Where The Wild Things Are

[Edie]

We should get to work on the next one

 

In the great green room...

 

Ha -- I thought the same thing. I am a far bigger GNM fan than WTWTA.

 

How's Good night nothing for a treatise on Mu?

[SarahC]

it reminded me exactly how I felt when I was a kid. And not - like I said - by bringing me back to my childhood, but by allowing me to relate to it again.

I felt pretty much the same way you did at the end of the film. I've seen it twice, with 2 different groups of friends, and both times left the theatre going "wow".

[M. (hristine]

We should get to work on the next one

 

In the great green room...

Blasphemer!

[Sir Stewart]

We should get to work on the next one

 

In the great green room...

[jakobnicholas]

I was SO disappointed in this movie.

 

The opening 15-20 minutes was VERY well-done. I loved pretty much everything about it. Spike Jonze did a nice job of keeping everything emotionally strong but reserved. For example, when the neighbor kids attacked Max's fort, the kids weren't obnoxious punks, but clearly just teens having a little fun that Max obviously took more seriously. Then we felt kinda bad for Max and could understand him retreating to his room. I agree that shot of Max staring at him Mom and fiddling with the hose on her feet was a powerful scene. That and the scene where he gets momentarily trapped in the igloo were executed perfectly, making me flashback to moments I had as a kid.

 

But about the time Max lets out his bizarre scream atop the kitchen counter is when I first started wondering if this movie was gonna stay on track.

 

The journey on the boat and approaching the island and the creatures was great. And the introduction to the wild things and seeing the way they looked on screen was very impressive. I don't know how they did it, but the mix of reality with CGI really captures the essence of the Sendak's creatures.

 

Sadly, the whole time on the island was an absolute bore. Max was always whiny and reserved and mopy. The creatures were mopy. Nothing happened, nothing was accomplished.....I don't know how to say it, other than it just felt like the movie went nowhere. And the dialouge and stupid little spats and conversations the creatures had were embarrassingly awful. Carla had a tantrum near the end for some stupid reason of which I can't think of. And I agree with someone who said they had no sadness when Max had to go back home. Carla's character was so non-sesnical and angry and annoying that I was actually happy to see the character sad...I was kinda hoping Max would flip Carla the bird while sailing away.

 

The 2 best scenes on the island were Max snuggling and sleeping with the creatures and Max riding on the back of one of the creatures. But I can't think of one line of dialogue that was good....it was irritating as hell.

 

And I too picked up on the biblical connotations. There was a lot of creature dialogue about "the king".....about how they weren't sure there was a king or now that they have a king, they should do whatever it says even it makes no sense. If one was trying to take one message from this movie, it could easily be that it's silly and irrational to believe in a king (or God).

 

I think it's silly and irrational for anybody to call this a great movie.

[Sir Stewart]

Well done review, up until that last line where you judge others' reactions to the film, which is always an unnecessary and ignorant move.

[jakobnicholas]

Well done review, up until that last line where you judge others' reactions to the film, which is always an unnecessary and ignorant move.

 

 

Fair enough. If some really finds it great (Rolling Stone critic Peter Travers for example), they have every right to feel that way. I guess it's not truly "silly" or "irriational" for them to feel that way. But I thought at least 1/2 of the movie was irritating, which makes it impossible for me to understand calling it "great". I can get my head around "OK" or even "good"....but 4 stars is beyond my comprehension.

[Good Old Neon]

I was SO disappointed in this movie.

 

 

I think it's silly and irrational for anybody to call this a great movie.

 

I found this interesting coming from a dude who finds Michael Savage entertaining.

 

Silly and irrational indeed.

[jakobnicholas]

I found this interesting coming from a dude who finds Michael Savage entertaining.

 

Silly and irrational indeed.

 

 

Have you seen WTWTA?

 

What do you think of it?

 

I retracted my silly and irrational statement....that's obviously subjective. But I thought the scenes on the island were very poor and goofy. Tell me why you think they weren't.

[Beltmann]

I finally saw the movie today, and came away astonished by the artistic achievement on multiple levels. I'm a little stunned by all the negative reactions in this thread. Most of the criticisms strike me as honest, perhaps, but baffling, too. When I have more time I'd like to offer a defense of the film and a rebuttal to many of the criticisms listed in here, but right now time is short so all I'm going to add is the glib pronouncement that Where the Wild Things Are might be the best movie I've seen so far this year.

