Where the Wild Things Are (2009) User Reviews

These Things aren't Wild, they're just slightly troubled

[captelephant · 7/10 · 7 November 2009]

Where the Wild Things are is a well written, intelligent, and very cold drama about the often challenging interactions within a closed group of people, the complexities of leadership and the cost of selfishness.

It's not a movie about imagination or childhood at all, and it's only vaguely concerned with themes of growing up, family or maturity.

It's not wacky or funny. Not colorful or exciting. There's only about 10 minutes of what I'd call "fun" in the whole 2-hour package.

That doesn't make Where the Wild Things Are a bad movie. It just makes it completely defiant of the viewer's expectations, and thus a rather confusing film to watch.

The first time I saw this I wasn't sure how I was supposed to be taking things. Was that supposed to be funny? Is she being sarcastic, or serious? Is Max in real danger now, or not? That's not because the movie is actually confusing, but because it all seems vaguely wrong and inappropriate. I left scratching my head saying "I guess that was good?"

In the end I decided I didn't like it. I felt that this was either the wrong script for this movie or the wrong movie for this script. Either way, it didn't click for me and felt awkward to the end.

Nevertheless there is quality here, and I recommend you watch it yourself and reach your own conclusion.

A bit misleading.

[karl-prinz · 6/10 · 17 October 2009]

When I first saw that Spike Jonze and Dave Eggers were adapting "Where the Wild Things Are" into a feature-length film, one question kept coming up: how do you turn a nine sentence children's book into a movie? Unfortunately, after seeing it, the question remains. My initial reaction was that I felt dazed. Part of this reaction was derived from the awe of seeing top-notch, jaw-dropping CGI and puppetry bring the illustrations from Maurice Sendak's 1963 children's book to life. Another part was the appreciation of the fabulous voice acting of James Gandolfini, Forest Whitaker, Catherine O'Hara, Paul Dano, Lauren Ambrose, and Michael Berry, Jr., which added depth (and names) to monsters that never spoke in Sendak's book. However, the overriding reason for feeling dazed is that the viewer is unfortunately beaten over the head with heavy-handed metaphors for the duration of Max's (Max Records) time on the island.

It takes the viewer little time to figure out the role each monster plays in Max's psyche. Carol (Gandolfini) is mostly Max and represents his wildly-swinging emotions, switching from happiness to destructive anger to crushing depression with little warning, while Douglas (Cooper) is Carol's safety blanket and represents the same for Max; a friend who is nearly always obedient and agreeable. In Max's real life, we never see this person, so perhaps Douglas is an imaginary friend in Max's waking hours. At least, we can only hope he's imaginary after seeing how Carol treats Douglas.

K.W. (Ambrose) is Max's sister, Claire, not only emotionally—both characters keep leaving the "family" to hang out with cooler friends, breeding jealousy in Carol as Claire does to Max—but also physically, as both the puppet and actress (Pepita Emmerichs) have shaggy brown hair, a slow smile, and that all-too-detached teenage voice. Alexander (Dano) is Max's fear and insecurity. Physically Alexander is smaller than the rest of the monsters, which is a nice detail for a character that always feels ignored and attention-starved.

While the main conflict lies between Carol and K.W., the two most telling monsters are Judith (O'Hara) and Ira (Whitaker). These represent Max's parents. When Max stormed out of his house to begin his adventure, it was rage towards his mother that served as the catalyst, which even manifested itself in Max biting her shoulder. It's no wonder then that Judith displays all the things Max dislikes about his mother: she is the one that doubts him, questions his motives, and generally ruins his good times. If Max had stormed off into the woods after the opening sequence involving Claire's friends destroying his igloo, it would have been K.W. that played this role, while Judith would have been the reassuring, yet distant character.

Ira is most definitely Max's father, who is never shown in the film, but doesn't have to be. Max obviously longs for him and shows nothing but jealousy and anger towards his mother's new boyfriend. The most obvious clue is that Judith and Ira are the only couple on the island. Ira is a pleasant, lovable character, which is how Max would idealize his father if he was mad at his mother. Furthermore, Ira is the monster that Max goes out of his way compliment—a bit of a role-reversal from father-to-son, now king-to-subject—and Ira is the only monster that Max hugs when he departs.

It's an interesting concept, turning a children's book into Freud 101, but is seems dark and oppressive. I realize Sendak's book was visually dark, but emotionally is was vibrant and happy, much like the melody to "Wake Up" by Arcade Fire that was used in the trailer. Unfortunately, this film desperately fails to be vibrant and happy, and for a movie based on a children's book that many parents will take their children to see, it's a major flaw.

I don't know what I expected... but I loved it!

[doubleosix · 8/10 · 12 October 2009]

I attended an early screening with my 8 year old daughter; we're both big fans of Sendak in general and this book in particular, and I quite like Spike Jonze as well. But this did not prepare us for the moody, almost downbeat atmosphere through most of the film, nor the sense of immediacy and almost hyper-realism combined with astoundingly fanciful imagery. It is such an odd movie! And yet, when it was over, we turned to each other smiling a melancholy smile and said, "I loved it." The expansion of the tiny story into a feature-length film is so subtle that you barely sense it happening. There isn't an artificial new plot laid over the bones of the original -- it's simply expanded at every turn and very gently stretched out to feature length. The voice performances are wonderful, and the costumes are magnificent, as is the one major visual addition to the material (which I won't give away). Enjoy!

A very difficult story to adapt, but Jonze/Sendak did a good job

[rooprect · 1 February 2017]

If you haven't yet read Maurice Sendak's classic book, you can go ahead and do that now because its only 347 words long. This review I'm typing ended up being almost twice as long.

The point I'm making is that the original book didn't have much of a plot; its charm is in the imaginative illustrations. So the task of adapting the book to a 1 hr 41 min feature film was very ambitious, to say the least.

Let's complicate matters. In the original story the main character, Max, isn't a very likable protagonist. In almost every drawing he is shown with a malicious smirk on his face as he causes mischief such as chasing the family dog around with a fork, and then later commanding others to do his bidding with a tyrannical ferocity. I won't go into a discussion of Sendak's book, but let's just say it's not your typical cutesy fable or morality play.

Quirky and ofttimes cynical director Spike Jonze (known for the excellent "Being John Malkovich") was well suited for the job. During production, Jonze consulted Sendak himself, so we can guess that the author's original intent was mostly preserved. The result is that this is definitely no Disney flick. If you're looking to take your kid to a "Beauty and the Beast" entertainer, hmm, you might wanna look elsewhere.

Great, so if that didn't scare you off, let's talk about what's good about this film. One: they didn't corrupt the original bratty concept of Max. Although he's considerably softer around the edges than the fork wielding demonchild in the book, he's still not exactly likable, and so he's almost an anti-hero. Of course he's still a cute kid, so you can view him as that, but I like to think he's a troubled juvenile with some serious psychological issues brewing.

