La merveilleuse histoire de Henry Sugar et trois autres contes

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.

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.

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.

4 unique shorts wonderfully adapted from Rohd Dahl's literature with Wes Anderson's direction as a match made in heaven. The dialogue is wonderfully narrated straight from the book while visually shown off like a vividly pretty yet loosely managed stage play. All 4 stories are quite interesting, with Poison being the most tense, The ratcatcher being the most peculiar, The Swam being the saddest, and Henry Sugar being the most whimsical. Each story stands on their own, but together, they all make something wonderful. I'm so glad that Wes Anderson finally won an Oscar thanks to this special. It's about time!

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.