User reviews

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!

If you haven't yet read Maurice Sendak's classic book, you can go ahead and do that now because its only 347 words long. This review I'm typing ended up being almost twice as long.

The point I'm making is that the original book didn't have much of a plot; its charm is in the imaginative illustrations. So the task of adapting the book to a 1 hr 41 min feature film was very ambitious, to say the least.

Let's complicate matters. In the original story the main character, Max, isn't a very likable protagonist. In almost every drawing he is shown with a malicious smirk on his face as he causes mischief such as chasing the family dog around with a fork, and then later commanding others to do his bidding with a tyrannical ferocity. I won't go into a discussion of Sendak's book, but let's just say it's not your typical cutesy fable or morality play.

Quirky and ofttimes cynical director Spike Jonze (known for the excellent "Being John Malkovich") was well suited for the job. During production, Jonze consulted Sendak himself, so we can guess that the author's original intent was mostly preserved. The result is that this is definitely no Disney flick. If you're looking to take your kid to a "Beauty and the Beast" entertainer, hmm, you might wanna look elsewhere.

Great, so if that didn't scare you off, let's talk about what's good about this film. One: they didn't corrupt the original bratty concept of Max. Although he's considerably softer around the edges than the fork wielding demonchild in the book, he's still not exactly likable, and so he's almost an anti-hero. Of course he's still a cute kid, so you can view him as that, but I like to think he's a troubled juvenile with some serious psychological issues brewing.

Two: the visuals & special effects are primo. The master puppeteers of Jim Henson's group (Henson himself died a few years prior to filming) provided amazing 7ft tall animatronic puppet suits with actors inside which were augmented by subtle cgi. In other words, to all my fellow cgi haters, this was done very tastefully. Sets and landscapes are jaw dropping, having been filmed in the majestic forests & deserts of Australia.

Three: the music is pretty cool. Composed and performed by Karen O (The Yeah Yeah Yeahs), the score and songs are edgy but still cinematic enough to blend with the film. Most of the songs are simple haunting melodies with an alternative rock vibe. If you're not familiar with Karen O, think of maybe Bjork.

Four: it has a pretty complex message that may be lost on young kids, but adults may get it. It's the idea that life's problems aren't so easy to solve, even when everyone does exactly as you say. You might even sense socio-political overtones as Max attempts to create order in his imagined kingdom while learning that you can't please everyone all the time. This is where the film deviates from the book where Max is a tyrant who imposes his rule over obedient and mostly mindless subjects. Here, the creatures have individual personalities and opinions. So in the film, Max faces the reality of making mistakes. He isn't so sure of himself, and his choices often lead him to deep regrets. I count this as a big plus, even though it may confuse young kids who are expecting a simple, digestible fairytale. Don't be surprised if your child comes out slightly confused, if not disturbed. (Note, there's a bit of violence... no blood, but a character or two might get slightly maimed).

I would categorize "Where the Wild Things Are" with other fairy tales for grownups, like "Willy Wonka" (as well as the recent remake "Charlie & the Chocolate Factory") and an obscure 70s gem with Gene Wilder "The Little Prince". This film is probably closer to the children's side than those others which were clearly skewed toward adults. That's probably where it lost a little punch in my opinion. But it's still a great flick that does a nice job honoring a classic book. By the way... wtf? Did I just use the word "socio-political" to describe a children's flick? I need to get out more :/

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 film that kids will stand up and cheer for I as an adult haven't yet read the award winning 1963 short story from author Maurice Sendak which I plan to do so though. Anyway this film is good enough that an adult will also get some enjoyment out of, as the way it's done and blended with humor and most important of all the theme of escape yet most notable it has enough conflict and drama that all of us can relate to. And clearly as you watch from the beginning and see the need for escapism you think back to your childhood when you were bored and you thought nobody understood you, as just like Max you wanted to run away to your own little world and make new friends even if many were strange(like the film's creatures).

That's clearly what this film did as a young boy Max(Max Records) who appears out of control and is running around as he's displeased with the way that his older neighbors treat him. His older sister ignores him, plus to top it off he can't get any attention from his mom played by Catherine Keener. So after he's sent to bed one night with no supper as his eagerness got the best of him as Max even bit mother! He runs out the door thru the streets and over by the trees into the woods. And all of a sudden a boat that's private and personal appears and it's off to sailing to a new land for Max thru the rugged and rough seas! Once arriving and awakening he finds these woods are where the wilds things are! he meets the strangest looking characters who are hairy and even monster looking. The most notable and his best friend during the whole escape stay is Carol(voiced great by ex "Sopranos" boss James Gandolfini). As from the get go after talking Max convinces him that he's a special king in his new world and Carol agrees to be his guardian beast of the jungle! Max also meets odd looking creatures named Judith, Alexander, Bull, Douglas and Ira. Along the way this is an adventure come true for this little boy who builds his own club tree house and has the most fun cuddling and playing with his creature friends.