Two: the visuals & special effects are primo. The master puppeteers of Jim Henson's group (Henson himself died a few years prior to filming) provided amazing 7ft tall animatronic puppet suits with actors inside which were augmented by subtle cgi. In other words, to all my fellow cgi haters, this was done very tastefully. Sets and landscapes are jaw dropping, having been filmed in the majestic forests & deserts of Australia.

Three: the music is pretty cool. Composed and performed by Karen O (The Yeah Yeah Yeahs), the score and songs are edgy but still cinematic enough to blend with the film. Most of the songs are simple haunting melodies with an alternative rock vibe. If you're not familiar with Karen O, think of maybe Bjork.

Four: it has a pretty complex message that may be lost on young kids, but adults may get it. It's the idea that life's problems aren't so easy to solve, even when everyone does exactly as you say. You might even sense socio-political overtones as Max attempts to create order in his imagined kingdom while learning that you can't please everyone all the time. This is where the film deviates from the book where Max is a tyrant who imposes his rule over obedient and mostly mindless subjects. Here, the creatures have individual personalities and opinions. So in the film, Max faces the reality of making mistakes. He isn't so sure of himself, and his choices often lead him to deep regrets. I count this as a big plus, even though it may confuse young kids who are expecting a simple, digestible fairytale. Don't be surprised if your child comes out slightly confused, if not disturbed. (Note, there's a bit of violence... no blood, but a character or two might get slightly maimed).

I would categorize "Where the Wild Things Are" with other fairy tales for grownups, like "Willy Wonka" (as well as the recent remake "Charlie & the Chocolate Factory") and an obscure 70s gem with Gene Wilder "The Little Prince". This film is probably closer to the children's side than those others which were clearly skewed toward adults. That's probably where it lost a little punch in my opinion. But it's still a great flick that does a nice job honoring a classic book. By the way... wtf? Did I just use the word "socio-political" to describe a children's flick? I need to get out more :/

Sad Max

[BSHBen · 6/10 · 11 November 2009]

"I have a vision of eight-year-olds leaving the movie in bewilderment. Why are the creatures so unhappy?" – David Denby from the New Yorker

I'll start by admitting that I had very high expectations for "Where the Wild Things Are." Though I loved the book as a child I never developed a particular attachment to it. Rather, I was impressed with the audacity of the concept of adapting such a short story into a feature length film, though including a version of Arcade Fire's brilliant "Wake Up" in the preview certainly didn't hurt. I had a mixed reaction to the movie – in terms of quality I found it to be the utterly lopsided. The first half it all the right notes, eloquently capturing a child's perspective and achieving a perfect balance between the wonder of the creatures and the setting and the underlying layer of sadness. For an hour "Where the Wild Things Are" is a masterpiece. The second half, unfortunately, scraps everything but the sadness. The creatures cease to be interesting. The charm and humor disappear. I understand that Spike Jonze is trying to say something deep and meaningful about leaving childhood, understanding the limits of imagination, and learning the difficulty of pleasing other people, but the point is as subtle as a charging rhino. I haven't seen this much moping since Hayden Christianson in Attack of the Clones. It's like halfway through the production Spike Jonze left to be replaced by Thom Yorke.

The best part of the film is the first fifteen seconds. We see Max (Max Records) in his wolf-pajama costume chasing a dog around the house, and the movie pauses on a blurred close-up on his face. It's a delightful moment. Let me say something about Max Records. He's absolutely amazing in this film. He crawls, runs, and speaks the way a child would. Watch him wield his staff as king, or listen to how he explains his unlimited powers. Even when the rest of the film doesn't work Max Records is always in top form. Jonze's chief accomplishment is in capturing Max's point of view. As he crawls around an 'igloo' he build at the start of the story, the camera is close enough to make us feel like we're inside of it, too.

The introduction of the 'wild things' works just as well. The creatures are magnificent creations. They are CGI-enhanced giant puppets, but never for a second do we question their physical existence. They are alternately amusing, sympathetic, and scary. Max proclaims himself a king, dons a crown, and the fun begins. There's a delightful sequence where the wild things jump all over the place, eventually landing in a huge pile in perhaps the most magnificent effect in the movie, which is significant praise as every special effect looks great.

The setting is impressive. The cliffs and trees of the island dwarf Max. The island fades into a desert where an old English sheepdog wanders for no apparent reason. It's a great effect. The fort that Max has the wild things build is awing and creative, as is the miniature city constructed by wild thing Ira (voiced by James Gandolfini).

Jonze imbues these early scenes with some significant dramatic elements as well. Max throws an tantrum early in the film, and it feels appropriate. Curiously, the wild things start off with problems of their own. They're an unhappy, bickering bunch who've apparently eaten all of their past kings.

Max decides to organize a 'good guys' v 'bad guys' fight, an obviously awful idea that, once again, feels appropriately in character, but it's here that the film starts to fall apart. The fight, though fun (and visually spectacular) goes out of hand. Many of the wild things become angry or hurt. Fine. It's just that the wild things whine incessantly. Everyone's mad off all the time. Ira destroys his own model city. Max fears for his life. One wild thing's arm gets ripped off. I'm serious about that. The sadness is so over-the-top that it approaches parody. It gets tiring. The most egregious scene occurs when the wild things ask Max to prove his powers and act disenchanted when he cannot. The problem is that whole sequence is beside the point. The wild things aren't supposed to be rational beings who question that sort of thing. The effect is devastating to Max and the viewer. When he leaves his motivation seems to stem less from homesickness or character development than from simply wanting to get away from these angry monsters. We get the impression that everyone has had a rather miserable time. We sure have.

Maurice Sendak has praised Spike Jonze's film for keeping the essence of the material and expanding upon it. I disagree. I think the first half did that but that the second half was overfilled with boring character conflict. Two things were continuously phenomenal: Max Records' performance and the special effects. Once again, I understand the point of the darkness. "Where the Wild Things Are" is meant to be a multilayered, bittersweet story. Jonze was on the right track for a while but the essence of childhood captured so well early was replaced with waves of depression. Childhood can be sad. Jonze knows this and relates that fact well with Max's early tantrum. Pleasing everyone is difficult. Max learns that. Again and again and again and again and again. The simple fact is that this film's wild things have serious emotional issues far in excess of what the story requires.

Brilliant film if sadness and hopelessness was its intent.

[wendyperrotti · 7/10 · 21 October 2009]

Last night we went to see Spike Jonez's film adaptation of Where the Wild Things Are by Maurice Sendak. I can't say that the film was bad. Considering that everyone in our party, who ranged in age from 7 to 42, had an incredibly strong reaction to it, I have to admit that it probably is quite good. It doesn't mean however, that any of us liked it. None of us did.

As a child, I found the book a little creepy and maybe even sad, but the last images, those of Max returning to his own room on the very night that he had left it and finding his supper, left for him still warm, redeemed some of the angst of the book. Those last few lines left this little reader feeling relieved and hopeful that tomorrow would be a better day for young Max. The film offered no such relief from the considerable gloom and sadness it inflicted.

