Ich sehe was, was du nicht siehst

I'm watching a pop-up storybook; colors, editing, and composition are stylish and adorable. However, actors read lines too fast. I'm out of breath just by watching. I'm not sure Anderson was intentional to daze the audience, but it does not work on short films. The audience is ready to engage and focus at least for forty minutes. It might have worked in a two-hour film.

I'm watching a pop-up storybook; colors, editing, and composition are stylish and adorable. However, actors read lines too fast. I'm out of breath just by watching. I'm not sure Anderson was intentional to daze the audience, but it does not work on short films. The audience is ready to engage and focus at least for forty minutes. It might have worked in a two-hour film.

The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar is a great short film that doesn't waste a second of its shorter run time and definitely works as a short film in a way a feature length film simply cannot. The energy, the pace and the complexity comes together so well in an exhilarating, immaculate story of kindness.

Unusually, this is a cast who are mostly new to the world of Wes but Benedict Cumberbatch, Dev Patel and Ben Kingsley are note perfect here in a way that hopefully results in many more future collaborations. Richard Ayoade on the other hand, feels surprisingly underutilised.

Wes Anderson has never had more control of the frame or everything inside it. It's standard issue that it's going to be gorgeous to look at and rife with detail but the real strength of his direction here is the way it's able to feel so theatrical in its construction yet still be inherently cinematic.

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.

If Wes Anderson decided to pen a bedtime story, it might just look like "The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar." This 38-minute marvel weaves a tapestry of mystery and whimsy that leaves you both tickled and intrigued.

This isn't a full-blown comedy, but it certainly doesn't shy away from its share of wry humor. The script sprinkles witty quips and playful moments throughout the tale, giving the audience some delightful chuckles. It's a nod to Anderson's signature style - a dash of quirkiness that keeps you grinning.

Benedict, in his first foray into Anderson's cinematic world, shines as Henry Sugar. His portrayal adds depth to this peculiar character, and he's complemented by a stellar supporting cast who bring their own unique flair to the story.

"The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar" exudes a distinct theatrical vibe. The set design and the way the scenes are presented feel like a live theater performance. It's a refreshing departure from the conventional cinematic experience, adding a layer of whimsical charm.

This film doesn't aim to tug at your heartstrings or deliver profound messages; it's here to entertain. It's a bedtime story for the child in all of us, a light-hearted adventure that captivates without overwhelming.

In true Wes Anderson fashion, "The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar" dances to its own whimsical tune, making it a delightful short film that transports you to a world where the ordinary becomes extraordinary.

I think we can all agree that the format of this 'content' is very different from what we are used to. On the one hand, it has the features of an "audible book". But it most certainly also has features that fit with a stage play. Actually, it seems like a hybrid of the two, which I for certain have never seen before.

And whilst it is different, people tend to start agreeing with extreme ratings: i.e. They either say they like it very well and give it a rating of 10 stars, or they hate it and go for a 1 star rating. And since I do not want my review being tainted by chosing either of the two camps, I simply chose to not give it an IMDb rating. This so that either camp can agree with my review instead of a rating...

That this is some new type of content is obvious. I personally think it is more a natural evolution of (1) reading books, to (2) audiobooks, and now (3) this new format.

I think a term of "cinematic book" may fit with what we see here: a book that is read to an audience by using renowned actors in a format that fits cinema.

With many new things, I was confused at what exactly I was watching when I started this content. And honestly said, it took me several minutes to adjust to it. As an avid bookreader myself, I have enjoyed quite a number of Roald Dahl's books. Not being a fan of audiobooks myself, I never ever listened to his books. But this "cinematic book" is just a different experience. There is so much added richness to it, that I really started to enjoy it. So rich actually, that I had trouble keeping up with the fast-paced storytelling. There is so much to see in each of the different sets that it is pretty difficult to ingest all you hear and see. And I think this will be even a bigger challenge for viewers from non-english speaking countries which need to rely on subtitles. So, I think it may be a recommendation to (1) first "watch" it with a primary focus on listening to the story, and (2) a second time to enjoy the richly detailed scenes.

Concluding, I think we witness here the evolution of how we may "read" books. An evolution that first started with the introduction of audiobooks, which we now see evolve in a content genre that I can describe best as a "cinematic book". And whilst it takes some moments to get used to, I definitely want to see more of it in the future.