Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Where the Wild Things Are (2009)

This is topic Where the Wild Things Are (2009) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001600

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-17-2009, 12:44 AM:

Um .. where to begin... "what did I see?"

For starters, Spike Jonze shouldn't have directed this movie based from the classic 1963 Maurice Sendak children's novels. He's good with the other films that he made, but doesn't know about how to direct a movie on the child's level for them to understand.

What happened to the story, the character development and plot?

..and pleeze: What happened to the usage of camera dollys, tracks and tripods? This hand held photographic technique that seems to be taking movie making by storm has got to be for the ones who love roller coaster adventures.

sadly, another forgettable attempt of moviemaking

1/5 for me.

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 10-17-2009, 11:32 AM:

That is too bad, Monte. I agree that the children's book was excellent. According to an article I read today in the paper, though, the actual book was criticized for the same things the movie is being criticized for by the critics: Too scary for kids and too grim.

Apparently, Jonze actually had to go back and refilm a lot of it with less "darkness," which has delayed the film's release an entire year.

I'll probably go see it, but I have a feeling I will be just as disappointed as you.

It really is too bad, because those Jim Henson monster outfits look amazing.

As for the shakey-cam, even without dollying or locking down shots, steadicam has been around a quarter century now, so even "shooting on a tight schedule" or
"treacherous terrain" can't be used as excuses for this anymore.

The latest "Bourne" movie is a low-point in camera shakiness for me though. Hopefully that will never be topped.

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 10-18-2009, 02:59 AM:

easily one of the worst movies I have ever had to sit through.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 10-18-2009, 05:12 PM:

I have to totally disagree with everyone's review on this one. I think its the best fantasy film since PAN'S LABYRINTH.

First, let's go back to the book. The book has no story, character or plot. There are just a few word's and some wonderful pictures of Max with the Wild Things. When reading the book to a child, it lends itself to all sorts of side stories and wild fantasies, much as Max tells his mom the story about the vampire with the broken teeth early in the film.

The movie takes the story off on a fantasy, spending some more time with the Wild Things and actually bringing each of them some character, BUT (and this is very important) they are characters as related by a child storyteller, not an adult. If you listen closely to the dialog in this film, it is the language that children use when they are playing with others. It isn't what adults THINK children say, it is exactly how they say it. The WILD THINGS are of the stereotypes children themselves create: scary bullies (who actually are nice if you get to know them), shy ones, small ones who are always ignored , etc. Any schoolyard is filled with kids just like this. I have never seen a film so accurately capture the world of the child.

I thought the jerky camera added to the story. It's a fantasy, and fantasies don't always go in straight lines. They sometimes jerk around. Same for the shifts between the desert and the forest. To a child, these changes are perfectly natural. The episodes and characters in the story echo Max's true life.

My only criticism of this film is that it is a bit slow. Not by much, but just a bit.

It is SO nice to see a film aimed at children that doesn't use the "committee" approach. You know, let's but a joke in here, and then something for the grown-ups so they won't leave, then how about an '80's song to pep things up. No, this film is pure and simple childlike fantasy, something we don't see enough of today.

I give this one an A-. OK, folks, have at me here. I'm guessing I hold the minority view on this one. Anyone for a wild rumpus?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-18-2009, 05:36 PM:

Oh fully agree with you Mark, just that the entertainment value that kids nowdays expect since they don't read classic novels like we did and want the story told to them first hand and on their level.

Just that I get rather "seasick" with a lot of camera movement trying to follow a character and have to chase it all over the screen in a speed that one normally doesn't do.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 10-19-2009, 05:22 PM:

I agree with you Mark...that the movie brings a childs imagination to life, but thats all I agree with you on. This was simply a jumble of a movie. It was slow, didn't accomplish anything, and told nothing that "Home Alone" didn't tell you 15+ years ago. The message in this movie is, "No matter what happens with your family, they are still your family." Same thing as Home Alone, and Home Alone did it much better.

2/5 [thumbsup]

only for the Wild Things being suits and not all CGI

Posted by Mike Croaro (Member # 3123) on 10-20-2009, 07:34 PM:

Hi Folks:

Saw this last night. I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. The hand held camera scenes didn't bother me. I would give it a 4/5.

Mike

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 12-12-2009, 06:44 PM:

The potential problem with Spike Jonze's adaptation of Maurice Sendak's timeless and narratively sparse fable was always that huge doses of artistic licence would be required to fill out the feature films run time. And the inherent danger of this is that the extra inevitable content will detract from Sendak's simple story. Such fears were entirely justified, as it turned out, as the resulting film expands Sendak's vision where it ought not and doesn't expand it where it ought.

Part of the beauty of Sendak's story is the duality of the narrative: children see it as a straight forward, slightly scary adventure story whereas adults identify with it's affectionate sub narrative on the insecurities, narcissism and inherent emotional chaos of childhood. In order to pad out its run time, Jonze's resolutely adult film brings the latter to the fore and the result is akin to being preached at for an hour and a half with what was quite apparent in the first five minutes. Where the central theme of Sendak's book was an exercise in subtlety, elegance and simplicity, the vastly expanded movie is thematically verbose to the point of being blindingly obvious, plugging it's one simple theme with such broken-record repetition that all such subtlety is lost. The film is a longwinded means of making a point that the book made in a few words and some very fine pictures and as such an expansion on the thematic elements of the story would have been most welcome.

By contrast, Jonze does expand the book in several key areas but in ways which weaken the intended message of the story, so these departures are a little puzzling.

For instance, Jonze gives the "wild things" personalities and names and this serves only to distract us from the focus of the story which is Max. Jonze misinterprets the monsters as characters when they are actually entities - they are manifested euphemisms for Max's rage. Imbuing the monsters with characterisation seems contrary to the intention of the story because it makes them appear less "wild" and thus robs the film of impact when Max adopts the authoritarian role (i.e. that of his mother) and "tames" them. This is, of course, the whole point of the story!

Max is also older in the film, playing a 10 year old rather than a 5 year old as depicted in the book. This decision has implications for our empathy with the character as Max's misbehaviour and his struggle to come to terms with his own emotions is much more acceptable (and understandable) in a 5 year old than it is in a 10.

There is also a puzzling departure in the means by which Max enters his imagination and, by proxy, the land of the wild things. The bedroom transforming into the wild forest, as depicted in the book, provided an infinitely more elegant transition into Max's imagination than the running-away-from-home sequence shown here, although this is perhaps consistent with Max's increased age in the film. There is also a real passage of time occurring here which is not present in the book, which serves only dilute the power of Max's imagination.

Successfully adapting Sendak's book was a tall order for Jonze but he's an interesting, capable director so the project showed promise. Ultimately, though, Jonze's style has gotten in the way of the central tenets of Sendak's story and the result is an opportunity sorely missed.

5 out of 10.