In fact, Jonez's adaptation was overwhelmingly sad from beginning to end. Worse, there was a weighty hopelessness to it all. Jonez's characters, whether human or monster were so wholly deficient that they appear forever locked in a cycle of longing for love, understanding and acceptance without any apparent means to make it happen. Not one of them presented the strength in character to make those slight alterations of growth and understanding that would break the barrier and connect with the very creature standing next to him, who although desirous of the exact same thing, is somehow rendered unreachable.

The effect was so powerful that even the chatty, joyful eight year old girl in our group left the theater legitimately depressed, an emotion that is completely new to her. If the director's intention was to leave his audience with this level of hopelessness, then the film is brilliant. I myself will not be purchasing the DVD.

a child's kingdom

[Quinoa1984 · 10/10 · 16 October 2009]

It's taken Spike Jonze a while to write, film, edit and (after some wrestling with Warner brothers over the final cut) release his adaptation of Maurice Sendak's Where the Wild Things Are. One who greatly admires filmmakers will wait especially for a filmmaker who takes his time in creating something after years of speculation. Now, the filmmaker who first came on the scene with Being John Malkovich, once again gives me a one-word response with this third film of his: Wow. Hot damn. That's two more. This is, simply, a classic work of film-making, but also on a particular subject that so few filmmakers even attempt to make let alone get right, which is what it's like to really be a child. Films that come to mind like this could also include the 400 Blows, Fanny and Alexander, (arguably) Tideland and E.T. Now here's another, and one that is directed with an original eye and an inspiration of texture and feeling, a look like out of our own wanted childhood playgrounds. Or some kind of playground.

If you don't know the story by Sendak- and to be fair it's only several pages long and its story was *loosely* used for this film- is about Max, who, not entirely pleased with his life in the real world ventures into the world of the 'Wild Things', a place where he can be king (or rather makes himself one) and tries to create a paradise with his fellow creatures. This is the main bit of what the story is "about", but how it's about it is a whole other matter. It's a movie children can see and hopefully adore, but it's more than that. What it's going for is childhood itself, what makes up a young guy who has little experience in the real world and can only really see things through imagination and in a prism of what the 'real world' represents.

We see Max in class, for example, learning about how the sun works in relation to Earth. It's a truthful but pessimistic lecture (considering to elementary school kids no less) about how one day the sun will die, and so will all life. This is carried with Max when he ventures into the world of the Wild Things, and when he mentions this to Carol there's a perplexed response to this. "It's so small," Carol says of the Sun, and while it doesn't bother him at the moment it later comes back as a bit of real inner turmoil that Carol can barely contemplate. Or anyone else for that matter. Can one really be expected as a child to understand the full scope of the sun dying out and life as everyone knows it ending? It may be billions of years away, but to a little boy it could be just around the corner.

That, by the way, is one of the brilliant things about the movie - all of Max's collected experience, and who he is as a person, and what he can see and understand around him in his family and surroundings, is represented in the bunch of Wild Things. All of Max, indeed, is split among all of them: Carol, KW, Douglas, Ira, Alexander, and a particular 'quiet' Wild Thing that barely says a word, they're all Max, and yet because of their split pieces they're never fully whole either. This makes it easy, perhaps, for Max to be crowned as their king (hey, he did lead vikings after all!), and to lead Carol's dream of a fortress for them all where "everything you would want to happen would happen." There's magical moments experienced among them, and all of the Wild Things, thanks to the Jim Henson creature shop work, are all in front of us and live and breathe as real things in this set of 'wild' locations (woods, desert, beach, rocky coast). As soon as you can open up yourself to these being real beings, not just animatronics, the whole emotional core of the film opens up as well.

But oh, it's also such an unusually, beautifully realized film. From its vivid and in-the-moment use of hand-held cinematography (and, sometimes, the stillness of looking at the creatures and Max in the backdrops), to the songs from Karen O. that are always supportive of the scenes (never the obtrusive kinds in other kids movies), to the complex relationships between all of the characters that one can see reminiscent of the Wizard of Oz, it's a piece of pop-art that lets the viewer in. Its welcoming, refreshing and kind of staggering to see someone who knows the way children think, and how we don't have to be a mixed-up little boy to identify and see ourselves in Max (and, also, how we can't fully identify with things as a child like divorce, re: Carol and KW's 'friendship'). Where the Wild Things Are works as spectacle and comedy, and as the best Jim Henson movie the man never made, so it works for children. But for adults, because it's really about *us*, it can work wonders for us too.

Let the wild rumpus start!

Not really for yound children. Great for adults who delve in psychology

[CrackDima · 7/10 · 13 March 2022]

I rewatched this film and enjoyed it more than the 1st time. I give it a 7.7% I never enjoyed the book but I do recommend this film. It brought me back to the days when I was a kid watching movies like Neverending Story and Labyrinth. There was a feeling of danger in these worlds.

Spoiler: It seems some people missed the fact that that Carol was basically a reflection of Max. And his days on Monster Island taught him valuable lessons about his own behavior back at home.

Bold but beautiful risk for a children's book adaptation

[Movie_Muse_Reviews · 9/10 · 16 October 2009]

Spike Jonze's imagining of "Where the Wild Things Are" is nothing like you'd expect from a film adapted from a beloved children's book. It's dense with top-notch visuals from the cinematography to the incredible fusion of costumes, puppetry and CGI used to bring the Wild Things to life, but its plot is very frank in its approach to anger, sadness and loneliness. It should be noted that this is not so much a children's film as it is a film that children are capable of enjoying. I refuse to insist that this is not for children, but it would be untruthful to say that this is a film *intended* for them. "Wild Things" is likely going to be appreciated most by those who already have experienced what the main character Max is going through emotionally with regards to his family and his peers (the wild things). To put a number on it, I think that -- depending on the child -- kids ages nine or older will not only be able to enjoy it, but take something away from it. As for adults, it should be a touching and somewhat nostalgic filmgoing experience. Jonze pretty much perfectly captures the essence of childhood within the first 20 minutes of this film. Whether it's the way Max (Max Records, who is excellent) looks up at his mom (Catherine Keener) from underneath her desk or his imagination taking over as he sails a toy boat over the curves of his covers, Jonze creates moments that reconnect us to childhood in simply poetic fashion. Immediately we're ready for Max's adventure to begin because he helps us so easily recall that childlike state of mind. After a bad dispute that ends with Max biting his mom, he runs away and discovers the island where the wild things are. If you've seen the trailer, nothing more needs to be said about Jonze's incredible choice to go with puppets and blend in CGI elements to give it a breath of realism. As for the characters themselves, Jonze and longtime co-writer Dave Eggers take an interesting approach. The wild things are voiced by adult actors and give them a sense humor appealing to adults, but give them the social functionality of eight-year-olds. It ends up creating this schism between what we expect will happen (they're going to behave either like children or adults, it can't be both) and what does (they carry themselves like adults, but they interact like children). The results of this concept fall somewhere between hysterically genius and bizarre/random. On one hand their child-like behavior makes for some elegant teaching points for Max and on the other you have one wild thing knocking two gulls out of the sky and then telling Max their names are Bob and Terry. It's simultaneously goofy/immature and completely fantastic. One of the challenges of the film had to be expanding the story to adapt instead of condensing like most adaptations require. Jonze and Eggers use this as a chance to establish the real world issues Max is dealing with (how to handle his need for parental attention and his anger) and manifest them in this imaginary way in the world of the wild things. The scenes with the wild things are very physical, which will help to keep children's attention. They have a dirt clod fight and go running through the forest before falling into a pile (we all know what that was like as children). Some parents who are very sensitive to what their kids see might have trouble being okay with some of the anger and other extreme emotions. If there's one good way to put it, it's that the emotional transitions can be abrupt. One minute is playful and fun, the next can instantly become lonely or sad and then immediately one of anger mild violence follows. Some might wonder why this wasn't catered more directly to kids, but if you stop and think, don't instant emotional mood swings sounds like a pretty spot-on portrayal of childhood? Jonze telling of "Wild Things" is a mature albeit truthful one. This is not pure syrupy children's entertainment. A child should come out of this movie knowing disputes between family members happen, but that it doesn't change how much we love each other -- that it's okay to get angry sometimes, but we should try and understand everyone's feelings so that next time nobody will do anything they regret. That's daring storytelling considering the expectation was for something lighter. Absolute kudos to Jonze and Warner Brothers for letting this unique film happen. You don't see movies about childhood as beautiful as this one more than once a blue moon, which is plenty cause for a wild rumpus. ~Steven C

