"Where the Wild Things Are" Review! (spoilers)

[RoJoHen]

I'm kind of surprised nobody started this yet (or if they did, I can't find it). I don't normally start review threads, so I'm not gonna say a whole lot other than:

1) I thought it was a great movie, but

2) I will never see a movie on opening night ever again. Teenagers have absolutely no regard for anyone but themselves (and is it really that hard to go 90 minutes without texting someone?).

I guess I should add a poll, huh? That's the right way to do this? Okay, go!

 

[TGTheodore]

Excellent film. (No, I haven't read the book).

I felt, even at my advanced age, like I was being read to. I bought the creatures from the moment I saw them. It didn't take any period of adjustment or acceptance for me.

My only suggestion ... lose about 10-15 minutes.

Also, for very young children, there are a few "storybook" scary moments.

--Ted

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

(and is it really that hard to go 90 minutes without texting someone?).

Based on concession stand business, most humans can't sit for two hours without eating, even if means paying absurd prices for junk food. So yes, it must be very hard.

 

[RoJoHen]

Excellent film. (No, I haven't read the book).

I felt, even at my advanced age, like I was being read to. I bought the creatures from the moment I saw them. It didn't take any period of adjustment or acceptance for me.

My only suggestion ... lose about 10-15 minutes.

Also, for very young children, there are a few "storybook" scary moments.

--Ted

I actually found myself thinking it could have been a little longer.

Also, the book takes roughly 30 seconds to read if you happen to see it at a store.

 

[davejames]

Yeah I really want to see this tonight, but I'm thinking it might be a better experience if I go next week, after the families and teenagers have cleared out...

And damn, are there a lot of idiotic parents out there or what?? I've been going through the yahoo reviews, and it's AMAZING how many parents just blindly took their little kids into this thing based on nothing but the warm and fuzzy advertisements.

Don't these people do any research? I think nearly every review I've seen says this is NOT a little kid's movie.

 

[RoJoHen]

I'd say kids could watch it, but they're definitely going to get scared by parts. There are also really awesome bits of characterization that they do with the Wild Things that kids will absolutely not understand.

Man, I wanna watch it again.

 

[Kira's Mom]

Saw it today, thought it was excellent. Obviously, the story was a little deeper than the original picture book, and some of it is not for little kids. I loved the monsters. They looked like they stepped right out of the book. The voices were great, too. And Max was just adorable.

 

[davejames]

Just got back, and thought it was absolutely amazing. Everything from the directing, to the acting, to the music was just pitch perfect as far as I'm concerned.

More than anything I was blown away by how emotionally complex and real these monsters seemed. Obviously it wasn't hard to figure out what they represented, and all those added layers made them absolutely fascinating to watch. You really felt like you were inside this kid's head as he slowly worked out some of his issues.

I'm not sure I've seen a movie do something like that before. Or at least not this well.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

And damn, are there a lot of idiotic parents out there or what?? I've been going through the yahoo reviews, and it's AMAZING how many parents just blindly took their little kids into this thing based on nothing but the warm and fuzzy advertisements.

The same thing happened with The Dark Knight its opening weekend. Parents assumed, because it was based on a comic book, that it was going to be something for kids. Which it manifestly wasn't.

 

[QuasarVM]

I guess the larger question is: Why do they keep making films that kids would want to see -- based on originally benign and kid-friendly material and throw a bunch of stuff into it that makes it unsuitable for viewing by kids?

I find that annoying to say the least -- particularly with regard to Wild Things. That book was clearly a book for kids -- there is NO reason to make the film anything more than a kids film since that is the audience the book was written for.

Really makes me wonder what the agenda truly is...

I will from now on refer to this as the Land of the Lost syndrome -- for it (the film) suffered from the same kind of outrageous tampering.

 

[davejames]

I guess the larger question is: Why do they keep making films that kids would want to see -- based on originally benign and kid-friendly material and throw a bunch of stuff into it that makes it unsuitable for viewing by kids?

I find that annoying to say the least -- particularly with regard to Wild Things. That book was clearly a book for kids -- there is NO reason to make the film anything more than a kids film since that is the audience the book was written for.

Really makes me wonder what the agenda truly is...

I will from now on refer to this as the Land of the Lost syndrome -- for it (the film) suffered from the same kind of outrageous tampering.

Well the book's author begs to differ. He intended Wild Things to be more than just a fun, meaningless romp. And even from the time of it's release it's been recognized for the many layers and deeper themes that can be read into it.

Obviously Jonze took it much further and made it a lot more literal, but it all still felt to me like a natural outgrowth from the book.

I mean, hell, without those layers the story really DOES become pretty meaningless. It's then just "an angry kid goes off to play with some monsters, gets tired, and then comes back home." Clearly there was supposed to be more to it than that.

