La merveilleuse histoire de Henry Sugar et trois autres contes

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.

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.

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.

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.