A good movie... but not one to bring your kids to.

[sarah-557-813990 · 6/10 · 16 October 2009]

I have to say that i don't really know how to feel about this movie. From the point of view as amateur film maker, i loved this movie. it was visually stunning, remarkably well-acted, and it had a plot that had substance. From another point of view, that of the child who loved this book, I feel betrayed and let down. The book was a little dark, but the movie went above and beyond to shove anger and depression and fear down the viewer's throat. I understood the movie and thought the concept was very well executed, but this is not a children's movie. I work at the movies, and was able to preview the movie the day before release. I took my 9 year old twin sisters to see it. We had been looking forward to it for weeks, and when we left the movie, they were scared and teary eyed. (Spoiler) One of the wild things gets his arm ripped off when Carol (one of the wild things) has a temper tantrum of sorts! This is why betrayal is a word I would use to describe my feeling toward this movie. I feel that they ruined the book, a beloved CHILDREN'S book. I feel betrayed by the fact that they are advertising the movie as one that children under the age of 12 can see, and that simply isn't the case. Bottom line, this movie is good, but you shouldn't take your 6 year old to see it.

Where the boring and depressed things are

[brad-335 · 2/10 · 26 November 2009]

Incredible that so many people have well received this film -- it is long, dark both in visual terms -- but even worse, it is dark in emotional terms. "Where the wild things are" turns out to be a place where the animals/monsters are all passive/aggressive depressives. How do you take one of the best visualized children's stories that has only a couple of hundred words of text into a feature length movie? Answer: you don't. For whatever whimsy the book contains, it is distorted into a singular, overlong and morose personal version. I found the angst of the characters to be completely unengaging and most of all boring -- as did my four year old. Fantastic Mr. Fox is an incredible contrast -- wonderfully visualized with sufficient intellectual content to carry a feature length film -- and most importantly, upbeat and positive in outlook. The monsters in "Where the wild things are" really are analogues for unhappy, bitter adults with deep emotional problems -- YUCK!

"Gritty, Weighty, and All the Same Childlike...Pure Sendak!"

[beccad90 · 8/10 · 6 November 2009]

Maurice Sendak, who recently passed away, was one of the most controversial yet still imaginative authors to ever have been published. The stories he wrote are very much like Grimm's Fairy Tales: whimsical and fun, but still dark and threatening. He didn't pander or sugarcoat his stories simply because he didn't feel a need (as well as a rather unpleasant childhood that introduced him to mortality in a less gentle light than most kids, but that's another story). These come through in such books as 1981's Outside Over There, 1970's In the Night Kitchen, and, in the case of this review, 1963's Where the Wild Things Are.

The funny thing about the latter is that this book is only 9 sentences long! That's a short book, even by children's standards, despite the story being told more with pictures than words. So, naturally, director Spike Jonze and writer Dave Eggers had to go out on a limb with the extra effort if they were to successfully make a movie based on it. The effort is an interesting and impressive venture; No embellishment, no sugarcoating, just a stripped- down, but still whimsical tale of a child's curiosity and imagination.

The story is pretty much the same: Max, (Max Records, believably a kid), an imaginative, but frustrated kid gets into a fight with his stressed-out mother (Catherine Keener), runs away, and soon finds himself floating to a strange land, wherein dwell creatures that are both terrifying and fascinating at the same time. It's a simple story, but, as said before, they get across a lot with what they have.

The performances in this movie are stellar. Max Records plays Max as...well, a kid. He doesn't pander to the audience or become cloying and 'pwe-shuss' at any point in the movie. He's angry, bratty, imaginative, playful, greedy, attention-seeking, kind and all those other things a normal kid is. This doesn't make him a bad person, but it does make him humble and endearing when coming across what he sees and experiences with the titular "Wild Things." Speaking of which, these creatures not only look great, but are also something of (which has been made abundantly clear by most of the critics, but it's still there) a representation of Max himself. Take the imposing, but enthusiastic Carol (James Gandolfini, aka Tony Soprano), for instance. He's Max's pent-up frustration, creativity and longing for love. Loudmouth Judith (Catherine O'Hara, a scene stealer) is Max's brazen independence. Gentle Ira (Forest Witaker), is Max's artistic ideals. Shy Alexander (Little Miss Sunshine's Paul Dano) is Max's longing to be heard, as well as his fragile naïveté. And the gentle KW (Lauren Ambrose) is the feeling of maternity that Max has not felt from his own mother in a long, long time. Once he discovers these fragments and puts them together, he realizes that there is more love to be had at home than he realized.

The visuals in this movie are also great. The place where the island is doesn't have any magical places aside from the Wild Things themselves, but its full of trees, dirt and desert plains that are barren and empty. But, it's what they do with it that makes it impressive. They have huts made of branches, a dirt clod fight, long walks along the desert, and even the building of a huge hut. It's so massive, just like an imagination.

The only problem with this movie is that it can gets pretty depressing at times. It's probably supposed to be pushing boundaries, as the original book did, but the conversations, dialogue and themes can become quite weighty, and brings the movie to a grinding halt. This is especially true towards the end, when Carol becomes more and more savage, and tensions rise between Max and the Wild Things. But, that being said, it does give the movie some conflict and raises the stakes for Max's safe return home, despite his strong bond with these creatures.

Overall, this movie is, like the book, a portrait of childhood at its core. There's no talking down to the audience, but at the same time, it's more for nostalgic adults than kids. But, the adults that enjoyed the book will enjoy what Jones, Egger, Sendak, and this movie have to say. It also looks beautiful, with fantastic sets, creatures, and characters to ogle at. There's so much love and detail put into this movie that all that can be said is...well...

