I loved it and found it the perfect post-Thanksgiving movie!! There were a lot of things that I appreciated about it that are all pretty characteristic of Wes Anderson – the dry sense of humor, the very specific aesthetic, strange moments of awkwardness, etc. I also loved the neurosis and the stop-motion animation. Plus, I’m also an old Roald Dahl fan, so this really worked for me.

Here’s a review from our local alternative paper that gives some insight I really agree with.

Glad you enjoyed it!

My gf went with her best friend, she’s a artist and loves the stop motion stuff like nbx and such , she said it was brilliant one of the best movies she’s seen….so i think that would be a good review

I almost got to see it, but was out-voted by my husband and son. All the other movies were sold out, so we ended up with Disney’s Christmas Carol in 3-D. I have to concur with the reviewers who said:

“The real nightmare before Christmas – way too scary for the kiddies and not nearly warm enough for audiences of all ages.”

“Faithfully rendered and extremely frightening.”

“Are the less than perfectly executed bits supposed to set off the truly terrific ones, or are the truly terrific ones supposed to distract the viewing audience from the bits that go clunk in the night?”

“Boasts dazzling CGI effects and important moral lessons, but it suffers from excessive style over substance while lacking the genuine, unadulterated warmth, emotional resonance and soul of the Dickens classic.”

“Those who enjoy virtual roller-coaster rides and long falls from high places are encouraged to attend.”

In other words, don’t take your kids, and I can see why it was the most available movie.

Hahaha this question is so cute, I laughed when I saw it

Sigh. All I want in a movie and more.

Art direction – great. Storyline and plot – wonderful. The celebrity voice talents were a little distracting, but they were good. A+ in my book.

I haven’t seen it, but I have a question for those of you who have (and I think I already have @Darwin‘s take on this). I’m a Wes Anderson fan, for two main reasons. 1) His movies are more about the journey than the destination, and 2) the humor is VERY subtle….there’s a LOT more to his movies than meets the eye. With Anderson, you never exactly know what the ending will be, you just know it will be different than what you expect (as will the entire story for that matter). Which makes him a good fit to direct a Roald Dahl book.

As for Dahl, his books were known for very dark themes, and much like Anderson’s films, they went in unexpected directions and reached appropriately unexpected endings. But thematically, his books were, though loved perhaps MORE by adults than children these days, are by and large Children’s literature. The book on which this movie is based is considered Children’s literature.

So, my question is, despite this being a kids’ book by a kids’ author, done by a director who seems to have a stylistic affinity with the author, this just does NOT look (based only on the previews) like a kids’ movie. It seems like a stop motion Wes Anderson film.

Now, I look at Anderson’s films, usually they’ve been rated R for “language”, which I don’t consider to be that big of an issue, and as such, there is nothing in any of his films that I would have a problem with my 8 year old seeing. But I wouldn’t make him sit through the Royal Tenenbaums, even though it’s in my opinion a cinematic masterpiece. When he’s a teenager or young adult, I’m sure he’ll develop an appreciation for cinematic art, but I don’t expect that of him just yet. I would suspect that much of the humor in these films would slide right past him, he would be unable to perceive the subtlety and nuance that makes this film what it is, and he’d be downright bored.

So, when I see trailers for Fantastic Mr. Fox, it looks less like either adaptation of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, or Matilda or James and the Giant Peach, than it does like The Darjeeling Limited. It looks to me like the kind of movie that is destined to become a legendary boondoggle. One of those movies that was targeted to the wrong audience. In other words, I’ve been seeing previews for it in every animated movie I’ve gone to with my son for the past 6 months, and he is keen on seeing it, but I’m wondering if it’s going to just be a waste of our time and money first and foremost. I also wonder if it’s even going to appeal to kids enough to get them into the theaters, and if adults who might enjoy the movie are going to be missed because it’s not marketed to them? I wonder if we’re going to have a movie that audiences hate, but film critics and arthouse fans love, but which just completely flops. So I guess first off, would a smart 8 year old enjoy it, and if not, don’t you think they should have marketed this a bit differently, or maybe even say given it to a different director who could have made a kids movie out of a kids book? I guess there’s probably a lot of questions in there, I’m just looking for opinions.

@dalepetrie I don’t think thie movie would be great for a 4–5 year old, but for a smart 6–10 year old who likes Roald Dahl, it should work. It’s not Rushmore. There is a lot of subtle humor but there is also quite a bit of visual humor, action and some quasi-sibling rivalry that older kids could identify with. The audience I was in were mainly adults with a smattering of kids – at 5:40 p.m. (There were not amany people in the theater all together.) most people seemed to come out happy. I wouldn’t hesitate to take a “literary” kid to it at all.

@janbb – that’s good to hear, thanks.