Avaliações de usuários

Although I have hundreds of idols in the domain of cinema, there are only three heroes that I worship/idolize in literature. They are Jules Verne, Agatha Christie, and Roald Dahl. The latter, I have been fascinated with for as long as I can remember. I remember reading "The Twits" and shortly after "The Witches" at young age, and immediately got hooked on Dahl's unique, oddly ominous, and mildly disturbing writing style. Roald Dahl does not treat his youthful readers like feeble children and describes things as explicit and sadistic as they are, which is something I greatly appreciated even as a small child.

There have been several wondrous film adaptations of Dahl's books, some of which I also really adore, but none of them really captures the true genius of Roald Dahl's style and persona. Maybe "The Fantastic Mr. Fox" (2009) does, but I haven't seen that yet. I'm willing to believe the praiseful ratings and reviews of that one, tough, since it also comes from writer/director Wes Anderson. "The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar and Three Others" is also from Anderson, and ...it...is... GREAT!

Wes Anderson and Roald Dahl are a perfect match. They are both eccentric, extraordinary imaginative, and dreamy. Moreover, Anderson's approach is stupendous with live on-screen narration (even with Ralph Fiennes as a striking Roald Dahl himself), stop motion techniques and partially animated set pieces... As if we are looking straight into Dahl's head. The film is an omnibus with one main feature and three short stories. "The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar" is Dahl at his purest and utmost genius! Say what you want, but nobody else but Roald Dahl could have invented such a bizarrely far-fetched but compelling and spirited tale with gifted traveling circus artists and selfish aristocrats turning into noble Samaritans. The script is a spitfire of spoken monologues (which goes for all the stories, by the way) but there is never a dull moment, and the performances - notably from Benedict Cumberbatch and Ben Kingsley - are sublime.

The three other stories also deserve detailed praise, in fact, but I will make this review too long. Just know that they feature typical Road Dahl themes (like extreme bullying, reptiles and rodents, ...) and brilliant performances as well. "The Wonderful etc..." is a must-see for fans of the legendary writer. And if you're not a fan yet, it's time to become one.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar and Three More (2024) is the final movie in Wes Anderson's filmography that I watched for the first time ever and it was awesome.

Positives for The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar and Three More (2024): The short stories are very engaging and fun to watch with a fun cast. The cast does a great job with their performances and you have Ralph Fiennes, Benedict Cumberbatch, Dev Patel, Ben Kingsley, Richard Ayoade and Rupert Friend are playing different roles into these short stories. The set designs look great and are having fun with their characters. The dialogue is amazing and very witty. While these stories are separate from each other, they have their own stories with themes that come fill circle by the end of each segment. And finally, this movie has excellent pacing that kept me invested during each short story.

Overall, The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar and Three More (2024) is a wonderful anthology movie from Wes Anderson and I can't wait for his newest movie coming out later this month.

This is a Wes Anderson film if ever there was one. The style screams his name more than any of his previous films.

Some may find it grating and too much to bear. To be sure, it never lets up. But if you love the charm evoked by the director's trademark style, you will thoroughly enjoy this fun little anthology.

It is such a wonderful homage to the great writer Roald Dahl and his charming littler stories, and it does something quite creative indeed with the task of adapting words into images. The payoff is delightful, for those who are keen to this sort of style.

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.

While Ive not yet read any one of Roald Dahl's works, I was convinced of the fact that the film was approached according to an avid reader. I found that aspect of it, well executed. At the beginning had a hard time focusing on the visuals and keeping up with what was being said. Quite marvelous work from the cast at the recitation aspect.

Not having read Dahl's work didnot give me THAT perspective on the film and "Poison" was quite difficult for me to conclude. Apart from that it was a good watch and for me, an introduction to Roald Dahls writing.

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.

There is no way someone can genuinely enjoy this movie. It's just pure pretentious art for arts sake with no substance, no purpose, no plot, no conclusion nothing. The movie has literally no dialog, just narration. This style literally made me angry and annoyed i couldn't bare it and had to shut the movie off. It's just someone reading a book to you (a bad one) which defeats the whole purpose of a movie. It's like the film equivalent of a picture book with no words. Is it really a book at the point or just something else being presented as a book. Anyone who claims to like this is just lying and trying ti seek sophisticated. There is no entertainment value here. Just read a book for 2hrs. Same thing.

The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar starring Benedict Cumberbatch is a highly ambitious film that struggles to fully capture its potential. The story itself is unusual, centering on Henry Sugar's quest to gain extraordinary abilities, and it leans heavily on narration and exposition. While this can work in literature, on-screen it often feels tedious, slowing down the momentum and making it difficult for viewers to remain fully engaged. The pacing is uneven, with long stretches that lack tension or excitement, and the narrative choices sometimes feel overly safe, avoiding the riskier, more dynamic storytelling that could have elevated the material.

Benedict Cumberbatch delivers a committed performance, bringing charm and gravitas to the titular character. However, even his talents cannot fully rescue the film from the flatness of the screenplay. Many of the supporting scenes feel underdeveloped or unnecessary, leaving the audience with a sense that the film is meandering without a clear sense of purpose. Visually, the film is polished and creative, with some sequences that evoke a whimsical, almost magical atmosphere. Yet, these moments are sporadic and do not consistently compensate for the slow narrative.

The screenplay is a major limiting factor, as it prioritizes narration over dramatic tension or character development. Henry Sugar's journey is compelling in theory, but the film's execution makes it hard to invest emotionally in his successes or failures. The story is predictable in many ways, and the climactic moments feel less impactful because the build-up is uneven and, at times, disengaging.

While the film may appeal to fans of experimental, story-driven adaptations, it falls short for audiences seeking a more kinetic or emotionally resonant cinematic experience. The creative concept is admirable, and there are flashes of originality, but the storytelling is too static to maintain consistent engagement.

In summary, The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar is a visually competent and narratively ambitious film that struggles under its own weight. Cumberbatch's performance shines, but the pacing, overreliance on exposition, and uneven screenplay make it a perplexing and largely flat experience. It's interesting to watch, but not especially memorable or compelling.