[jakobnicholas]

I finally saw the movie today, and came away astonished by the artistic achievement on multiple levels. I'm a little stunned by all the negative reactions in this thread. Most of the criticisms strike me as honest, perhaps, but baffling, too. When I have more time I'd like to offer a defense of the film and a rebuttal to many of the criticisms listed in here, but right now time is short so all I'm going to add is the glib pronouncement that Where the Wild Things Are might be the best movie I've seen so far this year.

 

 

I'll agree that everything in the movie that wasn't on the Wild Things' island was VERY well done. It was understated, powerful, artistic, emotional....and the way the monsters were created and looked was perfect.

 

(Except one thing....I was sympathetic to Max up until he stood on the table and screamed and BIT his Mom. Do many kids do that?)

 

For me, WTWTA failed big time when Max was with the creatures.

 

I found a few random critics' opinions that I agree with:

 

 

"the talking beasts Max meets on an island sound like refugees from a failed Woody Allen comedy. Whining, griping, fighting, they’re every bit as irritating and mundane as neurotic next-door neighbors. You wouldn’t want to spend five minutes with these crazy people in monster skins."

 

"You don’t connect with them (the monsters). You don’t understand them. And after an hour, you — and the kids you dragged to this disaster — won’t care."

 

"While light on plot, Sendak’s book crackled with the combustible energy of adolescent anarchy and creative play – two elements severely lacking from Spike Jonze’s mopey, withdrawn feature-length adaptation.....Jonze and screenwriter Dave Eggers focus on psychological threads hinted at in the book but left in the background for those who choose to look. By bringing this emotional strife to the forefront and making it the project’s emphasis, Jonze offers “Wild Things” as a therapy session, an elaborate vehicle for investigating his own deep-rooted psychological issues regarding trust, dependence and the fear of parental abandonment......most of “Wild Things” struck me as silly and self-indulgent.....I hoped for more “wild rumpus” and was put off by the amount of psychoanalysis. To me, a more appropriate title for Jonze’s adaptation would be 'Where the Whiny Things Are.'"

[Beltmann]

I don't agree with any of those critics' comments, especially the second, which I think misses the point by a wide margin. (Super-short version: I disagree that the creatures don't work as individual personalities. But if you don't connect with the monsters as individuals, perhaps that's partially because they aren't actual characters but instead representations of various facets of Max's psychology. Carol, for example, represents the side of Max that cannot control his emotions, emotions that are intricate and baffling even to him. I cared about Carol because I cared about Max and I cared about that side of Max--they are one and the same. It's a mistake to look for rational behavior to "understand" about the creatures; after all, they are creations of a child's confused yet fertile imagination, and as such they exist according to a distinct internal logic. That logic is perfectly understandable, and perfectly accessible, to any viewer willing to groove on the intended wavelength. And I think kids, especially, are primed to understand what Jonze is up to. They may not get the metaphorical stuff, but they will latch onto the emotional truths. This is precisely the kind of thing I responded to as a kid, even if I didn't always grasp the totality of it, and even if I couldn't quite articulate what it was that I was responding to.)

 

I'll add (much) more later, when I have more time. Fortunately, there are plenty of critics who seemed to have seen the movie the same way I did.

 

What he’s ended up with strikes me as one of the most empathic and psychologically acute of all movies about childhood — a Wizard of Oz for the dysfunctional-family era... This may sound like heady stuff for kids, and it is, but no more so than what actually goes through kids’ heads as they feel their way through the world. “It’s hard being a family,” says KW late in the film — harder still being 9 or 10 and learning that parents are imperfect people, that friendships are fleeting, and that nothing lasts forever. Like Sendak before him, Jonze seizes upon that uncertain moment and transforms it into art.

[M. (hristine]

C'mon Mr. Beltmann!

[Oil Can Boyd]

all I'm going to add is the glib pronouncement that Where the Wild Things Are might be the best movie I've seen so far this year.

And that recommendation right there might be reason enough for me to go see it. (That and my 11 year old daughter who already saw it and liked it ...)

[Beltmann]

Matilda is my favorite kid's movie, and it's underlying themes are very dark.

