free counter with statistics Where the Wild Things Are Review | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

6644_624749083.jpg
Profoundly Magnificent Adult Film (but) The Worst Children's Movie Ever

Where the Wild Things Are / Dustin Rowles

Film Reviews | October 16, 2009 | Comments (139)

Max is a troubled kid. He’s in a difficult place in his life — he’s not quite a child anymore, but he’s not yet a teenager, either. His older sister is distant and ignores him, and when he tries to engage her friends in a snowball fight, it ends as you’d expect a snowball fight between a group of teenagers and an adolescent to end: In tears. Max’s father is also not around, and he still depends on his mother, not just to take care, but to acknowledge and validate him. But Mom (Catherine Keener) has concerns of her own — she’s overwhelmed. She’s having a hard time at work, and she’s trying to date, which shifts her attention away from Max, who is already lonely, stuck inside his own head, and experiencing feelings of abandonment. Add to that: his grade-school science teacher has warned him that, someday, the sun will burn out, and if that doesn’t destroy the Earth first, war, famine, global warming, or some other calamity might.

So, Max is confused. He feels neglected. Out of sorts. Upset, and maybe a little angry. When his mother shows up with a date (Mark Ruffalo), a date that diverts her attention away from him, Max acts out. He jumps on a table. He demands dinner. He bites his mother. And when she responds with anger, Max runs away from home. He jumps into a sailboat. He sails over a year, in and out of weeks, and through a day to where the Wild Things are.

The Wild Things are fucking terrifying. They’re not just old-style, lo-fi movie creatures, the likes you’ve seen in The Neverending Story or Princess Bride; these Wild Things are manifestations of Max’s own psyche. Not the Max of the Maurice Sendak book, who is learning to cope with preschool maturity — that’s it’s not OK to throw things or resort to tantrums to get your way. This is a far more burdened Max. The Wild Things in Spike Jonze’s Where the Wild Things Are represent Max’s alienation, his insecurity, his feeling of abandonment, and his anger. They’re destructive — not in the little boy temper tantrum sort of way, but in the way that causes them to throw rocks at owls, obliterate homes, and step on each other’s faces out of spite.

Granted, when these Wild Things are not surly or ragey, they do have a sense of playfulness. They like to jump upon each other and fall asleep in a pile; they like to build forts; and they like to have dirt-clump fights, but even those turn ugly. Feelings are hurt; the feelings of alienation are deepened; and their dysfunction further reveals itself.

It’s Max’s duty, as King of Where the Wild Things are, to solve their problems, mend their emotional wounds, and bring them together as one big happy family. So, in a way, Max has to grapple with his own emotions, his own deep-seated issues, and take on a level of responsibility he’s not really mature enough to cope with yet. At least not without his mother’s guidance, and the comfort she brings.

Spike Jonze’s Where the Wild Things Are is a dark, melancholic film. At times playful, at other times profound, it’s also often aimless and slow, building toward an achy and complicated emotional wallop far heavier than anything Maurice Sendak ever envisioned in his ten-sentence storybook. Nevertheless, it’s a magnificent, unconventional art film, captivating, beautifully shot, and layered with emotional bruises, a dark fairytale that’s likely to appeal to fans of Spike Jonze and Dave Eggers (who co-write the script) alike.

But it’s a lousy children’s film. And anybody that tells you that Spike Jonze’s film is faithful to the essence of Maurice Sendak’s storybook has a far different interpretation of Where the Wild Things Are than either my two-year-old son or I do. If you’re expecting 90 minutes of effervescent joy, or a window into your own childhood, forget about it. There’s a few glimpses into the childlike reverie, into that sense of wonder that you might remember as a child, free from responsibility and living in your own world of imagination, running through a forest or howling at the sky. But they are few and far between, bookended by preadolescent traumas and the heavy emotional burdens of growing up.

Indeed, as much I want to love and appreciate Spike Jonze’s Where the Wild Things Are for what it is — a profound, heart-achy and magically wistful indie flick — it’s not what I was hoping for. It won’t provide an emotional bridge between parent and child. Children will feel restless, bored, and, at times, terrified (several parents left with their children during the screening I attended, and several more begged to go home, against their own parents’ wishes). It’s too dark, and those fleeting moments of joy and exhilaration are surrounded by too much sadness and confusion. The Wild Things are menacing and bi-polar — when they threaten to eat Max, there’s a legitimate fear — exacerbated by their razor sharp teeth — that they actually might.

