Where the Wild Things Are - Movie

[frogboy4]

I caught the picture last week and have had a little time to let it sink in.

I had high hopes for the movie even though Warner Brothers held up release a year after its completion. The movie is based on a popular book, endorsed by author Maurice Sendak, creatures by the Jim Henson Creature Shop with some CG effects thrown in for good measure, it has good performances, voice talent and director Spike Jonze - so what could go wrong? Well, one crucial component - story development.

I was touched by the film and can't give it a failing grade, but it will not be a celebrated movie aired every year on holidays like it should be. There's an extra layer that Jonze seemed intent withholding and that's the layer of most human interest - something that actually happens.

I understand that the book has a loose structure. The story is about Max's moods and each wild thing represents a singular feeling of his. I was quite content with the lack of resolution at the end of the picture. The problem is the middle. I didn't expect a linear structure, but I do expect something more. There's nothing to sink my teeth into.

The set up involves Max's difficulties with being a kid. Much of his behavior is that of a sociopath, but it didn't disturb me because it's a stage many kids go through. Let's just hope he eventually grows up down the line or the authorities will be sure to find bodies buried in his basement!

When Max leaves the real world (that takes quite some time to establish) he then arrives on the island of the Wild Things. After some colorful introductions the movie runs out of steam. The bulk of the film is like watching a candid security camera on a rather uneventful couple of days.

It kind of goes like this: "We're thinking of eating you...grumble, grumble, grumble." "You're our king so fix our problems...grumble, grumble, grumble." "Let's build something...grumble, grumble, grumble." "Why aren't our lives better yet? Grumble, grumble, grumble." "Our problems are still here and so are yours and now you're leaving...grumble, grumble, grumble."

That's the gist. The creatures are amazing looking, but the direction is completely self-indulgent. Some of it works, but the film is mostly fizzle if not a flop. I don't understand why a creator as brilliant as Jonze, given all the tools and authority, wouldn't give an audience more to latch on to - or to at least rise somewhere near the level of excellence provided by the stunning work provided by the artisans. It is my feeling that he let a lot of people down. However, this is the same director of Adaptation - a film that I found intellectually insulting and a waste of my time.

Jonze cuts both ways with me. I understand his avant-garde style and can really appreciate that in an artist. I either love or hate his work. I think that's what surprised me the most about wild things. It is so middling that I can't love or hate it. In the end it's a big budgeted exercise in self-gratification with some really cool looking creatures. I think Warner Brothers would have been best served if the Wild Things had eaten him before shooting started. This is the biggest box office disappointment of the year for me.

C- because of the creatures

I'm sure there will be many fans here to disagree with me. I really wanted to like this movie and supported the integrity of Jonze through his plight with Warner Brothers. After seeing the movie - I support the studio. That's something I never thought I'd say!

[D'Snowth]

I haven't had a chance to see it yet myself, but apparently Marty Krofft has, and has said "You shouldn't mess with what worked"... but by that, he was refering to how the Land of the Lost movie failed because they tried to fix something that wasn't broken (ala, making the movie a comedy, when the series was adventurous), so apparently he and Sid are going to make sure the movie versions of Sigmund and the Seamonsters and H.R. Pufnstuf (yeah, they're ressurecting that idea) are more true to the original shows than LOTL was.
I had high hopes for the movie even though Warner Brothers held up release a year after its completion.I know what you mean, I see nothing but messiness with this Chipmunks sequel with how fast they've been trying to finish it to get it out by Christmas of this year.

[frogboy4]

I really wanted to like it more. There are parts here and there that really shine, but it didn't make for a good entire film. The funny thing is - I heard the original cut was much longer! I still might get the DVD to play with the sound off and my own music choices.

Who knows what's happening with the Chipmunks' Squeakquel? It's getting a lot of promotion and giant 3D character displays. It has a new director, Betty Thomas of "The Brady Bunch Movie", "Private Parts" and "I Spy" so it could hit or crash! So far it looks like a bunch of scenes. The first picture was a guilty, feel-good pleasure, I hope this one is at least as fun. I just can't tell yet.

