Where the Wild Things Are - Movie

[frogboy4]

I caught the picture last week and have had a little time to let it sink in.

I had high hopes for the movie even though Warner Brothers held up release a year after its completion. The movie is based on a popular book, endorsed by author Maurice Sendak, creatures by the Jim Henson Creature Shop with some CG effects thrown in for good measure, it has good performances, voice talent and director Spike Jonze - so what could go wrong? Well, one crucial component - story development.

I was touched by the film and can't give it a failing grade, but it will not be a celebrated movie aired every year on holidays like it should be. There's an extra layer that Jonze seemed intent withholding and that's the layer of most human interest - something that actually happens.

I understand that the book has a loose structure. The story is about Max's moods and each wild thing represents a singular feeling of his. I was quite content with the lack of resolution at the end of the picture. The problem is the middle. I didn't expect a linear structure, but I do expect something more. There's nothing to sink my teeth into.

The set up involves Max's difficulties with being a kid. Much of his behavior is that of a sociopath, but it didn't disturb me because it's a stage many kids go through. Let's just hope he eventually grows up down the line or the authorities will be sure to find bodies buried in his basement!

When Max leaves the real world (that takes quite some time to establish) he then arrives on the island of the Wild Things. After some colorful introductions the movie runs out of steam. The bulk of the film is like watching a candid security camera on a rather uneventful couple of days.

It kind of goes like this: "We're thinking of eating you...grumble, grumble, grumble." "You're our king so fix our problems...grumble, grumble, grumble." "Let's build something...grumble, grumble, grumble." "Why aren't our lives better yet? Grumble, grumble, grumble." "Our problems are still here and so are yours and now you're leaving...grumble, grumble, grumble."

That's the gist. The creatures are amazing looking, but the direction is completely self-indulgent. Some of it works, but the film is mostly fizzle if not a flop. I don't understand why a creator as brilliant as Jonze, given all the tools and authority, wouldn't give an audience more to latch on to - or to at least rise somewhere near the level of excellence provided by the stunning work provided by the artisans. It is my feeling that he let a lot of people down. However, this is the same director of Adaptation - a film that I found intellectually insulting and a waste of my time.

Jonze cuts both ways with me. I understand his avant-garde style and can really appreciate that in an artist. I either love or hate his work. I think that's what surprised me the most about wild things. It is so middling that I can't love or hate it. In the end it's a big budgeted exercise in self-gratification with some really cool looking creatures. I think Warner Brothers would have been best served if the Wild Things had eaten him before shooting started. This is the biggest box office disappointment of the year for me.

C- because of the creatures

I'm sure there will be many fans here to disagree with me. I really wanted to like this movie and supported the integrity of Jonze through his plight with Warner Brothers. After seeing the movie - I support the studio. That's something I never thought I'd say!

 

[D'Snowth]

I haven't had a chance to see it yet myself, but apparently Marty Krofft has, and has said "You shouldn't mess with what worked"... but by that, he was refering to how the Land of the Lost movie failed because they tried to fix something that wasn't broken (ala, making the movie a comedy, when the series was adventurous), so apparently he and Sid are going to make sure the movie versions of Sigmund and the Seamonsters and H.R. Pufnstuf (yeah, they're ressurecting that idea) are more true to the original shows than LOTL was.

I had high hopes for the movie even though Warner Brothers held up release a year after its completion.

I know what you mean, I see nothing but messiness with this Chipmunks sequel with how fast they've been trying to finish it to get it out by Christmas of this year.

 

[frogboy4]

I really wanted to like it more. There are parts here and there that really shine, but it didn't make for a good entire film. The funny thing is - I heard the original cut was much longer! I still might get the DVD to play with the sound off and my own music choices.

Who knows what's happening with the Chipmunks' Squeakquel? It's getting a lot of promotion and giant 3D character displays. It has a new director, Betty Thomas of "The Brady Bunch Movie", "Private Parts" and "I Spy" so it could hit or crash! So far it looks like a bunch of scenes. The first picture was a guilty, feel-good pleasure, I hope this one is at least as fun. I just can't tell yet.

 

[D'Snowth]

Yeah, the Brady Bunch movies were great, but that's because they never tried to change the characters and their personalities to keep up with the times... I still can't tell you how many people out there get bent out of shape over Simon growling at the maid - but then again, in the cartoon he was willing to look and act like a "macho" punk to impress a girl he was crushing on.

But that's besides the point... I'd probably not have too many negative things to say about this movie, mainly because it's been SO long since I read the book, I don't remember a lot of pertinent little details.

Now this new animated adaptation of A Christmas Carol with Jim Carrey, that I'll have to wait a see.

 

[frogboy4]

Now this new animated adaptation of A Christmas Carol with Jim Carrey, that I'll have to wait a see.

I can't get over how the title read's "Disney's A Christmas Carol" rather than "Disney Presents Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol" and how much more grotesque Jim Carrey can be in motion capture CG. I liken "Polar Express" to a zombie movie because how corpse-like the motion capure came off, but I really dug "Monster House". Now it seems official that Zemekis IS going forward with a Roger Rabbit sequel using technology that includes motion capture. I'm squeamish, but I really do want Roger to return.

