I was really looking forward to this movie, but it appears i might be let down when i do go to see it.

This doesn't surprise me in the least. Wes Anderson is a director with a limited audience, why anyone would think he'd be the best choice for a children's movie is beyond me.

I saw this not too long ago, and I liked it. I haven't read the book, so I may not see the clash. But I do agree that a lot of voice talent was wasted.

Here's an interesting fact: Henry Selick was supposed to co-direct this along with Anderson, but dropped out for reasons unknown and went on to do "Coraline". I think that this movie would have been a bigger hit should Selick have stayed on.

Wow when I first saw the title I thought you were talking about the book (Weird considering it was written by Film Brain) but a freaking movie? Thank god I missed this.

Eh, I didn't think it was going to be that great a movie anyways, since I didn't really laugh at any of the jokes in the trailers. Looks like I was right in deciding to avoid it. So avoid it I shall.

Hm... I'm gonna have to hope Precious is released in Boston this weekend, or I'm going to have to fall back on something I really don't want to see...

Yeah, when I heard about this, I just went, "Son of a bitch, they're gonna ruin one of my childhood favorites."
It's a shame modern filmmakers just can't make a good Dahl film.

While I haven't seen it, I heard that Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs was fantastic.

Also, I got a kick out of Jumanji, and that was (loosely) based off of a children's book.

srsly> this was mediocre? Wow, I guess the even with a great cast the project can still suck.

Some strong points here Film Brain. A good analysis, nitpick of missed chances, and even the ability to point out some good moments.
However, there seems to be a concensus in your writing that this film, while intentionally not for kids, is SUPPOSED to be for kids. Why? Because it's animated?! That a movie with any form of non-live action HAS to be marketed to the children market? THAT is way off.
Animation isn't a genre, it's an art form. It can be applied to any story, category, or usage imaginable. When I saw the trailer for this film, I KNEW it was meant to be a treat for adults. There's no way that this film was ever intended to be accepted by younger audiences.
My guess is that Anderson wanted to cater to an older crowd, who actually grew up with Dahl's literature. Many kids these days have only read a handful of Dahl stories, with Mr. Fox being a neglected one. With this knowledge, it makes sense to adapt the story with both an artistic style and overall direction that older audiences would enjoy more.
Just cause its animated doesn't mean it has to be for kids. Just ask Bakshi.

Pretty much spot-on. I was going something along these lines, but you got it spot-on. Does it honestly matter if it doesn't appeal to children? You're an adult, so watch the film at the mind-set of an adult. They are the paying customers after all. In fact, the large majority of animation filmmakers these days do make films they themselves would see and all of them are adults. But, yeah, like Noah said, just because something is animated, it does not mean that it is aimed at children and a film's rating shouldn't be downgraded because they won't "get the jokes".

In fact, Roald Dahl worked the same way and that's why his books continue to be cherished by adult readers and hence why they were so widely acclaimed.

At the same time, Dahl's book was also read and enjoyed by children. Its not that I believe animation is for kids, its that the film will have younger audience (the earlier release in the UK is timed with half-term school holidays). Its a core part of the audience (I saw kids poining out the characters on the poster, for instance, coming out of other movies) and yet it doesn't work for them. For me, as an adult (I guess), it didn't quite work with me either. That's the point I was trying to say - its a halfway house that neither fully satisifies adults or children.

As much as I loved Royal Taunenbaums, I kind of got the sense from the commercial that this movie was going to be hard to sit through

I really loved this movie, but probably for all the wrong reasons.

You know why Wes Anderson made this movie? Spike Jones got ahold of Where the Wild Things
Are.

Heaven forbid an animated movie comes along that an adult won't get bored watching with their kids. And if the kids don't like it ... fuck them, give them 10 bucks, let them watch Astro Boy in the next room.

Yes, because all animation is boring for parents.

Calling Pixar...

I actually really enjoyed this film. I totally get where you're coming from, but despite it's flaws, I found it to be really fun. I got a really immature laugh out of the term 'clustercuss', and those freaky swirly eyes gave me the chills and I don't know why .
And can I just say that it really annoys me when people intentionally avoid a film off the back of one review. I like the reviews on this site because they're well done and I can often see how the opinion was made, even if I don't agree. But, god, people, if you wanted to see it before, STILL go and see it, and formulate your own opinion! You're intelligent people, you're allowed to!

If it has Wes Anderson's name on it then of course it's going to suck.
And they just use the word "cuss" instead or real profanity or even prospector profanity?...Honestly? Good...freaking LOrd! o__'o

So.. is the movie bad because it is aimed more for adults or is it bad because it caters neither to kids nor to adults? I don't get it.

I don't know who Dahl is and honestly I don't care. What I'm interested is if this movie is going to be enjoyable for me, I couldn't care less if the snotty brat two rows down will be bored or not. If I hear that the movie caters to adults, hey, a spot of good news there.