Still, Where the Wild Things Are is a beautiful and smart film — too smart (and at times, a little too smug) for it’s own good, perhaps. It’s a risky one, too, and given the $100 million price tag and the fleeing children in attendance, it’s one that’s not likely to pay off for Warner Brothers. Still, as a movie critic, I adored the movie, even if it’s not anything like what the trailers portended. But as a parent, I’m disappointed. Disappointed that Where the Wild Things Are the movie is not something I’ll be able to share with my own child until he’s old enough to understand the themes coursing through it. Unfortunately, by then, he won’t be a child anymore, and he’ll have already made the miraculous journey of the mind that the film represents.


← Law Abiding Citizen Review | Dribble pt-WANG dribble TACKLE →



Comments

That just sucks.

Posted by: Eyvi at October 16, 2009 3:38 PM

Oh, I'm so sad that I can't bring my son to see this movie! We've read the book together so many times. I've loved it since I was a kid, so I'll see this, but now I'll probably have to wait until it's on DVD...

Posted by: Alexandra at October 16, 2009 3:38 PM

Balls.

Posted by: Nicole at October 16, 2009 3:38 PM

Seeing it tonight. As I am childless I probably won't have the same reaction, but I'm a little sad it's not a great kid film. Glad to hear that it's still a great movie though.

Posted by: Julie at October 16, 2009 3:43 PM

"There’s a few glimpses into the childlike reverie, into that sense of wonder that you might remember as a child, free from responsibility and living in your own world of imagination, running through a forest or howling at the sky"

Even if the movie does suck, i'm glad it came out so that you could write this review. I really think this is one of your best reviews Dustin.

The above quote captures, to me at least, what I miss about my childhood. I was deeply hoping that the entire movie would be about that experience, because if anyone should be able to capture a feeling within a movie it would be Spike Jonze.

Rant 2:
I'm curious what WTWTA meant to others. For me, it was all about the joy of freedom, but weighed against the cost of that freedom (responsibility for yourself and your actions). I never thought of it as a scary or sad book, to me, it was uplifting: appreciate what you've got at home, but at the same time, appreciate the power of your imagination and embrace it because it can take you wonderful places. Perhaps the more nuanced emotional pain version is the majority approach. But, at least from my perspective I'm not happy that the movie is sad.

Posted by: "luker" the barbarian at October 16, 2009 3:44 PM

As, usual, on the same page with you. My kids keep begging me to see it this weekend, and I keep explaining that I don't think they will enjoy it.
I liked the ending quite a bit, but was pretty disappointed over all.

Posted by: frothygirl at October 16, 2009 3:45 PM

I had (and still have) zero interest in this movie. From the trailers it looked smug and hipsterish, and I was certain that it would destroy a part of my childhood. That aside, thank you for an excellent review. Clear perspective, honest, and to the point. Bravo.

Posted by: Samantha at October 16, 2009 3:46 PM

I'm sorry this didn't work out the way you'd hoped. I know I've said that I was counting on it to be a disappointment, but sometimes I want to be wrong. Even from the first trailers I never got the sense that it was truly a children's film, it looked more like a movie made by adults who are sad that they don't get to be children anymore.

Posted by: Rusty (formerly Genny) at October 16, 2009 3:49 PM

it’s a lousy children’s film... Children will feel restless, bored, and, at times, terrified

And there's the problem with marketing this film. If you want to see it, you'd better plan on catching the 9:30 showing because if you don't your going to share a theater with a bunch of children who will be just as out of place at WTWTA as they would be at There Will Be Blood or Atonement. But unlike most art movies, tons of clueless parents will pack up their brats and drag them to this movie without knowing what to expect.

It looks like an interesting movie. I'll read the Eggers novelization for Cannonball, I'll rent the DVD from Netfilx, but seeing this in the movie theater has disaster written all over it. Pass.

Posted by: Yossarian at October 16, 2009 3:50 PM

I fear that my own childhood memories will overwhelm me if I see this film. It hits much too close to the nerve centers.
My 15 year old daughter can't wait to see it, especially after reading this review, so maybe that will be the audience flocking to see it.
Is there anything in theaters these days that can help one feel a sense of transcendent joy?
I could need me summa that.

Posted by: Spender at October 16, 2009 3:53 PM

luker - to me it always seemed to be about the reassurance of having a safety net - love and affection that will always be there to nurture you no matter how far you stray in your search for independence. I love that idea. I'm trying to deliver on that idea with my own kids.