However like any kids adventure conflict and disagreement is present as Max will bring tears to his best friend Carol. As the days of swinging from trees can't last forever you even are touched when you see the tears and emotions from Carol as you think back to when you said good bye to your best friend after playing with him. So it's sailing back to the norm for Max who experienced a great journey of adventure and escapism that all kids should enjoy and most of us as kids had our own little fantasy and daydreaming adventures like Max.

Really a pretty good film to see as you as an adult will enjoy as you will have flashback days to your childhood when you felt you were another Max and had wild adventures in your own land with strange creature friends as many can relate to imaginary friends(remember!)and this adaption from director Spike Jonze was well done his sets and mixing of adventure with drama and emotions make an adult like it especially the big over sized creatures! Really a film that takes so many back to memories of their childhood as all of us had our adventure and loved to escape with imaginary friends you may feel like your watching something of Jim Henson. Though as it ends you feel a little touch of "The Wizard of Oz" as Max returns safe back home as he hugs mother he still feels their is no place like home and that all adventures must end just like Dorothy's adventure in Oz did. Still overall a film to watch that helps you revisit your childhood days and it lets your imagination run wild.

Maurice Sendak, who recently passed away, was one of the most controversial yet still imaginative authors to ever have been published. The stories he wrote are very much like Grimm's Fairy Tales: whimsical and fun, but still dark and threatening. He didn't pander or sugarcoat his stories simply because he didn't feel a need (as well as a rather unpleasant childhood that introduced him to mortality in a less gentle light than most kids, but that's another story). These come through in such books as 1981's Outside Over There, 1970's In the Night Kitchen, and, in the case of this review, 1963's Where the Wild Things Are.

The funny thing about the latter is that this book is only 9 sentences long! That's a short book, even by children's standards, despite the story being told more with pictures than words. So, naturally, director Spike Jonze and writer Dave Eggers had to go out on a limb with the extra effort if they were to successfully make a movie based on it. The effort is an interesting and impressive venture; No embellishment, no sugarcoating, just a stripped- down, but still whimsical tale of a child's curiosity and imagination.

The story is pretty much the same: Max, (Max Records, believably a kid), an imaginative, but frustrated kid gets into a fight with his stressed-out mother (Catherine Keener), runs away, and soon finds himself floating to a strange land, wherein dwell creatures that are both terrifying and fascinating at the same time. It's a simple story, but, as said before, they get across a lot with what they have.

The performances in this movie are stellar. Max Records plays Max as...well, a kid. He doesn't pander to the audience or become cloying and 'pwe-shuss' at any point in the movie. He's angry, bratty, imaginative, playful, greedy, attention-seeking, kind and all those other things a normal kid is. This doesn't make him a bad person, but it does make him humble and endearing when coming across what he sees and experiences with the titular "Wild Things." Speaking of which, these creatures not only look great, but are also something of (which has been made abundantly clear by most of the critics, but it's still there) a representation of Max himself. Take the imposing, but enthusiastic Carol (James Gandolfini, aka Tony Soprano), for instance. He's Max's pent-up frustration, creativity and longing for love. Loudmouth Judith (Catherine O'Hara, a scene stealer) is Max's brazen independence. Gentle Ira (Forest Witaker), is Max's artistic ideals. Shy Alexander (Little Miss Sunshine's Paul Dano) is Max's longing to be heard, as well as his fragile naïveté. And the gentle KW (Lauren Ambrose) is the feeling of maternity that Max has not felt from his own mother in a long, long time. Once he discovers these fragments and puts them together, he realizes that there is more love to be had at home than he realized.

The visuals in this movie are also great. The place where the island is doesn't have any magical places aside from the Wild Things themselves, but its full of trees, dirt and desert plains that are barren and empty. But, it's what they do with it that makes it impressive. They have huts made of branches, a dirt clod fight, long walks along the desert, and even the building of a huge hut. It's so massive, just like an imagination.

The only problem with this movie is that it can gets pretty depressing at times. It's probably supposed to be pushing boundaries, as the original book did, but the conversations, dialogue and themes can become quite weighty, and brings the movie to a grinding halt. This is especially true towards the end, when Carol becomes more and more savage, and tensions rise between Max and the Wild Things. But, that being said, it does give the movie some conflict and raises the stakes for Max's safe return home, despite his strong bond with these creatures.

