La meravigliosa storia di Henry Sugar e altre tre storie

A series of four adaptations by Wes Anderson of Roald Dahl stories. Wes Anderson adapting a Roald Dahl story seems a perfect combination: the clever innocence of Dahl's writing, Anderson's whimsical, stylised direction. It's been done before, to great effect; 'Fantastic Mr Fox' (2009) was brilliant.

However, while none of the episodes are terrible, they are a bit of a mixed bag.

The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar - 7/10

An interesting plot, some highly engaging characters, some spot-on performances from an all-star cast (Ralph Fiennes, Benedict Cumberbatch, Ben Kingsley, Dev Patel, Richard Ayoade, all in multiple roles) and Anderson's use of seemingly basic effects, props and settings create a whimsical, child-like atmosphere.

On the negative side the matter-of-fact tone makes you feel like you're consuming bullet points of a plot rather than being engrossed in the movie. It's the downside to the whimsicalness, I guess. In addition, I was expecting a punchier ending which never came.

The Swan - 8/10

The best of the lot, with Dahl's emotional story of innocence-meets-thuggery set to Anderson's clever backdrops and special effects and imbued with the usual Anderson whimsicalness and child-like atmosphere. Rupert Friend is great as the narrator.

Not perfect though. The film seemed set up for a powerful ending but this never came, just fizzling out. The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar was similar - great journey, lacklustre destination. Hopefully this isn't a characteristic of all these films.

The Rat Catcher - 6/10

From the previous two, the style and presentation of the films are a given. A quirky, reasonably engaging story, narration with the narrator talking in short, bullet-point-like sentences, highly-stylised backdrops and props, great performances (in this case from Ralph Fiennes, Rupert Friend and Richard Ayoade).

A less positive aspect has been that while the story is engaging, it has no punchline. It simply fizzles out. The Rat Catcher is no exception.

Here it is a touch worse in that the story never really seems to fully get going anyway. At least the other two had a fair degree of momentum.

Still, it's interesting and watchable enough.

Poison - 6/10

Poison is similar to the other three short films in the series in that it contains narration with the narrator talking in short, bullet-point-like sentences, an engaging story and some quirky backdrops and props. The backdrops are bit less of a factor here, due to this film being set almost entirely in one location.

The other three had a nasty habit of leaving you dangling at the end - setting you up with an engaging, seemingly set up for a powerful ending and then just fizzling out, sans punchline. This one seemed to be heading to buck the trend but, alas, it is more of the same. There is a half-theme around ungraciousness and racism at the end but it really isn't developed well enough to have an impact.

Interesting enough, just don't expect too much of the conclusion.

These four short stories are brilliant. With Wes' style it's like a match made in heaven. The stories almost feel like bed time stories. And the cast choice was superb. The only member i didnt like was Richard Ayoade, just because his lifeless acting and voice annoys me 😂. First time watching all these in the big combined film

Story 1 - ' The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar', was great seeing Benedict in a Wes production. And the arc it took was supering interesting.

Story 2 - 'The Swan', was effortlessly told by Rupert Friend. Never seen him before, very talented.

Story 3 - 'The Rat Catcher', Ralph finnes at his best. Diving into this character, creepy, the voice, costume and mannerisms

Story 4 - 'Poison', was brilliant as Dave Patel & Bendicts chemistry was great. Would love to see these two together for future wes productions. Was quite comical which I loved.

I read these stories in the early eighties as a child, and they have never left my consciousness. They're gripping, sinister, disturbing and yet also greatly uplifting. You never forget having read Dahl's work, especially the more adult work. It's uniquely compelling, beautifully written stuff and should rightfully take its place amongst the established greats of twentieth century literature.

They transferred passably well to television in the 1980's as Tales of the Unexpected in a very straight up and slightly cliched manner. However, Wes Anderson's adaptations are superb. They take all the language, style, wit and intelligence of Dahl's writing and combine it with his own wit, style, intelligence and visual language. The amalgamation is deeply entertaining, intellectually fulfilling and wholly satisfying. As befits Dahl's stories, the film is unusual in the telling and quite unsettling. I can understand why some might find it difficult, it's better for it. I absolutely love this.

Wes Anderson's work is very polarizing. If you don't believe me, read through the reviews for this and most of his movies. Anderson fans think he's brilliant and love the movies while the average person often feels confused and let down by the films. As for me, I find his movies a real hit or miss proposition. Some are wonderful, some terrible and some are somewhere in the middle.

Of the four films in this strange movie, the title film is by far the best and it won the Oscar for Best Live Action Short. I didn't love it that much and think the Andersonians (his supporters) are why it won the Oscar. Had an average Joe or Josephine seen the movie, they would have only been mildly impressed to it due to it's inventive staging. In fact, the inventiveness of the staging of all four are great...but also VERY familiar if you've seen Anderson's films. As far as the stories themselves go, they are mostly very disappointing and, in some cases, rather senseless and dull. Overall, a very mixed bag.

Watched this with friends and we think none of us is familiar with Wes' or Dahl's works so far. Maybe because of that we simply don't understand what's going on in this movie.

Scene transitions are very interesting and the yogi part was interesting too, as well as this subtle way of actors comedically interacting with/talking to each but besides that?

What's the point of each story or the movie in general? None of the stories made sense to us, at best the 1st one with "the man who can see with closed eyes" had an interesting touch, but what started out great took a quick downhill tour for me and friends.

Usually, when watching movies with friends, we take pauses for usual things, such as going to the toilet, getting something to drink/snack, etc. It was pretty much impossible in this movie to pause in a suitable moment. Why? Because of the almost non-stop talking that overwhelmed us.

And as if that wasn't enough for us there are things happening on screen that are attention drawing because of either interesting elements (eg scene transitions) or confusing elements (eg yogi goes to sit on a box that disappears below him like it's normal, or in the rat story where actors talk about things they don't hold in their hands, acting like they are actually holding them, while, later on they suddenly have something in their hands.).

Another thing we felt conflicted about was the FS that later on switched to WS, then back to FS and so on. I didn't feel right for me and my friends.

One reviewer here wrote the stories are like bed time stories. I absolutely agree but also have to disagree because bed time stories have a clear ending or a "moral of the story". For me and friends there was no such ending in either of the stories, sadly. And also sadly, we all agreed that this movie was a big waste of our time.

Like I said in the beginning, we might not have been familiar with the works of director and writer and maybe this is a movie that wants to carry out a unique and new art style only, but as sad as it is, it didn't click for us in any way other than being left with confusion and lack of understanding.