[D'Snowth]

Yeah, the Brady Bunch movies were great, but that's because they never tried to change the characters and their personalities to keep up with the times... I still can't tell you how many people out there get bent out of shape over Simon growling at the maid - but then again, in the cartoon he was willing to look and act like a "macho" punk to impress a girl he was crushing on.

But that's besides the point... I'd probably not have too many negative things to say about this movie, mainly because it's been SO long since I read the book, I don't remember a lot of pertinent little details.

Now this new animated adaptation of A Christmas Carol with Jim Carrey, that I'll have to wait a see.

[frogboy4]

Now this new animated adaptation of A Christmas Carol with Jim Carrey, that I'll have to wait a see.

I can't get over how the title read's "Disney's A Christmas Carol" rather than "Disney Presents Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol" and how much more grotesque Jim Carrey can be in motion capture CG. I liken "Polar Express" to a zombie movie because how corpse-like the motion capure came off, but I really dug "Monster House". Now it seems official that Zemekis IS going forward with a Roger Rabbit sequel using technology that includes motion capture. I'm squeamish, but I really do want Roger to return.

[Gelfling Girl]

Now this new animated adaptation of A Christmas Carol with Jim Carrey, that I'll have to wait a see.
I saw the preview for that when I saw G-Force. It looks pretty cool, but the 3-D actually made me feel a bit nauseous. :eek::p (And that's never happened to me before, not even with Philharmagic at Disney which has "flying sequences" like in that preview.)

[D'Snowth]

I can't get over how the title read's "Disney's A Christmas Carol" rather than "Disney Presents Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol"Hey, that's typical Disney for you, so there's really no cause for complaint there, because they'd do that irregardless if it's someone else's work or not.
Now it seems official that Zemekis IS going forward with a Roger Rabbit sequel using technology that includes motion capture. I'm squeamish, but I really do want Roger to return.No. No, that cannot happen... that SHOULDN'T happen... the original Roger Rabbit is a FOUR-star classic, not to mention it's been too long since the original's been out - a sequel at this point in time already has "disaster" written all over it.

[Drtooth]

I see what you're getting at... but really... compared to other kid's books that get turned into movies I have to completely and utterly disagree right there. Among other things, we could have had a movie filled with dated pop culture references and ugly CGIs... the thought of the Wild Rumpus being the monsters all reinacting the Budwiser "WAZZUP!" commercial comes to mind.

I think the movie works for all the reasons you didn't like it. I interpreted the movie as it being all some sort of imaginary world created by a young boy with so many problems... it really did have a candid documentary film feel to it. We're basically looking at all of this from the exact point of view of the child. Norhing is complex, as this kid really isn't all that complex...but he is a believable young boy. I love Peanuts and all, but everyone talks like they're psychologists, theologians, and philosophers... no matter how smart a kid can be, I just don't believe the Woody Allen-esque thoughts would ever be dictated by anyone under the age of 10.

I liked the simplistic dialogue and the stream of consciousness in the writing... a kid growing up, facing his own problems as reflected in a funhouse mirror... being a "king" it the monsters was essentially what Max wanted from his mother. The monsters drifting apart was exactly how he was feeling about his sister. It was a very psychological movie. My sister is studying psychology, and she loved the film very much.

I see what you mean about it not really being complex and eventful... but that;'s what's inside the mind of a boy such as Max... and I'm glad they didn't make this movie any other way... again, I'd hate to see what happened to Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs to ever happen again. "OOH! A sympathetic scientist did everything to get his dad's approval." Plllpppbt!

[frogboy4]

Hey, that's typical Disney for you, so there's really no cause for complaint there, because they'd do that irregardless if it's someone else's work or not.
No. No, that cannot happen... that SHOULDN'T happen... the original Roger Rabbit is a FOUR-star classic, not to mention it's been too long since the original's been out - a sequel at this point in time already has "disaster" written all over it.

It's been reported that Zemekis was never behind any of the previous attempts at a sequel. Eisner pushed him out of the directors seat for any future production back then. They wanted to go with a cheaper director that could be controlled. This latest effort will have the same writing team as the original Roger Rabbit. The only real issue is how it will play. Moviegoers are jaded with effects these days and if they use motion capture or CG over hand-drawn animation they've lost me. I own 3 production cels from the original film. I'm an uber fan. Still, I'd like to see Roger try to come back - if it's done right.

