Quirky and Confusing

Rating: 3/10 (13 December 2009)

I gave this film three stars because its wit broke through here and there. But the dialog was written to shock for the sake of shocking. And the highbrow language of real estate and status symbols was aimed at who? Adults with MBA's? So I was chuckling but was also uncomfortable at the same time--who was making me laugh? A fox or a "human" looking like a fox? He was dressed like a fox, liked to steal chickens, but settled down as a newspaper columnist. Where was the society that supported and craved daily news on the printed page? Actually, that part was put forth halfheartedly.I mean was there an animal society with culture and stuff or not? Even if there was Mr Fox didn't really suit that life. If the narrator in "Marley and Me" was a columnist, or the narrator in "The Soloist," then this guy was a sham, a farce. He had no interest in his trade . . . none. Yet his family duties demanded that he stay legit and not "break the law." He dare not get sent to prison or be killed. The roles confused me here. (Maybe reading the book would clear it up.) Is he right to take up stealing again or wrong? Stealing is in his blood, you can tell that but the tightrope between getting the adrenaline rush and risking the safety of his family and neighbors is confusing. He and the story keep demonstrating inconsistencies.
What I'm saying is that it was hard for me to know who to root for. He kept succeeding until his overconfidence got him busted. His relationship with his son was dysfunctional. It was almost painful to hear the lines from his son. They were quite realistically written complete with veiled hostility, appeals for encouragement and flat out statements of inadequacy. Was that supposed to be funny?
Finally, the whole issue of stealing was schizophrenic. Foxes don't steal in the human sense. They hunt for available food. Their aim is to get food but not die trying. Many a fox has made the fatal mistake of hunting Man's flocks because of diminishing natural habitat or the laziness of old age. Here the issue is more like a cartoon scenario like Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd. But wouldn't the Bugs Bunny saga be more of a downer if we witnessed Fudd wipe out Bug's entire home environment and endanger his kids and cause Bugs to feel guilty for what used to be fun? And feel guilty because Fudd was coming close to ending the entire cartoon? You'd have worry creep in where there used to be only humor. Your laughter would change from a series of guffaws to intermittent giggles. For me, some of those giggles were from embarrassment . . . like when someone's bombing on stage.
I think the film suffered from the writers not knowing what kind of film they were going for--they seemed to opt for what cracked them up that moment as they sat around the writing table.