PM

Just wanted to second David's comments from above (odd that I too am a native Houstonian.) I've seen all of Anderson's films, many of them more than once, and have become increasingly dissatisfied with their emotional sterility. Anderson's a gifted craftsman and (from what I can tell) a decent guy, but his films for me have become a triumph of style over substance. "Fox" is by no means a disaster but neither is it anything wonderful. It's a collection of interesting moments, moments which unfortunately fail to cohere into an emotionally affecting, intellectually stimulating film.

Posted by: Tim at December 11, 2009 3:42 PM





Post a comment

 (required)

 (required)


Preview of your comment:



Video ads popping up after each page view? Try clearing your browser's cookies.