 

[JuanBolio]

I guess the larger question is: Why do they keep making films that kids would want to see -- based on originally benign and kid-friendly material and throw a bunch of stuff into it that makes it unsuitable for viewing by kids?

I find that annoying to say the least -- particularly with regard to Wild Things. That book was clearly a book for kids -- there is NO reason to make the film anything more than a kids film since that is the audience the book was written for.

Really makes me wonder what the agenda truly is...

I will from now on refer to this as the Land of the Lost syndrome -- for it (the film) suffered from the same kind of outrageous tampering.

I disagree, friend. I don't think there was anything in the film that is at all unsuitable for kids. What precisely do you think was inappropriate?

 

[RoJoHen]

I guess the larger question is: Why do they keep making films that kids would want to see -- based on originally benign and kid-friendly material and throw a bunch of stuff into it that makes it unsuitable for viewing by kids?

I find that annoying to say the least -- particularly with regard to Wild Things. That book was clearly a book for kids -- there is NO reason to make the film anything more than a kids film since that is the audience the book was written for.

Really makes me wonder what the agenda truly is...

I will from now on refer to this as the Land of the Lost syndrome -- for it (the film) suffered from the same kind of outrageous tampering.

I disagree, friend. I don't think there was anything in the film that is at all unsuitable for kids. What precisely do you think was inappropriate?

From that post, I'm not quite convinced he's seen the movie yet. I feel like he was making a random general statement.

WTWTA is definitely kid-friendly. It's just a little scary in places.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

There wasn't anything necessarily inappropriate so much as there were very intense and complex ideas being portrayed on-screen. That's a good thing, but it's also something that parents should consider before deciding whether or not to bring their children along for the ride. Put simply: parents should preview the film, and then decide whether or not their own kids can handle the story (or how to augment the story with discussions, etc.).

As for the film itself, it's quite good. And I love how this was a movie about something important -- about dealing with complex emotions. But it's not a story you just plop a kid in front of, without considering how you'll address the various issues the film raises.

 

[JuanBolio]

If I had a nickel for every complex, violent, scary, or traumatizing film my parents rather casually allowed me to watch, I'd have a whole lot of nickels.

 

[QuasarVM]

I guess the larger question is: Why do they keep making films that kids would want to see -- based on originally benign and kid-friendly material and throw a bunch of stuff into it that makes it unsuitable for viewing by kids?

I find that annoying to say the least -- particularly with regard to Wild Things. That book was clearly a book for kids -- there is NO reason to make the film anything more than a kids film since that is the audience the book was written for.

Really makes me wonder what the agenda truly is...

I will from now on refer to this as the Land of the Lost syndrome -- for it (the film) suffered from the same kind of outrageous tampering.

I disagree, friend. I don't think there was anything in the film that is at all unsuitable for kids. What precisely do you think was inappropriate?

From that post, I'm not quite convinced he's seen the movie yet. I feel like he was making a random general statement.

WTWTA is definitely kid-friendly. It's just a little scary in places.

No, I haven't seen it yet. I was basing my comments on what some you were saying and I'm still a little sore about what they did to Land of The Lost...

Maybe I over-interpreted what some of you were saying about the "inappropriate for kids" thing...

 

[stonester1]

Thought it was terrific.

 

[Checkmate]

If I had a nickel for every complex, violent, scary, or traumatizing film my parents rather casually allowed me to watch, I'd have a whole lot of nickels.

It's sad but true: Childhood trauma leads to well-adjusted adulthood.

There's a reason spanking works. There's a reason people laugh when an old motherly figure says something to the effect of, "Boy, don't make me take this wooden spoon to your head." There's a reason almost every childhood story involves the death of loved ones. And there's most definitely a reason why spoiled brats are spoiled brats.

It'd be nice if that wasn't the case, but kids who grow up without trauma end up either as self-entitled assholes or victims all their life.

 

[davejames]

I don't even see how this movie could be construed as "traumatizing." It gives a pretty stark and honest look at childhood, with all the conflicting emotions that come with it, but there was still an underlying innocence to the whole thing. In fact it's probably the most gentle and thoughtful movie I've seen in a long while.

I'm just baffled by some of the responses I've seen calling the movie too dark and scary and depressing, or calling the kid "evil", or complaining that there was no point or no lesson learned at the end. Say huh?? What movie were THEY watching???

 

[Greylock Crescent]

There was most certainly a point. There were no heroes and villains, no one truly evil or good -- very much like real life. And the film was very, very thoughtful. But it will surprise anyone who thought that this was a "children's movie" in the vein of Disney, Pixar, et al. It's not a criticism so much as it is a "hey, manage your expectations" kind of a thing. I think, ultimately, that this is an important film for both children and adults to watch. But parents ought to give it due consideration before deciding whether or not their kids are ready for it (as in, I do not think my 2 & 1/2 year old is ready to see it, but when she's older -- how old will depend on her --I'll definitely sit down and watch it with her).