The film is based on the Norwegian children's story of the same name by British children's author Roald Dahl. Fox father and Mrs. Fox in the pigeon farm stealing when the fox wife pregnant, fox father promised two people escape no longer steal. Two years later, despite the objections of Badger's lawyer, Father Fox insists on buying the tree house located on the land of three farmers: chicken farmer, ham farmer and cider farmer. Ashe, the fox son who wants to be an athlete, is jealous and resentful of his cousin Kristofferson, who has just moved in. And Father Fox is once again unable to bear, the joint treehouse administrator possum Kelly secretly stole three farmers again, until it attracted a life-and-death war between people and animals...

The film was nominated for Best Animated Feature and Best Musical at the British Film and Television Guild Awards and for Best Animated Feature at the Golden Globe Awards, and won Best Animated Feature Awards at the Las Vegas, Los Angeles, New York and Toronto Film Critics Associations, and Best Adapted Screenplay Awards at the San Francisco and San Diego Film Critics Associations.

For Wes Anderson, decoratism is a judgment that sounds reasonable at first glance, but is very subtle upon reflection. For example, we could easily accuse a live-action film such as The Grand Budapest Hotel of being a decorationist film, a sugar-water film, an upholstery film, but could the same be said about Mr. Fox? At this point, we find that the "decoration" that seems excessive to the former - such as symmetrical composition, color, set details, etc. - seems to be a natural and simple native language in the stop-motion dimension of the latter.

I think the key is not whether the form of a film is colorful or not, but whether the form infuses the film with life, or whether it merely serves as a layer of film, an excuse for "style", and even in turn restricts the film to its own self-created cage of inactivity. In other words, decorationism does not depend on the complexity of formal rhetoric, but on the fact that a film merely decorates (in other words, disguising) its own actual impoverishment in its form - not only in its garish and complex form, but also in the feigned "cold" form of Bela Tal or Haneke. A good example of decorationism is Kaurismaki's many films, which are lazy and homogenized as if they were the product of an assembly line. But "Mr. Fox" is not one of them; Wes Anderson strikes us as a witty and energetic author, the form here not as a systematic, formulaic "style", but as a subtle tone, sometimes with child-animated pomp, sometimes with touching seriousness, but always with a touch of odd sadness in the humour; All of what we now call the "Wes Anderson style," including symmetrical compositions, mechanical figures, and moving mirrors, is an integral part of this tone, an organic voice that is creatively combined in each scene rather than simply stacked.

The film is based on the Norwegian children's story of the same name by British children's author Roald Dahl. Fox father and Mrs. Fox in the pigeon farm stealing when the fox wife pregnant, fox father promised two people escape no longer steal. Two years later, despite the objections of Badger's lawyer, Father Fox insists on buying the tree house located on the land of three farmers: chicken farmer, ham farmer and cider farmer. Ashe, the fox son who wants to be an athlete, is jealous and resentful of his cousin Kristofferson, who has just moved in. And Father Fox is once again unable to bear, the joint treehouse administrator possum Kelly secretly stole three farmers again, until it attracted a life-and-death war between people and animals...

The film was nominated for Best Animated Feature and Best Musical at the British Film and Television Guild Awards and for Best Animated Feature at the Golden Globe Awards, and won Best Animated Feature Awards at the Las Vegas, Los Angeles, New York and Toronto Film Critics Associations, and Best Adapted Screenplay Awards at the San Francisco and San Diego Film Critics Associations.

For Wes Anderson, decoratism is a judgment that sounds reasonable at first glance, but is very subtle upon reflection. For example, we could easily accuse a live-action film such as The Grand Budapest Hotel of being a decorationist film, a sugar-water film, an upholstery film, but could the same be said about Mr. Fox? At this point, we find that the "decoration" that seems excessive to the former - such as symmetrical composition, color, set details, etc. - seems to be a natural and simple native language in the stop-motion dimension of the latter.

I think the key is not whether the form of a film is colorful or not, but whether the form infuses the film with life, or whether it merely serves as a layer of film, an excuse for "style", and even in turn restricts the film to its own self-created cage of inactivity. In other words, decorationism does not depend on the complexity of formal rhetoric, but on the fact that a film merely decorates (in other words, disguising) its own actual impoverishment in its form - not only in its garish and complex form, but also in the feigned "cold" form of Bela Tal or Haneke. A good example of decorationism is Kaurismaki's many films, which are lazy and homogenized as if they were the product of an assembly line. But "Mr. Fox" is not one of them; Wes Anderson strikes us as a witty and energetic author, the form here not as a systematic, formulaic "style", but as a subtle tone, sometimes with child-animated pomp, sometimes with touching seriousness, but always with a touch of odd sadness in the humour; All of what we now call the "Wes Anderson style," including symmetrical compositions, mechanical figures, and moving mirrors, is an integral part of this tone, an organic voice that is creatively combined in each scene rather than simply stacked.