[frogboy4]

I see what you're getting at... but really... compared to other kid's books that get turned into movies I have to completely and utterly disagree right there. Among other things, we could have had a movie filled with dated pop culture references and ugly CGIs... the thought of the Wild Rumpus being the monsters all reinacting the Budwiser "WAZZUP!" commercial comes to mind.

I think the movie works for all the reasons you didn't like it. I interpreted the movie as it being all some sort of imaginary world created by a young boy with so many problems... it really did have a candid documentary film feel to it. We're basically looking at all of this from the exact point of view of the child. Norhing is complex, as this kid really isn't all that complex...but he is a believable young boy. I love Peanuts and all, but everyone talks like they're psychologists, theologians, and philosophers... no matter how smart a kid can be, I just don't believe the Woody Allen-esque thoughts would ever be dictated by anyone under the age of 10.

I liked the simplistic dialogue and the stream of consciousness in the writing... a kid growing up, facing his own problems as reflected in a funhouse mirror... being a "king" it the monsters was essentially what Max wanted from his mother. The monsters drifting apart was exactly how he was feeling about his sister. It was a very psychological movie. My sister is studying psychology, and she loved the film very much.

I see what you mean about it not really being complex and eventful... but that;'s what's inside the mind of a boy such as Max... and I'm glad they didn't make this movie any other way... again, I'd hate to see what happened to Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs to ever happen again. "OOH! A sympathetic scientist did everything to get his dad's approval." Plllpppbt!

I think there was a middle ground that wasn't explored. Jonze is the reason why big budgets are reserved for kiddie films filled with poop jokes. He was given 100 million dollars worth of opportunity to create something better that could reach the masses. He could have added a layer or two of interest over his film, but he didn't. This film has such a small target audience. There are interesting themes explored in the film, but not enough to fill 94 minutes. The film actually felt like it was an hour longer than it was. Films like this are driving people away from the movie theaters and that makes me as sad as all of the Wild Things combined. :sympathy:

[Drtooth]

I think the main problem with the film (though I didn't have it) was that it may have just been too subtle and too minimalistic. But then again, I would have hated to see it be about the Monsters living in a big fat Narnia type fantasy world. Plus, when you're working with a kid's book adding way too much takes away from it. And maybe there was an element of being too careful...

or it could very well be that there were things that the studio pressured Jonze to cut out. This film was delayed and in development purgatory for a year or so... could very well have been a lot of monkeying from the studio. I wanna see the original cut.

I think it just works best as a character piece. Seems like the movie was basically exploring a kid dealing with his own psyche, and I do agree there should have been a little bit more somewhere. But I do think the subtleties make the film. In the end, I wondered... was this all just a fantasy sequence? Was that why the dialogue and setting seemed like a kid wrote it? That's what I think... the indie stigmata may not have helped the mass audience from seeing it, but then to get them in... shudder... Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs...or even worse... CAT IN THE HAT! I mean, WOW... Wow! That was just awful.

I see your problem with the stuff that wasn't explored, but I chalk it up to the carefulness Jonze had. Seems he really didn't want the same problems that the other films like this usually face. Over explaining things takes the magic out, and replaces it with obvious cliches (again, Meatballs).

[frogboy4]

There's richness in Jonze's Wild Things at times and I understand why Sendak approves of it. I think the divide with moviegoers has been a question of boldness. Was it a braver choice to be so minimal or would it have been braver to try and communicate the same message for a wider palette? One thing is for certain - studios will be reluctant to fork over millions of dollars to Jonze in the future. I just hope they give other directors' vision the same opportunity. That's what I'm afraid of. That it's all going to be candy-coated-crapola because of this film's box office reputation.

One thing that many critical folk didn't like about this film is one thing that I really did! I think the lead actor and the character of Max were perfect. The first half hour before the island was the most unexpectedly touching part of the picture for me.