I am a little sad to think that this movie is much like an adult sized wolf suit after all - another idea appropriated for the edification of adults, and not in the direct spirit in which it was originally intended.

It's like we've gone back to the Victorian way of treating our children like little adults, dressing them as such, and indulging our adult whims through 'Pearl the landlord' and cussing rapper tots on YouTube.

Guh - I'll probably love the movie, but Dustin has given me a case of the curmudgeons for right now.

Posted by: replica at October 16, 2009 3:56 PM

Dustin, this is beautifully written. I agree with luker, I think it may be one of your best.

Posted by: Anna von Beaverpuppet at October 16, 2009 3:59 PM

Nver read the book. Simply due to the fact that the monsters on the front of the book were ugly... and I just never felt an urge to pick it up and read it. Truly as simple as that. Cuz I was a huge reader and from a very young age.
Not sure I'll make it to the theatres to see this movie. {This weekend, I'll be seeing Bright Star and then Good Hair on Monday}
The first trailer (w/ the Arcade Fire song) *was* really cool, and I do appreciate what the director / writer were trying to do in making something very different looking (if nothing else). It seems to have turned out just as expected though. Dark and strange and quiry (and smug & hipster-ish, as another said).
The 2nd trailer released seems fairly misleading and I do think *some* parents might have gotten the wrong idea about the whole feel of the movie.
Bummer it doesn't tie in better to what the book was like or that it's not 'shared experience' type flick. Oh well.

Posted by: Ms MoMo at October 16, 2009 4:01 PM

I so love this book. I love reading it aloud - what poetry! I get chills whenever I read it.

The other day my 6-year-old was reading it to me, and in the middle I told her how much I loved it. And then she said to me, "you can read this page Mom."

That being said, I think that Wild Things roaring their terrible roars and gnashing their terrible teeth and showing their terrible claws might be just a bit too much for her on the big screen.

We can wait.

Posted by: mswas at October 16, 2009 4:01 PM

I adored the movie, even if it’s not anything like what the trailers portended.

In a nutshell: the reason I hate trailers. Too often, nothing but trust misplaced. Anyone remember oohing and ahhing over those Ghost Rider trailers? Well I've been longing for this movie like I'd been separated from it for years, like it was my first (are guys allowed to have the clings for their first?). Colour me bitterly disappointed that the movie's reality does not match the trailers' potential.

Posted by: malikvlc at October 16, 2009 4:01 PM

Oh Ms MoMo I urge you to check it out, literally. Go to your local library and get it. No $ involved. Even just read it in the library. It is wonderful.

Posted by: mswas at October 16, 2009 4:05 PM

I think the expectations placed on this movie were probably high enough to guarantee a real disappointment. Too bad, but almost inevitable. I am glad to hear that the art aspect didn't disappoint. It looked pretty visually stunning, and I am all for great art.
I never liked the book as a kid though, and I won't be seeing this film. Ever.
I also hated Winnie the Pooh. Aversion to fat furry things? Maaaaybe..

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at October 16, 2009 4:06 PM

It cost $100M? Holy crap. There is no WAY this was going to make its budget back going this route. Between this and shelving Trick R Treat the WB is just loaded with genius decisions. I will still see it but this review mirrors most I've read. So we are waiting to watch it at home and we are not taking the kids this weekend.

Not what I was expecting it to be, but kind of what I was afraid of, and not worth $25 + concessions to see in the theater for the 4 of us.

Posted by: TylerDFC at October 16, 2009 4:06 PM

That's a shame, but I had a feeling. And, unfortunately, they're promoting it on Nick and Cartoon Network.

Posted by: pk at October 16, 2009 4:07 PM

If you ask me we need to toughen up our children for the coming zombie apocalypse. And this movie is just what the doctor ordered.


Nut up or shut-up, pussies.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at October 16, 2009 4:08 PM

replica I'm glad that you are teaching that lesson to your children. I think that in today's hyper-protective society it is even more important to teach kids that exploration, adventure, imagination, etc. are valuable things, but, and at the end of the day, they will always be safe and loved at home with their parents. That was what I got out of the book and that's what I was hoping the movie would convey.

I'm also curious to what extent spike J had control over the marketing of the film. usually it is separate, but, that trailer was so much better done than your average trailer that I can't help but believe he helped make the movie look more cheerful then it actually is.

Posted by: "luker" the barbarian at October 16, 2009 4:10 PM


Well, I always read it as metaphorical exploration of masturbation, the male body, etc. I mean, you know, the wild rumpus and all that. If you look long enough at the art - at those myriad lines on top of lines - you see Vargas girls everywhere. At least, I did. Growl. The wolf suit = externalizing the id. Get it?

