daisymay:

Went to see this on Friday and all I can say is, YOU MUST GO SEE IT! Seriously. I came out of the film wanting to go back in and see it again.

I was blown away by the humor, writing and acting. And the animation is just gorgeous. I’m a fan of Wes Anderson, so it’s not a far stretch for me to like this film however, I do think that he toned down his usual style to fit the broader audience that the animation medium is designed for. It’s still a Wes film, but one that everyone will like.

Amen to that - big improvement over the disappointment of The Darjeeling Limited and the unevenness of A Life Aquatic. Seems strange that Royal Tenenbaums was almost nine years ago, and Rushmore/Bottle Rocket are comfortably part of a different decade.

I enjoyed Fantastic Mr. Fox as much as anything I saw this year. The scene with the Wolf near the end killed me, and the stop-motion was dazzling in the theater. Nice touch with the “wild animal” feeding frenzies too.

louobedlam:

Yes, Kate Hudson was excellent in Almost Famous.

And nothing else.

So what occupies my thoughts now is this:

is it that she’s not really a good actress, but ended up in a Ray Liotta in Goodfellas situation? That the role just suited her actual personality perfectly?

OR

is it that she’s a decent actress thrown into the gaping maw of Hollywood, that the only roles she’s gotten are the stock female leads in routine rom-coms? That her reward for doing a great job in Almost Famous is to have a career as just another pretty face in a series of films no one will remember?

And which is worse?

I think I would add Colin Farrell as the male corollary to the Kate Hudson Dilemma™ - with In Bruges subbing in for Almost Famous, and inane action movies standing in for sappy romantic-comedies…though the timeline is inverted. Imaginarium gives his career a more hopeful prognosis, though.