Reviews & Ratings for
Where the Wild Things Are More at IMDbPro »

Page 1 of 39:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

154 out of 211 people found the following review useful:

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

Author: captelephant from United States
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.

196 out of 298 people found the following review useful:

a child's kingdom

Author: MisterWhiplash from United States
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!

156 out of 244 people found the following review useful:

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

Author: doubleosix from Hollywood
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!

116 out of 184 people found the following review useful:

Review: Where the Wild Things Are

Author: smdonovan30 from United States
17 October 2009

Plot Synopsis: Adapted from Sendak's beloved children's book, the story follows Max (Records), a young boy experiencing both the joys and loneliness of childhood. After a fight with his mother (Keener), Max runs away; a wild rumpus ensues.

In the years since principal photography wrapped, Spike Jonze's Where the Wild Things Are has become notorious for its turbulent production. After seeing Jonze's first cut, the studio considered re-shooting the entire film, feeling that it was too dark to attract the audiences an 80 million dollar budget normally justifies. Apparently they were expecting something along the lines of Beverly Hills Chihuahua, not a poignant, complex journey into the mind of a young boy.

It's not a coincidence that Sendak refused to allow any adaptation of his story to enter production until he had hand picked Jonze to direct, feeling the director was the only one up to the task of capturing the subtle sensibilities of his classic tale. The end result is mesmerizing. Jonze's creation is a masterful piece of art, both visually arresting and exquisitely affecting. You will never see boyhood captured as truthfully on film as it is in the film's first 20 minutes. Its richness only increases when Max runs away, the events of his odyssey reflecting the depths of his psyche.

The film is as visually stunning as anything released this or any other year. The images are paired beautifully with the tone of the story, a goal many filmmakers strive for but seldom accomplish. Striking images only carry a film so far, and it's Max that gives the film its heart. Records delivers an exceptional performance in a truly complex role; he masterfully exposes Max's inner pensiveness, expressing a range of emotions most adult actors strive to demonstrate their whole careers.

Those who know me are undoubtedly aware that Sendak's book holds a special place in my heart. If anything, my feelings about the film are indicative of its successes, and should not be read as the words of a fanboy who would have adored the film regardless of its content. My expectations were astronomical, and the fact that the film exceeded those expectations are a true measure of its brilliance. It soars to heights I never could have imagined.

140 out of 235 people found the following review useful:

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

Author: chadandlili from United States
18 October 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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!"

121 out of 206 people found the following review useful:

Where the Wild Things Are - Extraordinary

Author: robertvaughn from United States
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).

84 out of 133 people found the following review useful:

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

Author: milyrake from United States
24 October 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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....

59 out of 84 people found the following review useful:

A bit misleading.

Author: karl-prinz from United States
17 October 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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.

67 out of 104 people found the following review useful:

Bold but beautiful risk for a children's book adaptation

Author: Movie_Muse_Reviews from IL, USA
16 October 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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

68 out of 106 people found the following review useful:

Brilliant film if sadness and hopelessness was its intent.

Author: wendyperrotti from United States
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.

Page 1 of 39:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another review

Related Links