On the other hand, I'm kinda ambiguous towards Wes Anderson's work. I find his movies quirky and mildly enjoyable, but also quite uncomfortable on some level. They are something I always watch by myself, because watching with other people will inevitably result with groans and complaints by at least half of the group, severely diminishing MY potential enjoyment. So hearing that he is the director of this flick makes me feel weary, to say the least. Especially if I plan to watch this in a theater, with my girlfriend and a bunch of friends. This review didn't really help me, but rather confused me even further.

I always find it a bit ironic when a reviewer critizes a film maker for not knowing his audience and yet makes massive presumptions about people they have never even met like, "It fails at entertaining children" - My mate took his little brother to see this the other day and they both thoroughly enjoyed it.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not having a go at you or anything. I think your a good reviewer. However when you make sweeping generalisations like that then you shift the reviews focus away from being personal reflection on and analysis of the film and wander into shakey territory. Because whether "It fails at entertaining children" is not a matter of opinion - it's something that can be objectively assessed and if all you have to back that statement up is supposition then you're going to come across (at least to me) as a little bit pompous. If you instead for example said,

"My friend went to go see this with his family. A lot of the jokes went over his youngest's head."

Or alternatively (if you don't have a friend with a son),

"I was left uncertain as to whether any kids I know would enjoy this."

Then that would be better because you're getting across the same idea but in a way which relates to your personal experience of the film and doesn't make any sweeping generalisations.

well, good points, but i dont neccesicerly think its something thats makes movies bad. true, voice talent mightive been wasted, but, then again, they mightve been cameos. im not sure. i havent seen it.

but becuase of this review, I WANT to see it. From what ive read, though good points were made, it might not be a bad adaption, but i cant say that, not knowing the book. and something that might have any slight aiming towards adults being animated, im even more intirgued. Theres only one annoying character, from the tally so far.

short review. but only serves to want to see this more. thanks. ;p

I think people have drastically misundertood Film Brain's comments on the 'for kids' thing.

Animation is not necessarily for kids- that's a fact, and he never said that.

It is, however, the adaptation of a children's book, and when they make a film clearly for adults, with adult themes, and adult humour- you've got a problem.

Geez, sometimes I think you guys just pick on any element of his reviews you can, just so you can have something to criticise him over.

He's not a complete idiot, people.

In my opinion, this film was pure brilliance. I did actually find the usage of "cuss" hilarious, and didn't even care if it was based on a children's book. I think it was more intended for adults than children, in case of nostalgia. Even if nostalgia may have been destroyed by Americanization, that's not something I complained about.

As a British person myself, I think that if it was completely British and exactly the same as the book, I would've agreed with you. And if Fox and Regency want to destroy our childhoods for real, leave it to a bunch of singing chipmunks and ugly-ass girl chipmunks!

as usual film brain, your review is lacking. You can't fault a movie if it's not geared towards children or isn't an exact representation of the source material if it is good regardless. I found this movie to be quite charming as a 22 year old who has never read the book. It was wonderfully crafted and the dialogue was quite funny in subtle ways and everything was very cute and imaginative.

Film Brain, I liked this movie. You have to be some sort of nitpicker to call this a disappointment. But whatever, you're a critic, you can like whatever you want to. I just think that when you go into a movie, expect what you're paying for. Sure, some jokes won't get across to kids, but hey, if they were trying to, then they'd certainly add toilet humor too. Would you be happier with that?

I liked the film. Hell, I loved it. The animation was great, best I've seen since 'Wallace & Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit', and it doesn't rely on CGI most of the time, although there had to have been a few greenscreen effects. Good choice of cast, too. Clooney and Streep were good, Schwartzman was okay, and the cast of the villains were great, especially Michael Gambon(whose character pretty much has more lines and action than the rest of the farmers). There were a few moments that were a bit dark for kids, which pretty much deserves the PG rating. The only complaint I have is the close-ups. They shove the camera right in the characters' faces, so much so that you can see their f---ing cornias. And speaking of eyes, the close-ups can strain your eyes if you're close to the screen like I was(which was five rows at least). However, some of the close-ups were somewhat necessary for drama. Despite some of the flaws as mentioned by me and Film Brain, it's still an enjoyable movie, and I think I'll see it again sometime in the near future.

I saw the film and to be frank, I liked it. The jokes were funny and original. The cast is great and I laughed my ass off when I heard the jokes. Its stop-motion is fantastic, to say the least. I guess I'll just ignore what you said in that article!

I think that this film would have been better if it had stuck to the original plot of the book, as the whole climax of the book goes by to quickly in the movie which means a whole new storyline needs to be added to make it feature film length.

Apart from this, the rest of the movie was pretty good. Good, solid cast. Mostly good humor. And really good stop motion, which, as a stop motion filmmaker myself, I can greatly admire.