Nice call! I love, love Matilda. I actually saw that twice in the theater, and that was before I had any kids.

[Lodestar]

And I think kids, especially, are primed to understand what Jonze is up to. They may not get the metaphorical stuff, but they will latch onto the emotional truths.

 

"Understanding" isn't really what made me take issue this film; it was the lack of any kind of narrative or character arc. The monsters may work on some psychologically representative level, but that doesn't mean they tell a story. When I asked a friend's 8-year-old daughter what she thought of the movie, she said it bored her and she didn't understand what any of the monsters' problems were.

[Beltmann]

"Understanding" isn't really what made me take issue this film; it was the lack of any kind of narrative or character arc. The monsters may work on some psychologically representative level, but that doesn't mean they tell a story. When I asked a friend's 8-year-old daughter what she thought of the movie, she said it bored her and she didn't understand what any of the monsters' problems were.

I would argue that the creatures do help tell a story, just one that works differently from standard-issue plot mechanics. The creatures are integral to the story of Max's psychological arc, which is tangible and readily understandable. And I think criticizing the movie for choosing to emphasize psychological turmoil rather than conventional plotting is rather like trying to shove the movie into a box where it doesn't belong.

 

I recognize that Jonze's approach might turn off some viewers, especially those looking for the bright highs of, say, Pixar. But for me, his approach is what makes the movie special. I'm not celebrating Jonze's design merely for being creative and different (sometimes taking chances doesn't pay off). Instead, I'm celebrating the design because I think it soars in a way that Up never did for me. I think it expresses certain emotions of childhood that are rarely evoked on screen, and observes those intricate emotions with insight and delicacy. And while some children might prefer brighter stories, I believe there are plenty of kids who will respond to Jonze's take--they are the kids too often underserved by typical kids' movies.

[jakobnicholas]

"Understanding" isn't really what made me take issue this film; it was the lack of any kind of narrative or character arc. The monsters may work on some psychologically representative level, but that doesn't mean they tell a story. When I asked a friend's 8-year-old daughter what she thought of the movie, she said it bored her and she didn't understand what any of the monsters' problems were.

 

 

Yes.

 

Perhaps Jonze should have added a couple F-words to give it an 'R' rating.....THEN film-goers could go watch it in an art-house and maybe anticipate that this would be a more adult film. If a movie is rated PG and is based on a very well-known children's book, it's almost expected that it will be entertaining in a more conventional way.

 

I can understand the idea that the Wild Things were all elements of Max's personality and that it is why they were troubled and not very articulate. But even if interesting on a psycological, thinking-man's level, I struggle to see how any of it is entertaining. How this movie got a wide release by a big studio I have no idea.

 

I saw many kids in the theatre aged 7-13 who appeared bored to tears. I heard one 10 year-old ask an adult, "why are the monster's so sad and angry?". I heard a Mom say, "Well, that was a waste of money".

[Sir Stewart]

I would argue that the creatures do help tell a story, just one that works differently from standard-issue plot mechanics. The creatures are integral to the story of Max's psychological arc, which is tangible and readily understandable. And I think criticizing the movie for choosing to emphasize psychological turmoil rather than conventional plotting is rather like trying to shove the movie into a box where it doesn't belong.

 

I recognize that Jonze's approach might turn off some viewers, especially those looking for the bright highs of, say, Pixar. But for me, his approach is what makes the movie special. I'm not celebrating Jonze's design merely for being creative and different (sometimes taking chances doesn't pay off). Instead, I'm celebrating the design because I think it soars in a way that Up never did for me. I think it expresses certain emotions of childhood that are rarely evoked on screen, and observes those intricate emotions with insight and delicacy. And while some children might prefer brighter stories, I believe there are plenty of kids who will respond to Jonze's take--they are the kids too often underserved by typical kids' movies.

 

More, please.

[Lodestar]

The creatures are integral to the story of Max's psychological arc, which is tangible and readily understandable. And I think criticizing the movie for choosing to emphasize psychological turmoil rather than conventional plotting is rather like trying to shove the movie into a box where it doesn't belong.