I'd eat this movie up, I love it so...even though Roger Ebert beat me to that, it's still true.

Watching as an adult you are taken back to your childhood days of escapism, and adventure and it's all blended with fun, drama and conflict!

[blanbrn · 7/10 · 17 October 2009]

"Where the Wild Things Are" is a film that kids will stand up and cheer for I as an adult haven't yet read the award winning 1963 short story from author Maurice Sendak which I plan to do so though. Anyway this film is good enough that an adult will also get some enjoyment out of, as the way it's done and blended with humor and most important of all the theme of escape yet most notable it has enough conflict and drama that all of us can relate to. And clearly as you watch from the beginning and see the need for escapism you think back to your childhood when you were bored and you thought nobody understood you, as just like Max you wanted to run away to your own little world and make new friends even if many were strange(like the film's creatures).

That's clearly what this film did as a young boy Max(Max Records) who appears out of control and is running around as he's displeased with the way that his older neighbors treat him. His older sister ignores him, plus to top it off he can't get any attention from his mom played by Catherine Keener. So after he's sent to bed one night with no supper as his eagerness got the best of him as Max even bit mother! He runs out the door thru the streets and over by the trees into the woods. And all of a sudden a boat that's private and personal appears and it's off to sailing to a new land for Max thru the rugged and rough seas! Once arriving and awakening he finds these woods are where the wilds things are! he meets the strangest looking characters who are hairy and even monster looking. The most notable and his best friend during the whole escape stay is Carol(voiced great by ex "Sopranos" boss James Gandolfini). As from the get go after talking Max convinces him that he's a special king in his new world and Carol agrees to be his guardian beast of the jungle! Max also meets odd looking creatures named Judith, Alexander, Bull, Douglas and Ira. Along the way this is an adventure come true for this little boy who builds his own club tree house and has the most fun cuddling and playing with his creature friends.

However like any kids adventure conflict and disagreement is present as Max will bring tears to his best friend Carol. As the days of swinging from trees can't last forever you even are touched when you see the tears and emotions from Carol as you think back to when you said good bye to your best friend after playing with him. So it's sailing back to the norm for Max who experienced a great journey of adventure and escapism that all kids should enjoy and most of us as kids had our own little fantasy and daydreaming adventures like Max.

Really a pretty good film to see as you as an adult will enjoy as you will have flashback days to your childhood when you felt you were another Max and had wild adventures in your own land with strange creature friends as many can relate to imaginary friends(remember!)and this adaption from director Spike Jonze was well done his sets and mixing of adventure with drama and emotions make an adult like it especially the big over sized creatures! Really a film that takes so many back to memories of their childhood as all of us had our adventure and loved to escape with imaginary friends you may feel like your watching something of Jim Henson. Though as it ends you feel a little touch of "The Wizard of Oz" as Max returns safe back home as he hugs mother he still feels their is no place like home and that all adventures must end just like Dorothy's adventure in Oz did. Still overall a film to watch that helps you revisit your childhood days and it lets your imagination run wild.

Book: Boys will be boys. Film: Boys will be maladjusted demons.

[chadandlili · 1/10 · 18 October 2009]

This film jumps around between gravely disturbing, mind-numbingly tedious, naively innocent, and severely depressing. Our nearly seven-year-old daughter and her friend were bored to tears, our two-year-old was freaked out, and our whole family felt simply awful afterwards. What a waste of time, money, nerves, and my 35th birthday!

(Warning! Minor spoilers follow—as if anything could spoil the viewing of this movie more than the movie itself.)

The film's main message seems to be that just because your parents get divorced, or your monstrous girlfriend moves out, or your older sister starts hanging out with other friends instead of you, or your mom starts dating again, or, worst of all, she decides to cook frozen corn instead of "real" corn ... does not mean that it is acceptable behavior for you to trash someone's bedroom, bite someone's shoulder, destroy someone's house, or tear someone's arm off. If only you would finally pull back that wolf hood and realize that your demented actions have exhausted your poor mother (and an entire audience).

The filmmakers somehow manage to deliver their message in a simultaneously heavy-handed and vague way. Most viewers will not grasp it, and those few who do will probably not have need of it. If you dare watch this cinematic abomination—which life-sucking action I would never recommend—please understand that you will be subjected to displays of emotional instability the likes of which have not been witnessed since Anakin Skywalker graced the screen. At least Anakin had a cool lightsaber to vent his frustrations; besides using a fork and his teeth, our dear friend Max can do nothing but track snow into the house, defiantly stand on the kitchen counter, and conjure up a pile of dysfunctional overgrown tater tots (and a goat) to help him explore every ugly facet of his consciousness.

You should also be prepared for some ambiguity: I believed for an overlong period that Max's older sister was actually some across-the-street neighbor that Max had a crush on, so imagine my surprise when Max's mother suddenly asked the girl to clear her things off the table for dinner! Another confusing bit is the fact that the main tater tot-creature is named Carol even though he is male, and this character is first seen when he is destroying houses for a reason which will remain unclear unless you can decipher his shouts amidst all the bangs, booms, and gnashing of teeth.

The movie has an air of being steeped in symbolism or in child psychology, but really all that comes across is alarming juvenile psychopathy with a shallow, incomplete, and one-sided resolution.

Several inconsistencies appear in the film, the most upsetting of which has to do with physical injury. When one character is sharply struck with a dirt clod, his resulting wound and suffering are clearly evident; yet when another character loses his arm in a scene which is not graphic but still gruesome, the filmmakers conveniently gloss over any expected pain and replace it with a cheesy joke. How inappropriate and insulting!

The movie is not at all a delightful adaptation of a beloved children's book. It provides absolutely no entertainment for children or adults. Its seeming claims to educational value are far from viable. It embodies a perfect recipient of the complaint relegated to poor films: "That's two hours of my life I'll never get back!"

A Calligraphic Camera Writes the Imagination

[tedg · 1 November 2009]

This is a huge success, and I believe that it will reach that status now called "classic," being experienced over and over in whatever ways that classics will in the future.

I'll let others note the purity in the way that sharp childhood is evoked. It is the emotional center of the thing. I'll be more interested here in noting the cinematic use of space. Jonze is famous for this, and how he can connect it to the folds in the narrative.

"Folds" in this context have to do with nesting of narrative elements. For instance the "real world" segments feature eating (twice), fort (twice), snowball fight, wild suit, pileon, pulling at toes, lost marriage, broken model of a heart, being king, son/sun dying and so on. The "wild world" features the same things twisted in ways that suggest the real narrative describing the inner character of Max. This "folding" gives us a place to stand and engages us more deeply, as a key narrative device. There is even a smaller inner fold where Carol (the Max surrogate) makes a model of his world, hidden in the desert. And another where Max enters KW.

I am more interested in the spatial folding. Yup, the way that Jonze has decided to set up and elaborate a vocabulary of movement.

Here's what we have, I think. I have only seen this once and will have to wait for DVD study to confirm it.

