Even though Fantastic Mr. Fox was a stop-action movie allegedly meant for children, you could still tell undeniably that it was a Wes Anderson production. It's fair to say that throughout the years Anderson (who is only 40!) has garnered a strong cult following (other notable films of his include: The Royal Tenenbaums, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, and The Darjeeling Limited). Though his movies are often offbeat and a bit funky, I think they pack a lot of heart. They give a perhaps skewed yet sincere perspective on the world and on basic human relationships. Since I'm a sucker for strange movies, I'm a fan; I have a lot of respect for his interesting, unique style and I was pleased that Fantastic Mr. Fox kept the same feel.
One of the most obvious reasons Fantastic Mr. Fox is similar to his other movies, is that the same ever-present group of Anderson's favorite actors made their appearances (albeit in cartoonish animal form this time): Bill Murray as a badger-lawyer, a Wilson brother (Owen this time) as a gym coach, and Jason Schwartzman as Mr. Fox's son, Ash. These friends help make Anderson's movies what they are and I can't imagine not having them.
In a similar vein, I was impressed by the number of other big names doing voices (George Clooney, Meryl Streep, William Dafoe, Michael Gambon AKA Dumbledore). This probably points to the fact that Anderson is getting a lot of street cred in Hollywood these days, as he deserves, and people are really taking him seriously. Though I'm sure everybody in LA has known he's a genius from the very beginning.
As far as dialogue goes, Fantasic Mr. Fox retained Anderson's subtle humor and cool-headed/almost passive/laid-back observations of life. How can I explain this? Sentences are short and super-condensed. They are to the point. There were many quirky obsessions, like the word "cuss." Though naturally there was action and drama, the way the characters talk makes it seem like everything is under control. Or maybe it's that all his characters have resigned to the fact that life is life and we can't change things. Do we take it seriously or can we laugh at it? Both maybe:
Ash: You should probably put your bandit hat on now. Personally, I- I don't have one, but I modified this tube sock.
Kristofferson: You look good.
Ash: Yeah, I do.
Finally, even though it was via a new medium, the movie maintained Anderson’s interesting way of shooting scenes. I may also lack an accurate way of describing it, but I certainly know it when I see it. His shots are slow and the camera stays in one place and lets the small things happen. In a way, we see things in the same way his characters talk- quiet/still.
Which brings me to another interesting point about this movie: Stop-action animation. The eyes of the characters were strange. It felt like the color scheme was brown and orange, making it seem straight from the 70's. Most films using this medium are meant for children. And, although there were lots of kids in the theater, I'm not so sure they connected with this story as much as they would, say a Disney movie. I think lots of the subtleties of the dialogue and many of the jokes were lost on them.
The story was amusing and felt like an old fashioned fable with a lesson involved (something the kids may have been able to pick up on): don't be greedy. Also, be yourself. So, I for one enjoyed watching this movie, quirks and all.