Or am I the only one here who went to Catholic school?

Posted by: Lance at October 16, 2009 4:13 PM

when i think of childhood, i think of pain and anxiety and loneliness and confusion; and i think of having to teach myself my own lessons.

I have a daughter who (seems) to be experiencing a far different childhood, so far (fingers crossed), for which i am grateful. I'm sad that this film isn't for her, but I definitely think I can get behind it, it does indeed strike a chord.

Posted by: idleprimate at October 16, 2009 4:15 PM

There's just no pleasing some people, honestly.
I'm going to watch it tomorrow with my girlfriend, and I'm seeing it because I'm always up for a Spike Jonze movie. I trust him to make a good film and the trailer just made me more interested to see it. I'm not surprised to hear that it's dark (Spike usually brings the dark to his projects), but I am surprised to see readers here immediately shitting upon it just because Dustin was disappointed that it's not appropriate for his kid.
I stopped listening to reviewers after I saw O Brother, Where Art Thou?. The critics panned it. I loved it. It's called a difference of opinion. I learned that I had to just stick to movies I was interested in seeing. Sure, there have been disappointments in that regard (Fuck you, David Lynch, for making Inland Empire), but at least I know the choice is my own and not affected by critics or the hype machine.

Posted by: Jim Doggie at October 16, 2009 4:26 PM

I so wanted this to be like the book I so fondly remember and was looking forward to regaining a little of my own sense of wonderment. Now my heart is sad. I may see it, but I won't be sharing it with my kids until DVD

Posted by: admin at October 16, 2009 4:30 PM

I am so glad to finally read a review of this film from someone who gets it. When i first saw the previews I was excited not because I thought it would be a great childrens film or even because it seems so reminiscant of the book, but because I feel that the essence of feeling behind those 10 little sentences seems to be captured so well. As a child "Wild things" resonated with me not because it was a fun story book, but because those emotions of anger and the desire to escape to somewhere where it is okay to be everything the world is trying to teach you not to be, were all encapsulated in Max's experience. Of course i didn't realize those specific things as a child, but I related to Max, and here the movie seems to bring all the fear anger and frustration of childhood to life. I am so excited to go see it. thanks :)

Posted by: victoria at October 16, 2009 4:32 PM

I still agree that this movie had the second best trailer of all time, but the best trailer of all time, Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, the truth is, you should never get hyped up merely over trailers and previews, or else you'll end up disappointed like never before.

But you know what the worst thing about this movie is? Even though it wasn't the worst film ever, so much potential was wasted, just like Phantom Menace. Spike Jonze obviously missed the point, was given far too much money, spent far too much time on the movie, and waited far long in between directing pictures, just like George Lucas.

This whole thing is just The Phantom Menace of kids flicks.

Posted by: George at October 16, 2009 4:33 PM

Dustin, this is beautifully written. I agree with luker, I think it may be one of your best.

I always found his Daddy Day Camp Review or his Superhero Movie Review to be Dustin's magnum opus.

Posted by: George at October 16, 2009 4:40 PM

I'm still very excited, as is the friend I am seeing it with. Whatever the case, we'll in all likelihood enjoy ourselves immensely. Though it's a shame the essence of youth is more or less nonexistent. Oh well, it's in Imax, so that should make up for something, right.

Posted by: Kamikaze Feminist at October 16, 2009 4:40 PM

Slim,

I'm glad that you are teaching that lesson to your children. I think that in today's hyper-protective society it is even more important to teach kids that exploration, adventure, imagination, etc. are valuable things, but, and at the end of the day, they will always need to be heavily armed and ready for zombies.

Posted by: Gentleman Farmer at October 16, 2009 4:47 PM

If you cannot figure out that this is an adult film for us to re-imagine how the book would be in real life, then you should fucking resign from this site... Even Sendak himself said so..

Posted by: Ted at October 16, 2009 4:52 PM

I'm in the "kid is still too young to be taken to the theater" boat, but my wife and I still are going to make the trip to see it. A great review regardless, DR.


This whole thing is just The Phantom Menace of kids flicks.

Keep fucking that chicken, George.

Posted by: branded at October 16, 2009 4:53 PM

A) I don't think anyone is "shitting" on the movie. (If we've not yet seen it, how can we be "shitting" on it?) It was reviewed in an honest and intelligent fashion with the reviewer stating his opinion.