The scenes I am working with here are the ones with physical motion, where both the camera and the subjects move: the dogchasing, snowball fight, the amazing encounter with the waves when approaching the island, the rumpus and then the dirtball fight. Frozen motionpaths are in the fort's appendage, the "pile," and indicated by the stickweaving in the global fort and houses.

I believe these all use the same motion template. When someone invents a movie annotation tool where we can find and describe this, it will be easy to check and show. Right now it is an impression, but I got the feeling when watching that wave scene (in IMAX) that I would see the same motion paths in the forthcoming rumpus. Perhaps it was the appearance of the ululating sound that was used every time something got frantic, and by that time twice already. Perhaps it was the obvious reference to the Hokusai woodblock ("The Great Wave off Kanagawa"), where a wild wave becomes an actor, a wild thing dwarfing an iconic mountain, whose shape I thought I also saw on-screen.

I would not be surprised either if Spike used a sigla to denote this motion (like Joyce does in "Finnegans Wake") and that the sigla was KW, denoting the actual paths, the K in plan and the W in the vertical plane. Thus, KW swallowing/eating Max, apart from the obvious vaginal association also takes on a deeply cinematic one, worthy of "Adaptation." I know the work on this was done in Melbourne. Could it be that this apparent one-man shop "Digital Rein" managed this? In an unconnected area, am I misremembering? I recall the phrase was "Let the Wild Rumpus Begin!" (not "start").

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

Where the (Safe) Things Are

[KevBlu42 · 6/10 · 16 October 2009]

WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE (2009)

While I mildly enjoyed this movie, I felt that director Spike Jonze played it entirely too safe. To me, he could have really gone one of two ways when making the film. The first of which would be to go completely dark and create a movie aimed at adults, which would probably frighten most young children. The second way would be to create a true family/kids movie, but this would probably scare away the coveted young adult demographic.

He instead played it straight down the middle, creating a film that unfolds like a cinematic identity crisis. Huge fans of the book might love it, but I'm not sure Jonze is truly going to connect with any particular group of viewers.

Newcomer Max Records stars as Max, a mischievous young boy whose igloo is destroyed in the opening scene by his sister's friends. After throwing a tantrum he seeks comfort in the form of his mother, played by Catherine Keener. Unfortunately, his mom is a bit preoccupied by the presence of her boyfriend, played by the fabulous Mark Ruffalo (can you blame her?). Max then throws another fit, which ends with him biting his mother before running away.

Max hops on a boat and sails out to an island where he finds a group of monsters destroying things. Max feels right at home and joins in on the fun. After a brief discussion and some ridiculous storytelling by Max, the monsters (voiced by James Gandolfini and Forest Whitaker, among others) decide to crown Max their king. Max and the monsters continue their fun for what seems like an eternity until we predictably reach the conclusion and moral of the story.

For some reason, Jonze found it necessary to use shaky hand-held shots almost exclusively throughout the entire movie. Not only was this distracting and tiring, but a lot of the shots also seemed out of focus. This technique took away from the true beauty of the film, which was the visually stunning environment of the island.

The overall set design and art direction was awe inspiring and the beautiful score always set just the right tone for each scene. Keener was fantastic as always, even with her limited screen time. The endless banter between the monsters was frequently entertaining enough to keep me interested amongst all of the mayhem.

Perhaps I set my expectations a bit high for this movie based on the trailer and my appreciation for the director's other films (ADAPTATION and BEING JOHN MALKOVICH). It might also have something to do with the fact that I'm not a huge fan of the book, unlike much of the audience I was a part of. WATCHMEN, a film I thoroughly enjoyed, faced a similar problem with some viewers when it was released earlier this year. Either way, WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE left me unfulfilled and disappointed that an opportunity to create a masterpiece was missed.

Rating: 6/10

There isn't anything "Wild" about this film

[garrettderose · 6/10 · 19 October 2009]

I had more excitement and anticipation for this movie than the Star Wars prequels. I mean, I had a lot of personal investment in this movie. The trailer(s) are SO misleading. I understand that trailers are to hype people into going out and seeing said movie. Hence, why some snoozers will display every piece of action in the film (in the trailer) to draw a broader general-public-ADD audience.

I was expecting this to be a celebration of imagination and the mind of a child. I wasn't expecting this to be a long drawn-out sob-fest. The dialog is horrific, even if it's being conjured in a kid's head. The creatures and the island are awesome! Those two things alone are worth the price of my admission. I just don't understand why they'd take this PG movie and make it so dark and dreary. The source material isn't the brightest, cheeriest thing I've ever seen - but it wasn't full of angst. That was this movie's problem... there was an overwhelming amount of angst.

Even the 'fun' scenes had a touch of emo-melancholy bull-crap that ruined itself.

I foresee a bunch of shoe-gazers/emo kids getting hoodies/purses/backpacks/tattoos riddled with these characters. If this movie is a celebration of anything, it's the celebration of mindless dark/emo twists on children's stories - which happens to be quite the trend now (just wait for Alice in Wonderland)...

Thanks Spike and Co.

This film may have received the author's blessing - but I stand firmly against the mood of this film. All it needs is more silly and less serious. Is that too much to ask? I mean, this isn't a courtroom drama. This isn't The Lovely Bones.. this is a Children's BOOK! It's a book about rebellion, and the return back to family. Though those are a bit serious subjects in nature - they aren't displayed in such an emo way.

I'd hate to consider myself a 'book purist', but what I enjoyed out of Where the Wild Things Are is completely exempt from this film.

I'm giving this a "6" for it's technical achievements. Jim Hensen company will always have my respect. I just wish they would've found a way to keep the animatronic heads.

All and all - don't take your kids to see this. Well, hold on... if you have a kid with a swoop haircut with scars on their forearms/wrists, you should bring them to this movie. They'll enjoy it, then stand in the rain for a hour to think about it.

*sigh*

Will you keep out all the sadness? Where the Wild Things Are

[jaredmobarak · 9/10 · 13 October 2009]

The movie is rated PG, but I will say that its dark overtones could be a bit much for really young children. Is it to the point where rumors swirled that it might have been completely re-shot due to Jonze's vision being too scary for its target audience? I don't think so, but buyer be warned anyway. Sendak's book shows a glimpse of temper and anger, a child acting out after not getting what he wants, soon becoming the king of a band of giant monsters looking for direction much like him. These beasts are the manifestations of our sorrow, our frustration, and our demons; they are the voices living within us, kept down by self-control and overcome by happiness and love. However, when those emotions are brought to life, unchecked, the end result can be nothing short of war, retribution, and malice. It becomes the duty of young Max, the creator of this imaginary world, to not only discover the love he has waiting back at home, but also to defeat the anger that has been bubbling to the surface, allowing him to even bite his mother in this cinematic version. We all need some time to let loose and run wild—howling to the moon—it is what we do after the burst of energy subsides that counts. Sometimes looking into a mirror is the only chance we have of becoming the people we should and hope to be.

