Directed by Luc Jaquet, who previously - and most famously - bought us "March of the Penguins," here subsequently brings us "The Fox and The Child." The plot is quite slight, as you could describe it in one sentence: A young girl encounters a fox in the forests surrounding her home, and so tries to get closer to it. Of course, this one sentence plot is deceptively simple. By trying to get closer to the fox, the young girl wants to get literally close enough to the fox to touch, but also close enough to it for it to be her animal friend. But as well as that, the plot allows room for such subject matter as fox hunting, domesticity vs. nature, coming-of-age, and the folly of trying to tame forces beyond your control. The crisp, highly defined photography of the forest, the mountains and its wildlife inhabitants is absolutely astounding. Just utter jaw-dropping, breathtaking, knock-out beauty that can scarcely be believed. To merely describe the sights seen in this film would be an injustice. They must be seen to be believed. For any children that watch this, the film will delight them to no end. For adults, this is equally true. The fox of the title - or foxes, as there were numerous foxes used to portray just the one - is, without speaking or emoting in any human terms, quite a fantastic fox. (But not a Mister, as it's a female fox. Just, y'know, FYI.) But a problem that I DID have with the film is its narration, read by - in the English version - Kate Winslet. To me, the narration is far too story bookishly read, and a bit clunkily written, too. As a personal preference, I'd have rather the film had no narration at all, and just let the wonderful images speak for themselves. Or if not that, I wish the narration had at least been written a bit better. Other than that big flaw of the film, it's a joyous experience of a film that anyone can enjoy (up until a certain dark, morbid and tear jerking bit near the end, which needs to be there) and that if you can catch it, you should most certainly give it a go. =))

I believe this film just never started, because the fox and the child met each other day after day, week after week and they did things and wolves came into the equation and a bit of Adventure. Another thing is her Mom and Dad never show up or anything and you wouldn't be allowed outside nearly everyday, of course they'd ask you "What did you do today?" I'm not trying to be offensive to Pathe!, but as this isn't a very big film companies movie, I don't think it is advertised as much, but I got it from Matalan, and hadn't heard about it before. On the good side of the film, it is lovely how the girl meets the fox and they develop a friendship, I think that is lovely ! Very sad as well, I have to admit I did shed a few tears, as the Fox, which she names Lily, nearly dies, but I sort of new that she wouldn't. I give this movie 3 out of 10, because of the points in there that say the film isn't amazing.

This film has little to recommend it, though that little being the breathtaking scenery, cinematography and direction of wildlife, it is difficult to bring up its weak points in the company of such rave reviews. It is precisely these things, however, that make the lack of a satisfactory plot and its execution so disappointing. I watched this with my children and none of us was too impressed by the end. Yes, the pictures were great, the broad landscapes across the forest and mountains magnificent, but what was going on in the foreground? The rather dull narration of the stupidity of an insipid girl who learns all too slowly a very basic lesson about befriending wildlife - and gets off quite easily given the track record of that sort of thing. It is certainly not a new story, in fact there is nothing remotely novel about the way it is told, and we have all seen this before, and, indeed, much more eloquently by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.The only thing really to be gleaned from this film is a sense of how to work with these wonderful lenses and forest lighting; the rest is a waste of time.

The very first image of the movie shows a mountain ridge in early morning autumn mist, and my thought was: "This is almost too beautiful." And it goes on like this: Images of landscape and animals that look like a series of romantic paintings, each of them perfect in every detail. Even the girl's room, her father's car - everything is nostalgic, romantic, beautiful. This could seem outdated and escapistic, but it fits a story that is itself of silent beauty, happening on the border between life and fairy tale, between Dian Fossey and Le Petit Prince. I enjoyed every minute of it. The extreme parsimony of the movie, having a simple, slow story, just one actor and hardly any special effects, exerted a strong magic. I therefore find it deplorable that this parsimony is given up in the last minutes, when suddenly two additional actors (the girl as a grown-up woman, and her son) are introduced. Another shortcoming is the music, which is often intrusive, Hollywood-like, and sometimes inappropriate: I couldn't bring an English pop-song together with French mountain glory. I went to the movie together with my two small daughters, but I recommend it to adults as well, given that they appreciate this kind of movie. Obviously, not everybody does.