REVIEW: FANTASTIC MR. FOX, THE
- By Devin Faraci
- Published 11/13/2009
- Reviews
If Wes Anderson just wanted to keep on making stop motion features, I'd be okay with that. His films are already sort of like stop motion in that they take place in these very twee, almost dollhouse-like worlds. Everything is art designed to perfection, and the actors play everything with a chilled out energy that recalls the quite non-hyper stop motion puppet. I don't think a stop motion The Royal Tenenbaums would look all that different from the live action one.Which is a way of saying that The Fantastic Mr. Fox is simply a Wes Anderson movie. Yeah, the leads are animated woodland creatures, but they're the animated woodland creatures who live in Anderson's own off-kilter world. Their environments, their concerns, their motivations, their conflicts - all of it feels just like a Wes Anderson movie, except with a touch more action and adventure. I've never read the Roald Dahl book upon which the movie is based, and honestly this doesn't feel like an adaptation - it just feels like what a Wes Anderson movie aimed at children would be.
George Clooney is the titular Mr. Fox. Twelve fox years ago he promised his pregnant wife (Meryl Streep) that he would get out of the very dangerous chicken-stealing business. But now, with his son Ash (Jason Schwartzman) a misfit in high school our hero is having a midlife crisis. When a move out of their traditional foxhole into a more expensive tree doesn't help, Fox sets his sights on one last heist, the heist to end all heists - he'll steal from each of the three evil farmers who rule the local valley. While the initial heists go off perfectly, the farmers soon seek revenge and every animal in the valley ends up paying for Fox's folly.
Anderson creates a truly wonderful little world, inhabited with a diverse cast of animals toiling in ordinary human jobs (I love that the real estate agent is a weasel. And that he wears a pink polo shirt). It's flat out fable stuff, and it works beautifully with the painstakingly hand-crafted stop motion animation. Yeah, you can see the animator's fingers in the changing textures of the animal's fur, but that's totally within the Anderson aesthetic. And the rumors that Anderson was a total dick to his animators? If true, it was completely worth it, as the animation is delightful and charming and expressive and wonderful.
Everything in the film is wonderful; the world of stop motion animation allows Anderson to indulge in his most whimsical whims without coming off as too precious or annoying. He can have all of the characters replace curse words with the simple 'cuss' and it's charming. He can take the melancholy and make it sweet, something he seemed less able to do with The Darjeeling Limited. And he can follow little diversions and make them completely engaging.
At a brisk 80 or so minutes, The Fantastic Mr. Fox breezes by, by Anderson manages to get some of his usual themes in there. There are daddy issues here, although they're gentler than in his last every single other film he's ever made. He has his characters coming together as a big, wacky family. It's all there, just in a format you can take your kids to see.
The voice talent is particularly wonderful. Clooney is of course great as the rascal hero, but my favorite performances were Schwartzman as the very weird kid and Eric Chase Anderson, the director's brother, who plays the meditating, handsome and very cool cousin Kristofferson. But everybody is great - Bill Murray in his few scenes as Badger, Mr. Fox's lawyer; Michael Gambon as one of the evil farmers; Willem Dafoe as the amazing knife-wielding psycho Cajun rat; even Owen Wilson as a coach and Adrien Brody with one line as a field mouse!
What really made The Fantastic Mr. Fox work for me in a way that no other recent Wes Anderson film has is that the artifice is part of the technique. I felt so distanced from Darjeeling Limited and even The Life Aquatic, but with stop motion - especially such warm, tactile stop motion - the distance is bridged by the fact that you're not watching something that's 'real.' It's real in an emotional sense - while Mr. Fox probably won't stir many tears, it will warm many hearts - but it's so patently unreal in the physical sense that you're able to just enter the world.
I never thought we'd see two arthouse kiddie movies in one year, let alone in the space of a few weeks. While Where the Wild Things Are is a movie that might appeal more to parents than to their kids, The Fantastic Mr. Fox is a movie that will win over every age group in the family. Sweet without being treacly, funny without being stupid and filled with delightful flourishes and beautiful moments of artistry, The Fantastic Mr. Fox is the best Anderson film since The Royal Tenenbaums.