Eggers and Jonze add so much depth to the tale, creating a world and life for Max, (Max Records), to take for granted. His father is, assumingly, deceased; his mother, (Catherine Keener), is busy supporting the family when not trying her best to cultivate Max's imagination and court a new boyfriend, (Mark Ruffalo); and his sister is at the age where acting cool for her friends trumps any remorse or sibling bond with a lonely and tossed aside brother. As KW, (Lauren Ambrose), says later on in the film, "It's hard being a family". Everyone is trying their best and working hard to stick together, but as Judith, (Catherine O'Hara), ponders, "Happiness isn't always the best way to become happy". Loneliness is a huge theme here, and we all face it, even when surrounded by people we live with and cherish. To be able to accept others, one must always be able to accept oneself. This becomes the biggest obstacle for Max to overcome, right alongside his fantastical equal in Carol, (James Gandolfini). The two are kindred spirits, wanting to stay in the past where they remember happier times, throwing tantrums and fits if they don't get their way, unknowingly pushing those they want closer, further away as a result.

It is some weighty stuff to deal with for both children and adults alike; a parable that spans all ages with its intrinsic focus on compromise, sharing, and seeing what is right in front of us for the pure gift it can be. Kudos to the filmmakers for never shying away from the darkness that inhabits each and every one of us; when the world begins to crumble, characters get angry, cause destruction, or cower in fright at what may happen next. We all fear the unknown, we all get scared when we see someone we love in trouble, but sometimes we forget that those by our side fear for us too when it is we who are lost. The true success of this story and film lies in the little things, like Alexander, (Paul Dano really adding some feeling to this ram-like beast), and Douglas, (the always wonderful Chris Cooper), knowing the game going on with Max, but trying their best to let the others be happy, even at the detriment of their own joy. Here are the two unselfish creatures in a land of egos. The other "wild things" prop up the film as well, however, in their vocal performances as well as puppetry. If you ever thought that costumed monsters from Jim Henson Studios couldn't make you cry, or at least feel something, you will know they can before the end credits roll.

Where the Wild Things Are needs these fantastical beings to have the emotional range of a human being in order to succeed. It also needs young Max Records to bear a large portion of the weight on his shoulders; he is alone on screen with the "wild things" for about eighty percent of the film. I will admit to being pretty confident on the first point, but a bit skeptical on the second after watching the trailer, (how beautiful is that mini-movie with Arcade Fire playing in the background?). However, I was completely wrong about Records, because his innocence is what keeps this tale pure. His childlike expressions of joy and fright are utterly realistic, taking him on a journey inside himself, discovering what it is to grow up and accept responsibility for oneself and those around him. As for the wild bunch of half animals/half humans—they are absolutely brilliant. The art direction is phenomenal and the use of practical effects meshed with CGI, (mostly in the faces), provides a sense of realism that fully computerized beings never could. Heck, even that Karen O soundtrack that I was so disappointed in last week became a magical score that breathed life into this classic story. I truly believe this film will become the treasured piece of art that its source material has. It deserves all the praise it gets for its ability to touch each audience member to the core, without ever preaching. It will touch you on a level so pure that you won't know what hit you, and you'll be remembering it hours afterwards, wanting to find that person you love so as to give them a hug to let them know how important they are to you.

Not for everybody...

[joesoundman · 6/10 · 14 May 2021]

A creative boy, very sensitive at his age (as children can be at times), feeling disenfranchised with his family, seemingly with no obvious close friends, whose hurt feelings don't dawn on anybody, escapes away to an island filled with the unpackaging of his mind, in the form of fantastical creatures which he tries to corral, cajole, correct. In a sense, his experience is one of primal therapy, kid style.

It's done very well, but one must consider that Max is presented as a somewhat glass-half-empty type, and glass-half-full types would likely find the movie at times boring, melancholy, and overall unfulfilling. But the half-empties could easily identify with it, and even allow some positive catharsis in it, as Max did, in its conclusion.

So I guess I'd go out on a limb here and say it would be quite a good movie for some kids (and some adults still feeling the lonely child lurking around within them), while some other kids would likely say nope to it. And it's a film not exactly for kids, tho camouflaged as one. Definitely not a film that can be "judged by its cover".

As in the book, the experience is a dream, tho not one at night nor in a bed. Max's wolf suit, hopelessly grimed up via days of his dream escapades, is not so when he returns home.

It's done well, but dark. The science teacher, who could have gone in any number of directions in his dissertation, chose a gloomy tack. Even the lighting is dark save for the occasional sunny period. Technically it is superb. The boy is a gifted young actor. But I would offer that if you have a happy kid this is not a film for them. And if not? Well, this flick could actually be a comfort. But maybe you should gauge it yourself first.

Redefining the adaptation

[moviemanMA · 9/10 · 17 October 2009]

Where the Wild Things Are, one of the most beloved children's books, comes to the big screen in one of the most highly anticipated films of the year. Spike Jonze, the man responsible for Being John Malcovich, Adaptation, and several Beastie Boys music videos including "Sabotage", brings the tale to life. I must admit, I have been anxiously awaiting this film for several months, something I don't like to do too often as it sets up for a potential major let down.

Well, that didn't happen this time.

We follow Max (Max Records), a boy who is lonely and misunderstood. His sister doesn't pay attention to him, his mother is busy with work and her boyfriend, and he has worries at school. All he wants is attention and to belong. One night, he finally breaks and runs away. He makes his way to the woods and to the waters edge. There he finds a small boat and set out on the open sea, leaving everything behind him.

He comes across an island and goes ashore. There he finds a group of monsters in turmoil. Max seizes his opportunity and confronts the group. He tells them that he is a great king and help them solve their problems.

I don't want to give too much of the story away because I feel like telling it would ruin some of the magic. This is one of the most visually pleasing films I have seen in a long time. Jonze filmed in Australia. We are given vivid landscapes of lush forests, arid deserts, and beautiful shorelines, culminating in an almost Lord of the Rings like experience. These spectacular settings would rarely be beaten in magnificence in another film, but here they come second to the unbelievable special effects used for the monsters.

There are seven monsters on the island. Carol, Ira, Judith, KW, Douglas, Alexander, and The Bull. They all have unique features and are of massive size. Jonze could have gone two ways here. He could have completely made them all CG or he could have gone Jim Henson and turned them into Muppets. Instead, he carved a third path and combined the other two options. Max is able to interact extremely well with the gigantic puppet/suits, but the faces are edited with computer graphics, giving them startlingly realistic features and expressions. Making these monsters any different way would have been disastrous.

Another key aspect of the monsters is giving them a voice. Jonze chose excellent voice actors with James Gandolfini, Forrest Whitaker, Catherine O'Hara, Lauren Ambrose, Paul Dano, and Chris Cooper. They each have their own personality that compliments their physical and emotional characteristics.

Aside from the monsters, I was very impressed with Max. He is asked to do a very demanding thing: be a kid. That sounds easy, but it is very easily messed up. I'm interested in finding out how much freedom Jonze gave Records in certain scenes that called for him to go "wild". I can imagine directing young actors is not the easiest thing to do, but sometimes you catch a break when you get a talented one.

