Where the Wild Things Are
Movie Review
"Where the Wild Things Are"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: B-
Rating: PG
Released: Friday, October 16, 2009
Directed by:
Cast:
First of all, "Where the Wild Things Are" is not a kids movie. Its content is not inappropriate -- no more so than plenty of animated films -- but its style, tone, and structure would bewilder young children, if not bore them outright. It's a movie about childhood, for adults.
With its screenplay by literary hipster hero Dave Eggers and soundtrack by the lead singer of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, plus Spike Jonze's playful but melancholic directorial style, the film seems aimed at a particular type of adult, too: the type who knows who Dave Eggers, the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, and Spike Jonze are.
This isn't a failing, mind you -- it just reduces the film's pool of potential admirers. I find myself in the shallow end of that pool. I like many things about the movie and admire it as an exercise in recreating the logic of childhood imagination. Parts of it are truly beautiful. But as a whole, it just didn't connect with me. I kept wanting to like it more than I was liking it, and enjoying a film shouldn't require that kind of effort.
It's based on Maurice Sendak's classic children's book, of course, and I believe all nine sentences of it are represented in Eggers' screenplay (which by necessity introduces far more plot elements than the original contained). Max (Max Records), an energetic and mischievous boy of about 10, spends most of his time at play -- with his teenage sister (Pepita Emmerichs) and his mom (Catherine Keener) when he can get their attention; by himself the rest of the time. Like most little boys, he can turn the couch cushions into a fort and the carpet into molten lava anytime he pleases, and his imagination keeps him company. Still, you can see his face light up when he manages to engage his sister and her friends in a snowball fight.
Max's life is ordinary. His mother, who is single, adores him, but she's busy. His sister is a typical teenager. What Eggers and Jonze capture perfectly, though, is the fact that to a little kid, nothing is ordinary. Everything matters a lot, even if it's the same thing happening to all the other kids. Children feel complicated emotions just like the rest of us; they often just lack the means to express or understand them. That's where imagination comes in.
After Max's surplus of enthusiasm and playfulness leads him to misbehave when mom's boyfriend (Mark Ruffalo) is visiting one evening, he dashes out of the house and into his own land of make-believe. He sails to an island inhabited by large, toothy monsters, whose de facto leader, Carol (voice of James Gandolfini), sees in Max a kindred spirit. "I like the way you destroy stuff!" he tells Max admiringly.
The other creatures -- some of which vaguely resemble specific animals, some of which are pure fancy -- are curious about Max. There is talk of perhaps eating him. But Max tells them he was a king where he came from, and so the monsters are glad to have him as their king, too.
Max's sojourn among the wild things doesn't have a regular "plot," and the events unfold at a very leisurely pace. This is intentional: It's the way a little boy making up a story would conceive it. The monsters' personalities aren't very well defined, and sometimes they say things that don't make a lot of sense, dialogue-wise. Max gets the wild things excited about building a fort with "a swimming pool, with a bottom that's a trampoline!" You can picture a kid coming up with all of this off the top of his head.
Yet hidden within this simple scenario is a running theme that, like many children's stories, owes something to "The Wizard of Oz." The monsters' interactions with each other and with Max reflect Max's own real-world fears and anxieties. Carol feels bad about losing his temper sometimes, just as Max does. He's at odds with KW (Lauren Ambrose), a female monster who used to be his friend but lately doesn't have time for him. One creature, Judith (Catherine O'Hara), is frequently suspicious of Max, doubting his motives and abilities. I wouldn't go so far as to say that each wild thing represents a particular facet of Max's psyche, but that's what they add up to. Max's time with them is like a therapy session that helps him work out his problems back home.
All of this is interesting to contemplate afterward, but while it's happening it's only fitfully entertaining. The film is lacking as a whole; it's individual moments and scenes that make it worth seeing. Max's strangely moving relationship with Carol. Odd details like the monster Ira (Forest Whitaker) putting holes in all the tree trunks. The practical, un-computerized design of the creatures, made by Jim Henson's company, and the realistic look of the scenery and set design. For an imaginary world, it's pretty down to earth.
And Max Records, now 12 years old, didn't get the part just because he shares the character's name. His performance is pure delight, easily the single best thing about the film. It might not sound like much for a kid to play a part where he has to act like a kid, but consider how few children in movies seem like real kids. Records does it, giving the fictional Max a lovable exuberance and sweetness that instantly endears him to the viewer. "Where the Wild Things Are" is an auspicious beginning for him, but I suspect even better films are in his future.
