Page 1 of 37: | [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] |
Index | 369 reviews in total |
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!
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.
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!
*** 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 followas 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 abominationwhich life-sucking action I would
never recommendplease 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!"
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.
*** 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....
*** 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
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
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
wildhowling to the moonit 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 humansthey 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.
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).
*** 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 emotionallyboth
characters keep leaving the "family" to hang out with cooler friends,
breeding jealousy in Carol as Claire does to Maxbut 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 complimenta bit of a role-reversal from
father-to-son, now king-to-subjectand 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.
Page 1 of 37: | [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] |
Plot summary | Plot synopsis | Ratings |
Awards | External reviews | Parents Guide |
Official site | Plot keywords | Main details |
Your user reviews | Your vote history |