9 out of 10
Spread The Word
Comments
Comment #1 (Posted by Tired of Ignorance)
The animation in this movie is horrible. No wonder Henry Selick went running and screaming.
How much did Devin receive for giving this movie a 9?
Comment #2 (Posted by sod)
Come on! Coraline might as well have been CGI, it looked so polished. Nothing better than a bit of creaky stop motion.
Comment #3 (Posted by Boo)
Oh, boy. The talkbacks are back.
Comment #4 (Posted by an unknown user)
As long as Anderson managed to fit 60's British Invasion pop into his kids movie, I'm okay.
Comment #5 (Posted by General Pumperknickle)
There, there Tired, whenever I'm feeling tired of my own ignorance I lie down with Private Ted and take a nice long nap, and boy howdy it works wonders. It couldn't hurt you to try it, could it?
Comment #6 (Posted by asfm)
I'm unable to get past the American voices, or the lack of real voice actors. Love the look of it though.
Comment #7 (Posted by aha! Is this our chance?)
Hmmm, I might actually see this now. I still think Wes is one of the most over-rated directors working, though.
Comment #8 (Posted by squeekd)
good review. i just hope Dahl's excellent voice shines through all those gringo actors. But it really seems like Anderson immersed himself in Dahl's psyche, and found the perfect vessel for his offbeat vision at the same time. What a treat to get those two classic kid's stories made so effectively into films.
Comment #9 (Posted by whothaeff)
Royal Tenenbaums my ass, where's the love for RUSHMORE! As yet unsurpassed by Anderson or anyone else. Max Fischer rules your asses outright... and mine.
Comment #10 (Posted by JediBobster)
This movie tore me right down the middle. Some of it I liked, some of it I FEEL I should have liked but not sure I did. It was quirky, and if you don't care for Wes Anderson's earlier work then you probably won't care for this. Fans of Roald Dahl's book may not enjoy it so much. I know a few people that HATED it. So, maybe give it a go, but UP is still the best family movie of this year.
Comment #11 (Posted by The Mutt)
Has anyone ever gone to see an animated film because a movie star was providing one of the voices? Really?
.
Yeah, let's push aside twenty very talented voice-over actresses and give Meryl Streep another job. She really needs it.
.
"Hey Mommy, I wanna go see that fox cartoon because the Sophie's Choice lady is in it. Can we go? Pleeeease?"
.
Chicken Run is a terrific movie. The worst thing in it is Mel Gibson's voice performance.
.
If I told you that Billy Bob Thornton literally phoned-in his performance in Princess Mononoke while laying in bed with a hangover, would you doubt it?
.
Could Shrek have sucked any harder if Mantan Moreland had been the voice of Donkey instead of Eddie Murphy?
.
You don't hire Antonio Banderas to hang lights. Why do you hire him to do voice work?
.
Leave it to the professionals.
Comment #12 (Posted by JediBobster)
True enough The Mutt. Going back to UP - it was refreshing that it wasn't a bombardment of famous voices. BUT Shrek without Eddie Murphy's Donkey would have been half as good. Not that he was enough to save either of the sequels.
Comment #13 (Posted by Romulus16)
"I've never read the Roald Dahl book upon which the movie is based, and honestly this doesn't feel like an adaptation"
Is it just me or is he contradicting himself? I know the next line says it feels like a Wes film but since you have not read the book you have no idea and commeting on it like that is impossible. It's like saying you hate some type of food without tasting it.
Comment #14 (Posted by titmouse)
A 9 out of 10 from Devin, eh? What, is Seth Rogen in it?
Comment #15 (Posted by leo.urbis)
The book is a good read. I remember early reviews posted to rottentomatoes.com said that it had been too Americanized (undoubtedly said by some British people). I think looking at this as a Wes Anderson movie and not a Roald Dahl movie might make for a happier viewing experience. Just my $0.02.
BTW, book is a great read.
Comment #16 (Posted by sammy)
can't wait for this. i also wanted to make a suggestion that you would probably have a ton more readership if you guys redesigned the site to be more friendly.