Giving life to these characters is a spectacular screenplay by Jonze and Dave Eggers (who wrote Away We Go). Their writing speaks to both kids and adults, using language that is meaningful and easy to understand. The things Max goes through every child feels growing up: loneliness, fear, belonging, etc.

There is so much to love about this movie. It speaks to the heart. But before you head out with the whole family, heed this warning. Some parts of this film might be too intense for younger audience members. Certain scene involving the monsters might be a bit too overwhelming. Yes, these monsters are friendly, but they are monsters, meaning they are large, intimidating, and somewhat scary.

Where the Wild Things Are will satisfy, entertain, and open your eyes. Spike Jonze poured everything he had into this film and the wait was well worth it. I hope you will fall under its spell just as I did.

Too Long and Pointless

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 21 June 2011]

An adaptation of Maurice Sendak's classic children's story, where Max (Max Records), a disobedient little boy sent to bed without his supper, creates his own world--a forest inhabited by ferocious wild creatures that crown Max as their ruler.

Mark Ruffalo played the boyfriend? Really? I totally did not recognize him.

This film runs a bit on the long side, especially given how short the source material is. I am also unclear what the point is. If we are supposed to feel bad for the boy, I guess it failed on me. He was a trouble-maker and disrespectful. If my kids are ever like that, they better not expect to get away without getting punished.

The creature effects were actually pretty good (thanks, Jim Henson Company) and were a lot of fun. Not sure about the celebrity voices... if you cannot see the actor, why not just hire someone unknown for less? Did many people really flock to this film to hear James Gandolfini's voice?

I think Saw VI would have felt more uplifting than this.

[milyrake · 1/10 · 24 October 2009]

Seriously, that was one of the most bring you down, feel bad, downer movies I have ever seen. I honestly didn't get it. The wild things were mean to each other, the wild things were mean to the boy, no one was happy (especially my kids), the wild things had scowls on their faces the whole time and walked around in a kind of trance like state glaring and yelling at each other. If there was ever a hint of happiness it was quickly followed by some rude remark or mean comment to stifle the mood. I kept thinking to myself, "why did he do that" or "why did he say that", it made no sense.

The movie begins with the boy being mistreated by his sister, and then yelled at by his mom so he runs away. Then the sad feelings continue as the wild things act the same way towards each other. At one point when, Carol, goes completely bonkers and rips the arm off of his 'friend' and then tries to hit Max and then chases him through the woods, I felt like I HAD taken my kids to Saw!

If you've ever had any negative, sad, depressing or horrible experiences during your childhood/adolescence, then go see this movie, and they will all come flooding back....

Where the Wild Things Are - Extraordinary

[robertvaughn · 9/10 · 18 October 2009]

A beautiful, audacious, roughly-hewn motion picture (adjectives that are no doubt overused in describing the picture's modus operandi), Spike Jonze's adaptation Maurice Sendak's adored children's book "Where the Wild Things Are" taps into the innocent, volatile world of a 9 year old boy the way few mainstream feature films have. It is original, unique, melancholy, and because of this several mainstream critics (and even lucid critics like Salon's Stephanie Zacharek) have derided the film. "There's no story"; "kids won't like it"; "it's an adult film about children, not a children's film"; "it's boring"; "the pacing is slow"...

What? Why did it become such a crime to make an abstract art film within the spineless confines of the Hollywood system? Doesn't Spike Jonze get credit for personalizing, therefore, retaining a substantial amount of voracity while delving into one of the most revered children's books of the last fifty years? What the hell is wrong with that? I understand that some people just don't respond to the abstract, pseudo-verisimilitude of pretentious art films, but there's a stripped-down purity to this picture that cannot be denied. It's not pretentious, but emotional and honest.

It's bold, it takes chances...why is it being chastised in the media? How often do we get movies like "Where the Wild Things Are"? It should be celebrated, not snidely dismissed (Ex. Lou Lumenick, NY Post).

Wild in a for-children way...which is fair enough. Inventive and warm.

[secondtake · 7/10 · 6 March 2012]

Where the Wild Things Are (2009)

Well, the book is great beyond qualification. The movie takes the basic ides of the book and stretches it very far into an hour and forty minutes, and it's sometimes wonderful, but there are a lot of parts that need patience, or just complete submission. It's too long, period.

The basics are this--a wild kid named Max leaves his slightly dysfunctional family and ends up in a make-believe island where friendly monsters reside. And he talks them into becoming their king. The family interplay among the monsters echoes the routines of regular people (and there are some direct echoes of Max's real family). It's kind of a cozy film, with very nice animal/monster characters you can totally relate to, especially in a kind of warm Jewish-American family kind of way (in the best sense, not the caricatures, but the kind of families that maybe the author and screenwriter and director is familiar with). It's not animated, but clearly some kind of special effects are at work to fit the characters together.

If you are a Six Feet Under fan, and a Claire Fisher fan, the voice for the slightly rebellious (of course) female monster is the same actress, Lauren Ambrose. And there are other great voices from great actors, too, like Forest Whitaker and James Gandolfini.

The deepest parts of the movie are quite touching and probing--asking in fact about loneliness, or the end of the sun, or trust. Big stuff for little kids. But it works. It's cute and subtle at the same time.

Of course, the big lesson has to do with Max's real family, left behind. And this gets a fast resolution that is perfect because we know it's coming, somehow, and we're ready for it. And if our interest is in the monster land, our sympathies are with mom, and how life will get back to being okay after all. In some ways it's a brilliant, great movie--the attitude, the family dynamics, the basic story--and in other ways it's just too much too thin. You'll see.

this movie sucked, did not tie together

[orangesaregrape · 3/10 · 14 November 2009]

As a child i remember reading "Where the wild things are" many, many times. When i discovered that there was a movie in production, i couldn't wait to see it.. i even followed it on twitter! After watching the movie, i can say that i am deeply disappointed with it. What a major letdown! Firstoff, i'd like to say that this movie did not follow the book! i understand the book was short, but come on, at least it kinda made sense! this movie is possibly the worst movie i've ever seen! i was sitting in the theater with my friends, who were all fans of the book, and we were all lost halfway through the movie!I found quite a few flaws with the plot of the movie: Not all the monsters are as wild as max himself, Carol's model of the island did not actually match the island, when Carol's face is stepped on, it's a big deal, but when he pulls off Douglas's' arm, it's no biggie, Max never solves any of the monsters problems by the time he leaves, in fact, he makes it worse, why didn't the monsters respond after Max made the snow fall after doing his dance, it is never explained what Carol has against Terry and Bob, or why he can't hear them, it is also never explained what is going on between Carol and K.W., also, unlike the book, the movie doesn't accurately portray Max's personality, it is never explained why don't the monsters try and eat Max when he was one of the worst kings the ever had, what's the big deal with a king's secret chamber, and finally: WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH THE GIANT English SHEEPDOG?!? In one part of the movie, you can even see someone's fenced-off estate, I THOUGHT THIS ISLAND WAS SUPPOSED TO BE WILD!!! This movie sucked... i want an hour and a half of my life back.