Grade: B-
Rated PG, a little very mild language, adventure action
1 hr., 41 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 17 comments
October 16, 2009 at 3:39 am
I hate the Yeah Yeah Yeahs and still managed to enjoy every single second of this movie. Max was PERFECT. His face in the very last scene in the movie made me cry.
I just thought the whole thing was a work of art.
The theater I saw it in was full of teenagers and adults, and all of them came out with a smile on their face. A few of them were howling. I think Spike Jonze did what he set out to do.
October 16, 2009 at 4:53 am
So, you didn't like the movie cause hipsters made it? Lame review. Hipsters made 500 Days of Summer, Eternal Sunshine, and Garden State did that lessen the quality of those films for you too? By your logic, I should excuse anyone that doesn't like a Quentin Tarantino film if they aren't considered a fanboy. I'm pretty sure you gave glowing reviews to all Wes Andersen films. Maybe, this isn't a case of you not liking this for its hipster qualities (which prevented you from connecting). You've done better jobs of explaining why you don't like a film. Grading one lower cause of the hipsters that worked on it is rather stupid. Amen.
October 16, 2009 at 11:48 am
So, you didn't like the movie cause hipsters made it?
One, I did like it. I just didn't love it. Two, no. As I said, the hipster origin "isn't a failing, mind you -- it just reduces the film's pool of potential admirers." People who don't relate to the mindset a film comes from might not appreciate it as much as those who do. Some films (like the ones you mentioned, in fact) are good enough to transcend limitations like that and touch a broader audience; I just don't think this is one of those films. Or at least it wasn't for me.
October 17, 2009 at 11:08 am
Although I, like Eric, find myself on the shallow end of the hipster pool, I quite enjoyed this movie, and so did my wife (who hasn't even stuck her toe in the water). I thought it was emotionally moving beautifully executed. My wife found herself tearing up during several scenes, and she never cries in movies. To each his own, I guess.
October 19, 2009 at 7:11 am
Marketed to children with Sendak on board. Shame shame on you! Money grubbing Movie Makers. This is not a movie for the group that is clamoring to go. Of course. They knew that. I am sick of the "they are older then you as stupid parents know". Yes, they are. Thanks to the Media. This does not mean that we should embrace age inappropriate media named after childrens stories. Sorry. Your not getting my support. My kids still play outside and can learn to handle emotions from their parents, books but not Jonze.
October 19, 2009 at 3:07 pm
What a disappointment, this movie took and award winning children's book and turned it into propaganda and pure trash. Not suitable for young children or sensitive adults.
It was like having a fine antique crushed in a garbage truck with all the filth and political messages covering it with slime.
I give it a half a star because the costumes were good.
October 20, 2009 at 7:54 am
I think this movie shows what can be produced when a director is passionate about their work and not just out to get a buck. The attention to detail was amazing and the nostaglic feelings of childhood, good and bad, made me tear up as well. Job well done--captured the essence of the book perfectly and elaborated the story with so much respect for the original that it blended in seemlessly.
October 20, 2009 at 8:51 am
There is very little actual good in the MOVIE. The good:
mother's love, hard work and patience
monsters accepting the boy without eating him for his lies and stupidity
KW saving max
The bad: no story line, no climax, no ending
the movie implies that it's ok to think only about yourself, that you are always right, disrespect your parents, LIE (it's a big one), break other's stuff, not help your mother, take advantage of other's love for you, take advantage of those that trust you, run away from problems that you create, scream and go crazy without any restraint
The story in the movie was a disappointment, this is not a movie for kids or adults who don't have the attachment to the book.
October 20, 2009 at 2:20 pm
I took my grandchildren to this movie. It was not for kids. It is all about a boy that is lonely, mean and the entire movie goes right down the same path. Animals are hateful, mean.
Teaches kids no respect for adults. Several family's walked out.
October 20, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Animals are not hateful nor are they mean. Ms. Christine I think you have gone out of your realm of informative knowledge in this endeavor. Animals are simply animals, and that is all they are.
Anyone who thinks differently clearly has a more mythological view of the animal in question and could possibly need more help than can be offered over the internet.
