Ich sehe was, was du nicht siehst

"This is a terrific piece of book-to-film adaptation", I cried. "I read the book in preparation for the film and I can say with utmost certainty that...", I drank a cup of water to catch my breath, "...that almost every piece of dialogue in the film, not counting the name changes, are almost word for word from the book", I stood up from my chair and slowly applauded for the film, "Indubitably Anderson's most loquacious and experimental work to date. The way he plays with the medium of storytelling is admirable at least. Unfortunately this unorthodox storytelling style is not for every sophisticated individual in the planet", I sat down and happily sighed. "I hope to see this marvelous short film again in the future"

This is exactly Wes Anderson style! Same colors, angles, another Wes Anderson film star in a side role.. I enjoyed it and never get bored. The story was unbelievable and quite fluent. Also see Benedict in a Wes Anderson movie just wonderfull. So far, so good but i think the director should try new methods because everything was same. Think like a Grand Budapest Hotel but shorter this time! If even one thing changes, the films will be more distinctive and unique in themselves. Still, that doesn't mean the movie shouldn't be given a chance. If you like Wes Anderson's style, you must give a chance.

As much as this is pure Uncut 1100% pure white as the driven snow Wes Anderson, including one of his most thrilling tracking shots and rear-screen projection that made me laugh hard enough for the neighbors to sit up and probably want to check it out for themselves, it is also a perfect distillation of Roald Dahl's perfectly eccentric and wildly over-elaborate storytelling and construction of one plot into another.

Maybe you haven't read Dahl in a while if you were one of those kids who read him a lot (I know he has a reputation today, but he could objectively write comedy and quirk like nobody's business), but even if that's so the recognition of his voice will come back to you like a long dormant dream. It's also fascinating to see the clockwork-theatrical staging from Asteroid City taken even further. I'd ask him why he doesn't direct theater, but then he would look at me like I was a fool - why do that when he has the overwhelming power of control of the Frame of Cinema at his disposal?

The thing about this Henry Sugar film that I like on top of the perfectly calibrated balancing act between very human comedy and quixotic and deadpan fantasy that we know Anderson can do in his sleep (though I imagine as easy as it looks it takes a lot of concentration to get right with DP Yeoman), the performances are just right and add to the flavor of the piece. Call it shallow, but I just enjoy how soothing the voices of Cumberbatch, Dev Patel, Kingsley and even to an extent Fiennes are, like they could almost be ASMR-ing you with the Dahl words that get spun like a marathon sprinter who is running in this precision that dazzles you because it almost is inexplicable (just like, I might posit for comparison, what the men can see with their eyes closed after concentrating hard for days and years on end).

Last but not least: Benedict Cumberbatch in a dress = most unlikely kind of attractive walking cartoon in a dress since Bugs Bunny.

I have not read The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar by Roald Dahl, so I was unsure what to expect from this short film, but I was pleasantly surprised. The plot follows Henry Sugar when he finds a book about man who could see with his eyes closed, and from there, Henry Sugar attempts to learn how to do the same. The art style and direction of the film is unlike anything I have watched before thanks to Wes Anderson's directing. Benedict Cumberbatch is fantastic as Henry Sugar, and I quite liked the supporting cast as well. The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar is worth watching, and you will not regret spending the time on this book to film adaptation.

I am not familliar with any previous works or repuation of the creators whatsover, I just watched this short movie out of curiosity since it was on Netflix.

So this seemed to be a sort of first person narrative where the characters speak the story themselves? Think of it when a person reads a book out loud at home, but in this case they are reading to us the viewers.

The story of this piece focused on various qualities of generosity and depthful feelings. It was interesting to see the characters describe their feelings while not showing any type of emotions. Due to the nature of this film, I wasn't sure what to think, the concept is good but I found it perplexing.

My only issue is the pacing, I am unsure if this was on purpose or not. This flim piece moved way too fast, to where even I had trouble keeping up or understanding what was going on. Perhaps this is how the film was designed to be or I needed a deeper level of understanding?