 

But that's not what I'm arguing. My favourite film of all time is a slow burn from Russia called The Return, which has next to no discernible plot, and which is built almost entirely on psychological turmoil. (Actually, it's a bit similar to the premise of WTWTA: two boys travel with their mysterious father to a remote island and fight with each other.) It's not the "conventional plotting" or "bright highs" I'm missing in WTWTA, but simply the notion of change, or that any of the its events matter.

 

If you're willing, I'd love to see a breakdown of Max's psychological arc. You say it's tangible and readily understandable, whereas I found it non-existent. I don't believe he's any different at the end of the movie than he is at the beginning, except maybe he's a bit sadder, and maybe he's sorry. A single interaction between him and his sister might have told me more about where he's headed than his entire confusing 90 minutes with the monsters.

[Beltmann]

If a movie is rated PG and is based on a very well-known children's book, it's almost expected that it will be entertaining in a more conventional way.

Even if that well-known book is beloved precisely for being unconventional? I'd say Jonze's first responsibility is to stay true to the spirit of the book--and I would argue that he does, brilliantly--not cater to the expectations of viewers who just want another Ice Age. Don't we have enough Ice Ages and Shreks and Madagascars? Why isn't there room for a children's movie that tries to do something unique and special, even if that means a more limited audience? I resist with every fiber of my movie-loving soul the notion that "conventional expectations" ought to be the driving standard by which to make or judge any movie.

[M. (hristine]

My favourite film of all time is a slow burn from Russia called The Return, which has next to no discernible plot, and which is built almost entirely on psychological turmoil.

Top 5 for me. It's been years since I've seen it and can still feel it. Smell it even.

[Lodestar]

I'd say Jonze's first responsibility is to stay true to the spirit of the book--and I would argue that he does, brilliantly--not cater to the expectations of viewers who just want another Ice Age.

 

But he abandoned that the second he decided to adapt it for screen, right? The spirit of the book is in the way it encourages kids to use their imaginations, barely even giving written clues. Staying true to that might have entailed a five-minute silent film. Instead, what you've got is Jonze and Eggers' interpretation of the book, with a lot of their own psychological analysis forced in there. And it was that bulk of the movie -- the stuff on the island -- that seemed incomplete and inconsequential to me.

[Dude]

If you're willing, I'd love to see a breakdown of Max's psychological arc. You say it's tangible and readily understandable, whereas I found it non-existent. I don't believe he's any different at the end of the movie than he is at the beginning, except maybe he's a bit sadder, and maybe he's sorry. A single interaction between him and his sister might have told me more about where he's headed than his entire confusing 90 minutes with the monsters.

 

Exactly. I didn't need this movie to be packaged in a neat little bow, or even follow a traditional narrative arc. I appreciate what the movie attempted to do as far as portraying Max's inner turmoil. However, I don't think the movie succeeded - I don't really feel I knew that much more about Max at the end of the movie than at the beginning. I don't feel Max really learned that much more about himself, either. There wasn't a really hard won epiphinal moment in the movie, where Max comes to some important self-realization in the process of all this. A lot of the lessons Max does learn are sort of sketchily drawn out and aren't exactly deep lessons: being king ain't what it's cracked up to be, you can't please everyone all the time, it's hard to maintain harmony in a "family", order leads to chaos, abandonment hurts. There's even some "there's no place like home" thrown in there. Not exactly the deeper pscyhological insights though I would have hoped for.

 

I kind of feel that people who claim that the movie is a disordered, morose mess because Max himself is disordered and morose emotionally are giving the movie a bit of a free pass. The fact that this is all occurring in Max's head doesn't really excuse the filmmakers from having to craft a compelling story with rich characters, even imaginary ones.

[m_thomp]

In light of all the talk about Pixar films compared to WTWTA, I don't know if you guys have seen this (I did a search in this thread and couldn't see anything):

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvIDRoO8KnM

 

I was reading an article on WTWTA this morning and they mentioned that this was an extra on the Wall-E DVD. I can't see it, on account of all internet video being banned from my workplace, so hopefully I've got the right URL.

 

On the back of the original Tron, test footage of a WTWTA scene was created using a combination of CG and traditional animation back in 1983. The idea was to sell the concept to the big wigs at Disney in order to fund a feature film using the same techniques. The concept was rejected. The co-director of the WTWTA test footage was one John Lasseter.

 

Have to wait until December to see WTWTA in the UK. Boo.