[Drtooth]

There's richness in Jonze's Wild Things at times and I understand why Sendak approves of it. I think the divide with moviegoers has been a question of boldness. Was it a braver choice to be so minimal or would it have been braver to try and communicate the same message for a wider palette?
There in lies the problem. Somehow, it seems to me Jonze thought about what's wrong about other kid's movies based off of kids books is that they ad things that are either too much and take away from the simplistic tone of the book (Again, Meatballs- which explained why everything happened, taking away from the whimsy of an unexplained phenom in a grandfather's story by saying "Oh, a scientist did it. A well meaning, not funny in anyway, not mad scientist who has issues with his father") adding things that just seem tedious and pointless to stretch the movie (The Cat in the Hat barely works as a half hour special as it stands), or things that aren't even in the book at all, causing them to change the ending (and even the set up) completely (track down a copy of Shrek... you'll see what I mean. Of course, the first 2 movies made it work). So, I'm guessing there was self pressure to not add anything too broad and too sweeping at risk of turning the film into what it shouldn't be... of course, that means the movie risked being not all it could be.


One thing is for certain - studios will be reluctant to fork over millions of dollars to Jonze in the future. I just hope they give other directors' vision the same opportunity. That's what I'm afraid of. That it's all going to be candy-coated-crapola because of this film's box office reputation.

Unfortunately, I have to agree 100% on that... we're basically talking to a studio that said "No pictures with female leads" because of trash like Aeon Flux and Ultraviolet, and "No R Rated Superhero/comic movies" when Watchmen wasn't as successful as they would have liked on the opening weekend (basically being like sore winners that say they should have won by more points). The independent film aspect was a double edged sword. It scared the general audience out of seeing something so subtle because it wasn't a huge budget movie with jaded jokes and references that get stale by the time it gets to DVD... and those things are unfortunately so successful, that we'll no doubt see more films like that, while putting more films like this in Jeopardy.

But something tells me no matter how they made it, it still would have been shellacked by the endless parade of crummy horror flicks they push this time of year. That said, I wonder how Astroboy did, considering it came out like a week after Wild Things, and it was the only other kid's film out there.

[Baby Gonzo]

I haven't seen Where the Wild Things Are yet. But from what I understand, it sounds like a more melancholy film than one would expect from a "kid's film". I really can't say if I approve or disprove of the film since I haven't seen it, but I do think that's an interesting concept. It seems to me that most films aimed at families (animated or otherwise) fall into a very narrow group of categories. Rarely do you ever see a truly deep character study or themes that bring up truly poignant questions, thoughts, and conversations.

I suppose that's the nature of the medium. The average kid isn't looking for anything deep and neither is the average adult. So serious animated films or family friendly films with more emphasis on deep messages and less emphasis on fart jokes probably aren't in high demand. (Though Pixar and Studio Ghibli seem to do pretty well, and there is the occasional live action film that provides more than "Kids run amuck while dufus adults act like kids. Hilarity insues." those films seem to be few and far in between.)

[yetiman]

I think it just works best as a character piece. Seems like the movie was basically exploring a kid dealing with his own psyche, and I do agree there should have been a little bit more somewhere. But I do think the subtleties make the film. In the end, I wondered... was this all just a fantasy sequence? Was that why the dialogue and setting seemed like a kid wrote it?

I have mixed feelings about the movie, having loved the book as a kid. The book, however, is only 10 (I think sentences long) and has no real plot or character development. It's so minimalistic.

But Drtooth, I think you're totally right--it was an interesting psychological piece. Some moments felt just like how you wished childhood would be (like when Max says that they should build a fort and everyone thinks it's a great idea). Others, like the issues with Carol and the goat and the whiny lady with the horn (what was her name...?), seemed really misplaced.

It seemed strange, however, to be trying to psychoanalyze a children's book like that. I worry that I was overthinking the whole thing.

All that said, though, I think that visually, the movie was stunning. The puppets and CGI worked really well together to make lifelike wild things that you felt like you could reach out and touch. I loved its aesthetic.

[JJandJanice]

I did enjoy this movie, but Frogboy4 totally sums it up. Nothing really happens, it's like boy runs away, boy finds lost world type place where the wild things are, boy goes back home. From a vision standpoint it's stunning.

For me, I don't think I'll be buying this DVD/Blu-Ray right away. I think I would wait to find a used one at this used DVD store I go to and probably would buy it if I could find it for "dirt cheap."