THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => ENJOY => Topic started by: StaedlerMars on 10 Sep 2009, 15:49
-
http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox_searchlight/fantasticmrfox/
Stop motion directed by Wes Anderson, starring Wes Anderson's usual + George Clooney.
I think it looks like it's going to be a fun movie. Thought all of you should know about it.
-
That was such an awesome book when I was younger. It's a shame they're using American voice actors, it's quite quintessentially British.
But, like you said, should be fun.
-
Isn't it Ocean's 11 with animals now?
-
and wes anderson, so basically replace all that fancy cool jazz remix shit with one or all of the kinks crooning.
-
Wow....that was.....horrible. Thanks for reminding me about that book though, that totally just made me remember every detail of it again and I'll pick it up next time I get down to Chapters. Why do filmmakers think that they can take something so small and turn it into something that's feature length. Some of those new additions seem incredibly stupid.
-
Augh, I hate when people complain about north american voice actors.
-
There's nothing wrong with North American voice actors when the situation is American, but the book is really quite British. Of course one of the bad guys has to be voiced by Michael Gambon (Yes he's Irish, blah blah blah)
-
and wes anderson, so basically replace all that fancy cool jazz remix shit with one or all of the kinks crooning.
Since when do the Kinks croon?
-
The only thing that bugged me about that trailer was that it really didn't seem like the voices were coming out of the character's mouth. I don't know if it was the animation, or the sound mix, but it sounded like an English dub of the movie.
-
Why do filmmakers think that they can take something so small and turn it into something that's feature length. Some of those new additions seem incredibly stupid.
Well the book isn't a short story, more a novella at around 100 pages. If you ask me, there's plenty to the story to make it a 90 minute-ish feature without adding in random subplot that never existed in the original.
EDIT:
That being said, I was speaking hypothetically, not having watched the trailer. Now that I have, it indeed looks like Anderson did decide to add stuff. It also seems like he decided to make the movie downright ugly. And bad.
-
It's been a while since I've read it, but I didn't think Mr. Fox's trademark was described to be exactly Hawkeye Pierce's in M*A*S*H (the movie). Aside from that odd thing, it seems like it's going to be pretty much another one of Wes Anderson's outings; enjoyable but unnecessary if you've seen any of his other movies. I'll still see it, but I'll listen to many different AC/DC albums and enjoy them all.
-
and wes anderson, so basically replace all that fancy cool jazz remix shit with one or all of the kinks crooning.
Since when do the Kinks croon?
I don't know, I just like how the word sounded. How would you describe it?
-
It also seems like he decided to make the movie downright ugly.
Wat
-
I dunno, the stop-motion/animation looks really unappealing to me. It has none of the charm of, say, Wallace and Gromit. It just looks kinda ugly instead. I might see this as I like the source material and I liked all of Anderson's movies up until the last one which, to be honest, I thought was totally abysmal. This could be good though so fingers crossed.
-
This trailer was so awkward and lacking in charm that it was hard to sit through. My cup of tea isn't everyone's, but I can say pretty confidently that I will not be seeing the movie.
-
Because trailers are always representative of the whole movie?
-
I'm not so sure of that. I feel that "awkward and lacking in charm" could accurately describe Wes Anderson movies for people who don't enjoy that sort of thing. I happen to, but I respect anybody who doesn't.
-
I always kind of thought trailers were supposed to be indicative of what the movie would be like? Like I said, what isn't for me often is for others. Something I find to be embarassing, someone else might find to be endearing and vice versa.
Anderson is very hit-or-miss for me.
-
I will go and see this. But I gag for Wes Anderson. He's like Tim Burton except I don't hate him.
-
There's nothing wrong with North American voice actors when the situation is American, but the book is really quite British.
Yes, and casting Daniel Day Lewis as Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood really took me out of the film. What's that Brit doing talkin' all American-like!? Complaining about actors nationalities is just silly...because isn't that what acting is, pretending to be somebody else?
And for the record, Jarvis Cocker and Brian Cox are both British, so it's not entirely Yanks.
-
Anyone thing House is ruined with a British actor playing an American doctor?
-
SRS BSNS
-
No, but I've loved Hugh Laurie since I was a kid so I might be a bit biased.
-
I think what bob is talking about and what you guys are talking about is different. The American actors in Fantastic Mr Fox aren't putting on British accents, they are still using their American accents. In a story where the characters are supposed to be British and are most definitely American is different to an American actor pretending to be a British character. I can see why bob is annoyed by that. It's not that difficult to understand.
Also, I don't like the look of the movie, so I probably wont watch it. That's got nothing to do with the voice actors, but it seems like something that would irk me as well.
-
I for one think it is prettier than wallace and gromit(and I love aardman)
-
I am bumping this because I just got back from seeing this movie, and it was brilliant.
