I could listen to Benedict Cumberbatch talk all day but good thing this is a short because it was very tiresome. It was the perfect amount though and a type of storytelling I haven't seen much of (can't say i'm crazy about it). Same scrupulous sets, impeccable dialogue, symmetry in every shot, aspect ratios galore and carefully chosen color palette as the usual Anderson. It was very visual but I feel like judging the acting based on vocal performances, because holy shit was it ever vocal. Probably more words spoken than most 90 minute movies.

The style is really interesting, I would say that I like it. But I think it might be good, that it's a short movie, because it is a bit exhausting to watch it

Essentially this is an entirely monotone audiobook played at 1.5x speed, with the typical Wes Anderson visuals. Ok, some characters are closer to 1.25x speed.

As an enjoyer of audiobooks and Wes Anderson, this should have been an easy 9 or 10 rating, but it just didn't resonate with me. Other reviewers called it "exhausting", and I'm inclined to agree. There's not a single moment of pause to breathe and digest until the credits roll.

Ironically, I likely would have enjoyed the story more in text format, although it wasn't particularly engaging or profound. The beginning held my interest, then it steers off into cliche territory, and ultimately finishes with a boring trope.

At least I got a good laugh from the commenter who proclaimed this as Wes Anderson's best film ever made. That was worth enduring the 40 minutes of flat turbo narration.

I am rather perplexed by the way it proceeds.Thanks to Roald Dahl for that.And kudos to Wes Anderson for creating something visually stunning with such set ups and effects.I just love the way he presented the story with the on screen narration by the cast.And the way,Dev Patel was portrayed in his film was a breakthrough for that guy.Just loved that guy however he presented and narrated with such a straight face.Along with that, Benedict Cumberbatch,Ben Kingsley and Ralph Fiennes all were the charmers of the show..

Just wanna hang to this short for a while to get immersed in it.

Roald Dahl + Wes Anderson - a perfect pairing.

It's a deep and impactful bedtime story.

Wes Anderson can be hit or miss for me, but this one hit the sweet spot.

Now this this is the right amount of Wes. A full on play/book, told by Beneder Cambersnutch and company with marvelous colours and set design as is signature for Wes's style.

First one of the special Wes Anderson Shorts Collection on Netflix I've watched.

"The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar" feels a bit like "Just Another Wes Anderson Movie." The director's signature style is clearly present. For example, the cast in this short film once again consists of numerous well-known actors, who often (or this time exclusively) speak directly into the camera. In addition, the characters are extremely quirky, and the sets are colorful and creative. Those who liked this shtick so far will do so again here. I must say, however, that I found the style somewhat exhausting here and was never pulled into the plot, which is certainly also due to the fact that I don't know the source material. Nonetheless, "The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar" becomes quite entertaining near the end. However, in my opinion, it is clearly more "style over substance" than the director's previous projects.

First in a cycle of short films transposing stories by Roald Dahl. The format is close to that of a video book, with the stories being simply read aloud and the images complementing the narration. The props and sets purposely show off a handmade kind of feeling, in an atmosphere between a pop-up book and a stage play, often breaking the fourth wall. This first story is the lengthiest and most fleshed out of the four, but despite the accomplished visuals stealing most of the show, I found it somewhat repetitive, losing its magic in a few minutes. Still, it's quite a refreshing watch as a relatively new way of storytelling by Anderson.

Rated a Connor 10, normal 8

There's absolutely no time for your brain to rest and take in the story. It's a bit much so it's lucky it's a short story.

it feels a lot like a trope of itself but the style is interesting.

Perfect casting, wonderfully acted and directed. An absolutely fantastic short story, much like a modern fairy tale.

It takes your breath away for almost an hour, no rest for your eyes or brain, an sprint. The storyline & the fine acting and soothing voice of Benedict Cumberbatch along with Ralph Fiennes - that's a good combo and yes they have delivered.

This way of storytelling is not mainstream neither popular or even well received by most, but this let certainly creates a unique niche & should be explored more.

How interesting. The way it is told is great. I liked it. Very fast. Brilliantly executed.

I have no idea whether it's a Wes Anderson's thing or a Roald Dahl thing (Never watched or read either person's works) but this movie is so weird?!??!?

I was drawn into it from the peculiar way the story is being portrayed where the actors literally narrate the book while being one of the characters. Akin to a reader reading a book outloud to themselves. The sets and the choreography are fantastical but it gets tiring and frankly boring after a while. Thankfully, it's not a very long one. I'm not sure how and if the film has utilised its slew of virtuoso cast; I do feel disappointed to not see more dramatic acting.

I wouldn't recommend anyone watch it other than for its unique manner of storytelling in film, listening to Ralph Fiennes and Ben Kingsley speak at length, and the elaborate sets (kudos to the set and construction teams).

I remember reading this book as a boy and it appealed to me because it was short. Much the same way the book Henry finds in this story, you can sit and read Dahl’s story in just a half hour or less.

While the entire production is top of the line, the cast is where this film really hits it out of the park. Cumberbatch is perfect as the titular Henry Sugar and Kingsley makes a fantastic man who can see without his eyes. All of the actors play multiple roles and Ralph Fiennes shines as Dahl himself, setting up the story from his writing chair and looking rather like the BFG or the pictures you’ll find of the real Dahl in the back of his books.

Read my full review on my Substack-https://theoscarproject.substack.com/s/reviews

Henry Sugar and Other Stories are quite good. My only criticism: Why are they not complied into one feature film? Each short is elevated when viewed collectively.

One of the best Wes Anderson movies I've ever seen. The story and pacing is perfectly good. It helps that it was 45mins. The other directors should take note of this. It isn't always mandatory to have your run time over 1.30hrs, you could wrap everything up in 45mins if you do it as well as Wes Anderson did.

9/10

It was difficult to keep up with the film due to the speed of the dialogue and the compactness of the information it was trying to convey. It's as if Anderson wanted to present you with a two-hour-plus film in a short film of just forty minutes.

Still, the story and the character move. In essence it is a simple, textbook story, an Aesop fable, but it undeniably works.

The style that works is, as expected, very Wes Anderson, and that is appreciated. To this day, this man's style is one of the most interesting I have ever seen, perhaps the most impressive of all. The colors, the shots, the staging and the mimicry of the theatrical works, all of this leaves a great impression on the viewer.

I couldn't get a reading of the tape and, to be honest, I don't know if I'll ever do it, I don't even think I have anything to say beyond the obvious, but what is obvious is the great impression it has left on me.

His experimentation with a meta literary style leads to some unique comedy, but it also spells out every subtle detail in the acting and the script. You could theoretically listen to this as an audiobook and get the full experience. I like an artist that doesn’t care about conventions, but to me this ignores what makes cinema its own artform. Don’t get me wrong, I think Wes’ visuals are as brilliant as ever (I like how he implements more old school techniques with each new project) and I would definitely recommend the end result. It’s fun, more focussed than his last few films and well acted, but I just don’t know if it’s good cinematic art.

5.5/10

Wow, what a dense and compact Anderson treat. Snappy, spritely and with all the quirky, cosy trappings you'd expect from Wes. A really delightful short, I could have watched more and more. If you know of anyone that has somehow avoided Wes Andersons filmography until now, this is an amazing crash course to get them up to speed in under 40 minutes. For the already indoctrinated, this is a lovely, sweet small shot of Anderson goodness that you mustn't miss.

Very interesting movie, but I feel stupid watching it. Didn't really get it.