Overall, this movie is, like the book, a portrait of childhood at its core. There's no talking down to the audience, but at the same time, it's more for nostalgic adults than kids. But, the adults that enjoyed the book will enjoy what Jones, Egger, Sendak, and this movie have to say. It also looks beautiful, with fantastic sets, creatures, and characters to ogle at. There's so much love and detail put into this movie that all that can be said is...well...

I'd eat this movie up, I love it so...even though Roger Ebert beat me to that, it's still true.

This is a huge success, and I believe that it will reach that status now called "classic," being experienced over and over in whatever ways that classics will in the future.

I'll let others note the purity in the way that sharp childhood is evoked. It is the emotional center of the thing. I'll be more interested here in noting the cinematic use of space. Jonze is famous for this, and how he can connect it to the folds in the narrative.

"Folds" in this context have to do with nesting of narrative elements. For instance the "real world" segments feature eating (twice), fort (twice), snowball fight, wild suit, pileon, pulling at toes, lost marriage, broken model of a heart, being king, son/sun dying and so on. The "wild world" features the same things twisted in ways that suggest the real narrative describing the inner character of Max. This "folding" gives us a place to stand and engages us more deeply, as a key narrative device. There is even a smaller inner fold where Carol (the Max surrogate) makes a model of his world, hidden in the desert. And another where Max enters KW.

I am more interested in the spatial folding. Yup, the way that Jonze has decided to set up and elaborate a vocabulary of movement.

Here's what we have, I think. I have only seen this once and will have to wait for DVD study to confirm it.

The scenes I am working with here are the ones with physical motion, where both the camera and the subjects move: the dogchasing, snowball fight, the amazing encounter with the waves when approaching the island, the rumpus and then the dirtball fight. Frozen motionpaths are in the fort's appendage, the "pile," and indicated by the stickweaving in the global fort and houses.

I believe these all use the same motion template. When someone invents a movie annotation tool where we can find and describe this, it will be easy to check and show. Right now it is an impression, but I got the feeling when watching that wave scene (in IMAX) that I would see the same motion paths in the forthcoming rumpus. Perhaps it was the appearance of the ululating sound that was used every time something got frantic, and by that time twice already. Perhaps it was the obvious reference to the Hokusai woodblock ("The Great Wave off Kanagawa"), where a wild wave becomes an actor, a wild thing dwarfing an iconic mountain, whose shape I thought I also saw on-screen.

I would not be surprised either if Spike used a sigla to denote this motion (like Joyce does in "Finnegans Wake") and that the sigla was KW, denoting the actual paths, the K in plan and the W in the vertical plane. Thus, KW swallowing/eating Max, apart from the obvious vaginal association also takes on a deeply cinematic one, worthy of "Adaptation." I know the work on this was done in Melbourne. Could it be that this apparent one-man shop "Digital Rein" managed this? In an unconnected area, am I misremembering? I recall the phrase was "Let the Wild Rumpus Begin!" (not "start").

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

The book was about a child who is sent to his room without supper for acting out, and then dreams or imagines a world where he is celebrated for being a wild beast only to return home the same night.

The movie is about a child who imagines a world he is important and those who inhabit it have the same childlike emotions and angst he goes through. As someone who grew up without peers and mostly alone I grew up weird and ostracized so I can empathize with a lot of the emotions he is dealing with. Carol and Max both don't have the tools to process sadness and depression. And the people around them don't know why Carol (and by extension Max) can' just be less wild. Mistakes have consequences.

This is the first time I have seen this movie since I had my kid years ago, and I see him in aspects of Max and some that I had at that age. This movie isn't a feel good movie. But it touches on uncomfortable feelings that isn't discussed enough in film and it make me feel... heard.

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).

A creative boy, very sensitive at his age (as children can be at times), feeling disenfranchised with his family, seemingly with no obvious close friends, whose hurt feelings don't dawn on anybody, escapes away to an island filled with the unpackaging of his mind, in the form of fantastical creatures which he tries to corral, cajole, correct. In a sense, his experience is one of primal therapy, kid style.

It's done very well, but one must consider that Max is presented as a somewhat glass-half-empty type, and glass-half-full types would likely find the movie at times boring, melancholy, and overall unfulfilling. But the half-empties could easily identify with it, and even allow some positive catharsis in it, as Max did, in its conclusion.

So I guess I'd go out on a limb here and say it would be quite a good movie for some kids (and some adults still feeling the lonely child lurking around within them), while some other kids would likely say nope to it. And it's a film not exactly for kids, tho camouflaged as one. Definitely not a film that can be "judged by its cover".