 

[Gelfling Girl]

Now this new animated adaptation of A Christmas Carol with Jim Carrey, that I'll have to wait a see.

I saw the preview for that when I saw G-Force. It looks pretty cool, but the 3-D actually made me feel a bit nauseous. (And that's never happened to me before, not even with Philharmagic at Disney which has "flying sequences" like in that preview.)

 

[D'Snowth]

I can't get over how the title read's "Disney's A Christmas Carol" rather than "Disney Presents Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol"

Hey, that's typical Disney for you, so there's really no cause for complaint there, because they'd do that irregardless if it's someone else's work or not.

Now it seems official that Zemekis IS going forward with a Roger Rabbit sequel using technology that includes motion capture. I'm squeamish, but I really do want Roger to return.

No. No, that cannot happen... that SHOULDN'T happen... the original Roger Rabbit is a FOUR-star classic, not to mention it's been too long since the original's been out - a sequel at this point in time already has "disaster" written all over it.

 

[Drtooth]

I see what you're getting at... but really... compared to other kid's books that get turned into movies I have to completely and utterly disagree right there. Among other things, we could have had a movie filled with dated pop culture references and ugly CGIs... the thought of the Wild Rumpus being the monsters all reinacting the Budwiser "WAZZUP!" commercial comes to mind.

I think the movie works for all the reasons you didn't like it. I interpreted the movie as it being all some sort of imaginary world created by a young boy with so many problems... it really did have a candid documentary film feel to it. We're basically looking at all of this from the exact point of view of the child. Norhing is complex, as this kid really isn't all that complex...but he is a believable young boy. I love Peanuts and all, but everyone talks like they're psychologists, theologians, and philosophers... no matter how smart a kid can be, I just don't believe the Woody Allen-esque thoughts would ever be dictated by anyone under the age of 10.

I liked the simplistic dialogue and the stream of consciousness in the writing... a kid growing up, facing his own problems as reflected in a funhouse mirror... being a "king" it the monsters was essentially what Max wanted from his mother. The monsters drifting apart was exactly how he was feeling about his sister. It was a very psychological movie. My sister is studying psychology, and she loved the film very much.

I see what you mean about it not really being complex and eventful... but that;'s what's inside the mind of a boy such as Max... and I'm glad they didn't make this movie any other way... again, I'd hate to see what happened to Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs to ever happen again. "OOH! A sympathetic scientist did everything to get his dad's approval." Plllpppbt!

 

[frogboy4]

Hey, that's typical Disney for you, so there's really no cause for complaint there, because they'd do that irregardless if it's someone else's work or not.
No. No, that cannot happen... that SHOULDN'T happen... the original Roger Rabbit is a FOUR-star classic, not to mention it's been too long since the original's been out - a sequel at this point in time already has "disaster" written all over it.

It's been reported that Zemekis was never behind any of the previous attempts at a sequel. Eisner pushed him out of the directors seat for any future production back then. They wanted to go with a cheaper director that could be controlled. This latest effort will have the same writing team as the original Roger Rabbit. The only real issue is how it will play. Moviegoers are jaded with effects these days and if they use motion capture or CG over hand-drawn animation they've lost me. I own 3 production cels from the original film. I'm an uber fan. Still, I'd like to see Roger try to come back - if it's done right.

 

[frogboy4]

I see what you're getting at... but really... compared to other kid's books that get turned into movies I have to completely and utterly disagree right there. Among other things, we could have had a movie filled with dated pop culture references and ugly CGIs... the thought of the Wild Rumpus being the monsters all reinacting the Budwiser "WAZZUP!" commercial comes to mind.

I think the movie works for all the reasons you didn't like it. I interpreted the movie as it being all some sort of imaginary world created by a young boy with so many problems... it really did have a candid documentary film feel to it. We're basically looking at all of this from the exact point of view of the child. Norhing is complex, as this kid really isn't all that complex...but he is a believable young boy. I love Peanuts and all, but everyone talks like they're psychologists, theologians, and philosophers... no matter how smart a kid can be, I just don't believe the Woody Allen-esque thoughts would ever be dictated by anyone under the age of 10.

I liked the simplistic dialogue and the stream of consciousness in the writing... a kid growing up, facing his own problems as reflected in a funhouse mirror... being a "king" it the monsters was essentially what Max wanted from his mother. The monsters drifting apart was exactly how he was feeling about his sister. It was a very psychological movie. My sister is studying psychology, and she loved the film very much.

I see what you mean about it not really being complex and eventful... but that;'s what's inside the mind of a boy such as Max... and I'm glad they didn't make this movie any other way... again, I'd hate to see what happened to Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs to ever happen again. "OOH! A sympathetic scientist did everything to get his dad's approval." Plllpppbt!

I think there was a middle ground that wasn't explored. Jonze is the reason why big budgets are reserved for kiddie films filled with poop jokes. He was given 100 million dollars worth of opportunity to create something better that could reach the masses. He could have added a layer or two of interest over his film, but he didn't. This film has such a small target audience. There are interesting themes explored in the film, but not enough to fill 94 minutes. The film actually felt like it was an hour longer than it was. Films like this are driving people away from the movie theaters and that makes me as sad as all of the Wild Things combined.