If anyone is put off by the usual pace and style of Wes Anderson, you can expect different from The Fantastic Mr. Fox. This is a kids film, so the humour in it is far more accessible and the gags are far more obvious. The dialogue, however, maintains the subtle wit that Wes Anderson successfully, albeit formulaically (not a real word, I know) utilizes in his films. There's a good chance Noah Baumbach had a little more influence at the writing table. In terms of keeping to the story, I haven't read the book myself but my girlfriend tells me it covers all the bases with some fleshing out to add to the minute count, which I think is more than excusable. Lastly, the animation. It does take some getting used to but as the film develops, the stop-motion becomes so vital to the way the story is told I really can't see it being done in every other way. Anderson, if anything, has an amazing stylistic flair that is the trademark of his features, and he transfers it to the medium with perfection.
There's a fantastic cameo from Jarvis Cocker, and Michael Gambon is brilliant as Farmer Bean. Personally I think George Clooney was puzzle-piece perfect for the role as Fox, the obvious choice being Bill Murray, who stars but just wouldn't have felt right in the spot of the confident and charming lead.
I really recommend going to see this film even if you have reservations. At least, you'll find yourself satisfied with the general pace and story-telling, but at best, you'll leave the theatre wanting to watch it at least 5 more times to explore the ever-present detail in the world Anderson creates.
-
So it was good despite American voice actors?(say yes)
-
Actually, after seeing the newer preview on the big screen before Where the Wild Things Are, I have a renewed hope for this movie and plan on seeing it for sure, despite how negative my earlier comments were.
-
So it was good despite American voice actors?(say yes)
Well yeah, but like I said, I'd never read the book. Even if I had, its not something I think is worth getting in a major huff about.
-
I'll admit that my earlier posts were a little on the nationalistic side, and if the film is a good one then the accent of the voice actors becomes irrelevant. I may have to go and see it at some point.
-
if the film is a good one then the accent of the voice actors becomes irrelevant.
Unless it's Kevin Costner trying to do an accent, in which case it can ruin an otherwise brilliant movie.
-
So it was good despite American voice actors?
You're an idiot.
-
This makes me really glad, I've heard really positive things about this movie from lots of people, so yay.
-
So it was good despite American voice actors?
You're an idiot.
Why do you say such hurtful things? ]:
-
For those that care, there's a pretty excellent profile of Wes Anderson in the newest New Yorker which includes quite a lot about Anderson's approach to making this movie. I'd post a link but it's one of those subscriber only articles on the website. But it's the cartoon issue so it's worth buying anyway!
-
There was a short piece in the most recent Wired that is available for free. It was in Wired because he utilized all kinds of techy stuff to direct while not being present on set. I do not know if it is as in-depth as the New Yorker article, but it has a video so that makes up for it, maybe.
Wired.com (http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/pl_screen_wesanderson)
-
Saw this tonight! One of the benefits of living in NYC, you get to see everything that's still in "limited release." That being said, the movie is rather wonderful. It's quirky and strange and actually on the darker side in general tone a lot of the time. It's definitely a Wes Anderson movie but at the same time it's absolutely an adaptation of a Roald Dahl book. Anderson made it his own, yes, but he stayed true to the spirit of the book in a lot of key ways. The movie is a beauty to behold. Acting is really strong throughout. The villains are dastardly (and it's nice to see Anderson not caving to studio pressure to make them not smoke or drink or wreck a room in anger or open fire on innocent animals with shotguns and giant pistols). There's hilarious and brilliantly executed homages to spaghetti westerns with a Sergeio Lenoe-esque score and everything, to caper films, to Kill Bill (of all things). At the end of the day though, it's just a very funny, charming, compelling movie. I'm not trying to compare it at all to Where the Wild Things Are but in somewhat the same way it's a "kid movie" that I got a hell of a lot more out of and probably enjoyed a lot more, almost guaranteed, than the little kids sitting around me. So, uh, go see it!
-
For those that care, there's a pretty excellent profile of Wes Anderson in the newest New Yorker which includes quite a lot about Anderson's approach to making this movie. I'd post a link but it's one of those subscriber only articles on the website. But it's the cartoon issue so it's worth buying anyway!
you could screencap it
-
This just opened in Australia yesterday and I went and saw it.
I loved it. It's wonderful. I'll admit to being a huge Wes Anderson fan ever since I first saw Rushmore at the cinema (and then stumbled across Bottle Rocket on the T.V.) but he seemed in danger of floundering as he tried to subtly change the tone of his movies (a la the Darjeeling Limited) and other young directors started trying to ape his style (ref: the Brothers Bloom). Fantastic Mr. Fox seemes like exactly the kind of circuit-breaker Anderson's career needed. Admittedly the film sometimes adheres a little too much the the hoary old "hero's journey" screenplay archetype, but it's gorgeous to look at, the characters are surprisingly engaging, the fact that the film never tries to explain its internal logic is charming, and it's all-round just a great way to spend a couple of hours. The voice acting is great - particularly Jason Schwartzman as Ash, and Jarvis Cocker has an amusing cameo - and some of the animation is startlingly powerful (for instance, when Farmer Bean flies into a rage). And then there's the scene with the wolf, which is surprising despite being heavily foreshadowed, and strangely moving and magical - all the more so for being somewhat understated.
And, because I don't want to admit to having strange and creepy and weird feelings about Mrs. Fox, I'll just say that I never realised Meryl Streep had such a sexy voice.