The point of the movie is not to teach children respect nor is it to teach them anything. it is a story, and that's all it is, a simple story to be enjoyed by the masses.
October 21, 2009 at 7:55 am
Apparently some of the people here (Kay, Dsamus, and Christine) saw a vastly different movie than the one I saw...I saw a movie about a good kid going through tough times, and who learned a lesson before going back home. I was completely confident that he'd become a better-behaved kid, who was now better able to relate to his world.
Political messages?! Huh?!?! Propoganda? Someone must've really done a number on you before you headed into the theater--you'd have to have already had things you were expecting to see, because they sure weren't there to begin with! Like the phallic castle tower on the Little Mermaid video cover...
October 21, 2009 at 11:19 am
Snider is right on with his review and it doesn't matter if you're a hipster or not. I could fall into what one might call the "hipster" category...though I hate the term and reference altogether. The production was beautiful and the music was great. The boy was amazing. The tone wasn't the problem- if you're judging the movie in and of itself. This movie, however dark, failed not because of its tone but because of it failed execution of matter.
I related very well with the movie. In the beginning, I was fascinated. I loved the tone and style. So when it all ended and I realized Eggers had failed to make a laudable impression of emotion, it made me all the more disappointed. I wanted to say this film sucked because of it. But it didn't suck. It just underachieved.
October 21, 2009 at 1:08 pm
I have push further that this film is not for kids. At least, it's definitely not for the 2.5 year old I took to see it, to whom I read the book every night. Perhaps it was a little careless of me to take him, as I could tell by some reviews that it might be quite a bit more challenging/scary than a toddler can handle. I don't think my son was scarred by it (who knows, really), but my wife was certainly freaked having him there with us.
It's a pity that the demographic is so difficult here. It is based on a book for children, but the film seems definitely more adult. I don't think that's a bad thing, and I don't think all children's media needs to be easy. It's just hard for marketers to say "Hey look, here's a movie based on a book your kids read, with the same name as the book your kids read, but wait, don't bring your kids to it."
I think the film is beautiful in many ways. Visually it is beautiful. As a bit of auto-biography, it is thought provoking. Apparently Mr. Sendak was encouraging Mr. Jonze to explore his own childhood in the film, rather than trying to recreate Sendak's childhood. That means it was more Spike Jonze's "Where the Wild Things Are" than Maurice Sendak's. I think all book adaptations would benefit from being a new version of the source material rather than trying to be "faithful" adaptations. It was fun to see the movie with this perspective.
But, as Eric says, I was trying to love it more than I actually did. It is somewhat disappointing, but I think the good outweighs the bad.
October 21, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Reminds me of Bridge to Terabithia/ Son of Rambow. I'm going to give it a chance.
October 28, 2009 at 12:25 pm
While i thought the movie was visually beautiful, I would agree with many that it was a disappointment.
I took my 4 and 6yr old daughters expecting to see a movie about a mischevious boy being sent to his room and then having his imagination take him on a journey elsewhere. What i didn't expect was a movie that was so dark and emotionally draining that my 4yr old cried for an hour because she couldn't understand the meaning of the film! It took me a long time to try to explain the film in a way that she would somewhat understand. My 6yr old "got it" a little better but still was devastated by the sadness and depressed tone of the film.
Definitely a movie for adults and children 10 or above! You need to have the brain capacity to "read between the lines" with this film that most young chidren are just not capable of.
November 15, 2009 at 12:33 pm
I don't know who the hipsters are and I didn't read the book but my teenage niece did and wanted to see it. I liked it. We thought that it was a little more violent then it needed to be but I think it all helped MAX to understand what his actions accomplish and how those actions relate to his relationships in his world. I thought that it was a good way for him to understand how challenging relationships are and I feel that when he re enters his world, he is better able to understand the pain he has caused and is a better person for it. Things are no longer happening 'to' him but he is interacting.
December 8, 2009 at 1:21 pm
i was disappointed.
this movie seemed to be less about Sendak's book, and more about Spike Jonze's personal interpretation of Sendak's book.
which i guess shouldn't be a surprise, since that's usually what happens with movies based on books. But in this case, since the book was so simple and relied on your own imagination, the effect was profound.
the puppetry and set design was really neat, but the music was annoying to the point of becoming grating by the end of the movie.
The metaphor about the pool of admirers is very appropriate. I am sitting on the edge of shallow end of that pool watching the rest of the kids have fun.