La maravillosa historia de Henry Sugar

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.

This anthology film consists of four short stories, with the main story being about Henry Sugar, a rich and unmarried man who never worked a day in his life. One day, he discovers a journal, which tells how Imdad Khan was able to see without his eyes. Sure, he had eyes, but through years of practice he could 'see' perfectly well even if blindfolded - or with his eyelids glued together.

Henry Sugar decided to follow Imdad's procedure, and when he finally mastered the art, he used it to read cards at casinos, winning a fortune in the process. Instead of keeping all the money, he decided to put it to good use. This segment features a very good production design and excellent lighting.

The second story is 'The Swan'. It is the story of Peter Watson, who was captured by troublemakers Ernie and Raymond, who wanted him dead. The story is narrated by an adult Peter Watson, now part of the events of him as a teenager.

The third story, 'The Rat Catcher', is about a boastful man who tries to rid a petrol station of a rat infestation, but the rats seem to put his expertise to the test.

The fourth story is 'Poison', and revolves around Harry, who wakes up to find a venomous snake lying on his stomach. Harry's friend Timber summons Doctor Ganderbai, who takes every precaution to save Harry.

All these stories are told in Wes Anderson's trademark style, which I absolutely love. It is funny and engaging, and a pleasure to watch.

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.

Big fan of Anderson's story in a story-just wasn't as interesting in the story itself. He preserved Dahl's whimsical details while adding his own artistic touch. And the meandering storyline, happening in real time with rearranged stage play- it's the story itself brought into the physical realm. If you love Anderson you'll appreciate the art.

I hadn't read these before but I felt it would have described the story perfectly (would have loved to see the BFG!) My favorite was The Swan - thought provoking, sad, twisted, yet childish in Dahl's classic manner. I personally liked the other stories more than Henry Sugar and was glad I watched the rest.

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.