Where the Wild Things Are - Movie

[Drtooth]

I think the main problem with the film (though I didn't have it) was that it may have just been too subtle and too minimalistic. But then again, I would have hated to see it be about the Monsters living in a big fat Narnia type fantasy world. Plus, when you're working with a kid's book adding way too much takes away from it. And maybe there was an element of being too careful...

or it could very well be that there were things that the studio pressured Jonze to cut out. This film was delayed and in development purgatory for a year or so... could very well have been a lot of monkeying from the studio. I wanna see the original cut.

I think it just works best as a character piece. Seems like the movie was basically exploring a kid dealing with his own psyche, and I do agree there should have been a little bit more somewhere. But I do think the subtleties make the film. In the end, I wondered... was this all just a fantasy sequence? Was that why the dialogue and setting seemed like a kid wrote it? That's what I think... the indie stigmata may not have helped the mass audience from seeing it, but then to get them in... shudder... Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs...or even worse... CAT IN THE HAT! I mean, WOW... Wow! That was just awful.

I see your problem with the stuff that wasn't explored, but I chalk it up to the carefulness Jonze had. Seems he really didn't want the same problems that the other films like this usually face. Over explaining things takes the magic out, and replaces it with obvious cliches (again, Meatballs).

 

[frogboy4]

There's richness in Jonze's Wild Things at times and I understand why Sendak approves of it. I think the divide with moviegoers has been a question of boldness. Was it a braver choice to be so minimal or would it have been braver to try and communicate the same message for a wider palette? One thing is for certain - studios will be reluctant to fork over millions of dollars to Jonze in the future. I just hope they give other directors' vision the same opportunity. That's what I'm afraid of. That it's all going to be candy-coated-crapola because of this film's box office reputation.

One thing that many critical folk didn't like about this film is one thing that I really did! I think the lead actor and the character of Max were perfect. The first half hour before the island was the most unexpectedly touching part of the picture for me.

 

[Drtooth]

There's richness in Jonze's Wild Things at times and I understand why Sendak approves of it. I think the divide with moviegoers has been a question of boldness. Was it a braver choice to be so minimal or would it have been braver to try and communicate the same message for a wider palette?

There in lies the problem. Somehow, it seems to me Jonze thought about what's wrong about other kid's movies based off of kids books is that they ad things that are either too much and take away from the simplistic tone of the book (Again, Meatballs- which explained why everything happened, taking away from the whimsy of an unexplained phenom in a grandfather's story by saying "Oh, a scientist did it. A well meaning, not funny in anyway, not mad scientist who has issues with his father") adding things that just seem tedious and pointless to stretch the movie (The Cat in the Hat barely works as a half hour special as it stands), or things that aren't even in the book at all, causing them to change the ending (and even the set up) completely (track down a copy of Shrek... you'll see what I mean. Of course, the first 2 movies made it work). So, I'm guessing there was self pressure to not add anything too broad and too sweeping at risk of turning the film into what it shouldn't be... of course, that means the movie risked being not all it could be.

One thing is for certain - studios will be reluctant to fork over millions of dollars to Jonze in the future. I just hope they give other directors' vision the same opportunity. That's what I'm afraid of. That it's all going to be candy-coated-crapola because of this film's box office reputation.

Unfortunately, I have to agree 100% on that... we're basically talking to a studio that said "No pictures with female leads" because of trash like Aeon Flux and Ultraviolet, and "No R Rated Superhero/comic movies" when Watchmen wasn't as successful as they would have liked on the opening weekend (basically being like sore winners that say they should have won by more points). The independent film aspect was a double edged sword. It scared the general audience out of seeing something so subtle because it wasn't a huge budget movie with jaded jokes and references that get stale by the time it gets to DVD... and those things are unfortunately so successful, that we'll no doubt see more films like that, while putting more films like this in Jeopardy.

But something tells me no matter how they made it, it still would have been shellacked by the endless parade of crummy horror flicks they push this time of year. That said, I wonder how Astroboy did, considering it came out like a week after Wild Things, and it was the only other kid's film out there.

 

[Baby Gonzo]

I haven't seen Where the Wild Things Are yet. But from what I understand, it sounds like a more melancholy film than one would expect from a "kid's film". I really can't say if I approve or disprove of the film since I haven't seen it, but I do think that's an interesting concept. It seems to me that most films aimed at families (animated or otherwise) fall into a very narrow group of categories. Rarely do you ever see a truly deep character study or themes that bring up truly poignant questions, thoughts, and conversations.

I suppose that's the nature of the medium. The average kid isn't looking for anything deep and neither is the average adult. So serious animated films or family friendly films with more emphasis on deep messages and less emphasis on fart jokes probably aren't in high demand. (Though Pixar and Studio Ghibli seem to do pretty well, and there is the occasional live action film that provides more than "Kids run amuck while dufus adults act like kids. Hilarity insues." those films seem to be few and far in between.)

 

[yetiman]

I think it just works best as a character piece. Seems like the movie was basically exploring a kid dealing with his own psyche, and I do agree there should have been a little bit more somewhere. But I do think the subtleties make the film. In the end, I wondered... was this all just a fantasy sequence? Was that why the dialogue and setting seemed like a kid wrote it?

I have mixed feelings about the movie, having loved the book as a kid. The book, however, is only 10 (I think sentences long) and has no real plot or character development. It's so minimalistic.

But Drtooth, I think you're totally right--it was an interesting psychological piece. Some moments felt just like how you wished childhood would be (like when Max says that they should build a fort and everyone thinks it's a great idea). Others, like the issues with Carol and the goat and the whiny lady with the horn (what was her name...?), seemed really misplaced.

It seemed strange, however, to be trying to psychoanalyze a children's book like that. I worry that I was overthinking the whole thing.

All that said, though, I think that visually, the movie was stunning. The puppets and CGI worked really well together to make lifelike wild things that you felt like you could reach out and touch. I loved its aesthetic.

 

[JJandJanice]

I did enjoy this movie, but Frogboy4 totally sums it up. Nothing really happens, it's like boy runs away, boy finds lost world type place where the wild things are, boy goes back home. From a vision standpoint it's stunning.

For me, I don't think I'll be buying this DVD/Blu-Ray right away. I think I would wait to find a used one at this used DVD store I go to and probably would buy it if I could find it for "dirt cheap."