La merveilleuse histoire de Henry Sugar et trois autres contes

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.