As in the book, the experience is a dream, tho not one at night nor in a bed. Max's wolf suit, hopelessly grimed up via days of his dream escapades, is not so when he returns home.

It's done well, but dark. The science teacher, who could have gone in any number of directions in his dissertation, chose a gloomy tack. Even the lighting is dark save for the occasional sunny period. Technically it is superb. The boy is a gifted young actor. But I would offer that if you have a happy kid this is not a film for them. And if not? Well, this flick could actually be a comfort. But maybe you should gauge it yourself first.

Where the Wild Things Are, one of the most beloved children's books, comes to the big screen in one of the most highly anticipated films of the year. Spike Jonze, the man responsible for Being John Malcovich, Adaptation, and several Beastie Boys music videos including "Sabotage", brings the tale to life. I must admit, I have been anxiously awaiting this film for several months, something I don't like to do too often as it sets up for a potential major let down.

Well, that didn't happen this time.

We follow Max (Max Records), a boy who is lonely and misunderstood. His sister doesn't pay attention to him, his mother is busy with work and her boyfriend, and he has worries at school. All he wants is attention and to belong. One night, he finally breaks and runs away. He makes his way to the woods and to the waters edge. There he finds a small boat and set out on the open sea, leaving everything behind him.

He comes across an island and goes ashore. There he finds a group of monsters in turmoil. Max seizes his opportunity and confronts the group. He tells them that he is a great king and help them solve their problems.

I don't want to give too much of the story away because I feel like telling it would ruin some of the magic. This is one of the most visually pleasing films I have seen in a long time. Jonze filmed in Australia. We are given vivid landscapes of lush forests, arid deserts, and beautiful shorelines, culminating in an almost Lord of the Rings like experience. These spectacular settings would rarely be beaten in magnificence in another film, but here they come second to the unbelievable special effects used for the monsters.

There are seven monsters on the island. Carol, Ira, Judith, KW, Douglas, Alexander, and The Bull. They all have unique features and are of massive size. Jonze could have gone two ways here. He could have completely made them all CG or he could have gone Jim Henson and turned them into Muppets. Instead, he carved a third path and combined the other two options. Max is able to interact extremely well with the gigantic puppet/suits, but the faces are edited with computer graphics, giving them startlingly realistic features and expressions. Making these monsters any different way would have been disastrous.

Another key aspect of the monsters is giving them a voice. Jonze chose excellent voice actors with James Gandolfini, Forrest Whitaker, Catherine O'Hara, Lauren Ambrose, Paul Dano, and Chris Cooper. They each have their own personality that compliments their physical and emotional characteristics.

Aside from the monsters, I was very impressed with Max. He is asked to do a very demanding thing: be a kid. That sounds easy, but it is very easily messed up. I'm interested in finding out how much freedom Jonze gave Records in certain scenes that called for him to go "wild". I can imagine directing young actors is not the easiest thing to do, but sometimes you catch a break when you get a talented one.

Giving life to these characters is a spectacular screenplay by Jonze and Dave Eggers (who wrote Away We Go). Their writing speaks to both kids and adults, using language that is meaningful and easy to understand. The things Max goes through every child feels growing up: loneliness, fear, belonging, etc.

There is so much to love about this movie. It speaks to the heart. But before you head out with the whole family, heed this warning. Some parts of this film might be too intense for younger audience members. Certain scene involving the monsters might be a bit too overwhelming. Yes, these monsters are friendly, but they are monsters, meaning they are large, intimidating, and somewhat scary.

Where the Wild Things Are will satisfy, entertain, and open your eyes. Spike Jonze poured everything he had into this film and the wait was well worth it. I hope you will fall under its spell just as I did.

An adaptation of Maurice Sendak's classic children's story, where Max (Max Records), a disobedient little boy sent to bed without his supper, creates his own world--a forest inhabited by ferocious wild creatures that crown Max as their ruler.

Mark Ruffalo played the boyfriend? Really? I totally did not recognize him.

This film runs a bit on the long side, especially given how short the source material is. I am also unclear what the point is. If we are supposed to feel bad for the boy, I guess it failed on me. He was a trouble-maker and disrespectful. If my kids are ever like that, they better not expect to get away without getting punished.

The creature effects were actually pretty good (thanks, Jim Henson Company) and were a lot of fun. Not sure about the celebrity voices... if you cannot see the actor, why not just hire someone unknown for less? Did many people really flock to this film to hear James Gandolfini's voice?