B) I come to Pajiba for many reasons but I have always come here for the reviews because the tastes and opinions of those who review movies/television/books closely mirror my own. Their track record is pretty damned good.

I have decided to see it but, thanks to Dustin's excellent review, I'll now be seeing it via Netflix, where - instead of being terribly embarrassed in a theater full of adults - I can cry my eyes out in the comfort of my living room.

Posted by: Spender at October 16, 2009 4:55 PM

I would challenge you to a duel, gentleman farmer , but i know when I would lose. Anyone that quick with a zombie quip must be a master swordsman. Congratulations, you are no longer Gentleman Farmer, you sir, or lady, are Gentleman BARBARIAN. May you defeat the rising zombie horde.

I shall return to governing california based on what some snakes tell me to do.

Posted by: "luker" the barbarian at October 16, 2009 4:58 PM

To be honest, I don't even remember much of the book. I read it once as a kid, from the library, but never owned a copy. So my interest in this movie stems purely from the amazing trailers I've seen. But to hear you tell it, Rowles, it sounds like I might still enjoy it, because I'm not expecting some deep connection to my childhood or to a beloved book. Plus, being childless, I'm not hoping to connect to anyone through the movie.

However, being broke, I'll probably wait for the DVD to hit Netflix.

Posted by: MelBivDevoe at October 16, 2009 5:00 PM

Good review. I'm very much looking forward to this film, as I have no kids, and I know never to pay any heed to trailers. It does not seem entirely fair to me to critique a film for something that it is not attempting, even if marketing and expectations run contrary to the attempt. That does not mean it isn't a valid complaint given the nature of the source material, but if art goes off and does something else that succeeds in a different way from that which inspired it, then I don't have a problem with it.

As for the critics, I wouldn't be so quick to bash them. At least for me personally, I find that the RottenTomatoes/Metacritic gestalt is just about the most useful indicator available for letting me know if I'm likely to enjoy a film. (e.g., O Brother Where Art Thou was not panned; it's at 77% on the Tomatometer.)

Posted by: DarthCorleone at October 16, 2009 5:03 PM

Unfortunately, by then, he won’t be a child anymore, and he’ll have already made the miraculous journey of the mind that the film represents.

I'm crying at work. Thanks a lot, Rowles.

Posted by: Jelinas at October 16, 2009 5:04 PM

Well crap, crap, crap. So much for taking the kids this weekend.

Posted by: EricD at October 16, 2009 5:05 PM

Great review. As I read the review (and the comments) I realized that I have not been looking forward to this film because of my nostalgia for the book but rather for how cool the trailer looked. In fact, I realized I never really liked the book as a kid - we didn't own it, and whenever we got it out of the library, I found myself waiting for the moment when Max gets baked into a cake and then realizing that I was thinking about "In the Night Kitchen," which was actually my favorite Sendak book.

So, that said, I think I will enjoy the movie and save my nostaliga and disappointment for the (inevitable) movie version of "In the Night Kitchen."

Posted by: lvsmithmarsh at October 16, 2009 5:06 PM

My local reviewer had the same review as Dustin -- too slow and not for children. Since I've never read the book, I guess I'll skip this.

Posted by: BWeaves at October 16, 2009 5:14 PM

I'm not a breeder and I barely remember the book from childhood, so I'm definitely going to see this movie now. Or maybe in a week or two, once the word gets out and no one brings their kids anymore.

It reminds me of when a friend was telling me she was going to take her kid to see Pan's Labyrinth and I'm all, "uh, no you're not". I mean really... it has subtitles. What kid is going to sit through that?

Posted by: malechai at October 16, 2009 5:33 PM

I don't know. I loved this movie and, thinking about it as something that I would have seen as a child, I thought it was perfect - I just don't think it was perfect for this generation. To be honest, Neverending Story and other kids movies I saw when I was small were absolutely terrifying, and this had the sense of danger that mesmerized me when I saw movies as a child.

The only thing for me that made it child-unfriendly were the Wild Things, as Dustin was saying. It just seemed like I had never really seen a kids' movie where the creatures that you allied with tried to, you know, turn against you and eat you.

What I loved was the rough playing and kid stuff. The whole time I was watching I thought that Max was going to get stepped on or killed by impalement on his crown or chucked against a tree... it's the kind of playing that you don't really see anymore on playgrounds because everyone seems so paranoid.

Anyway, I'm rambling. I loved it, but I definitely understand Dustin's point of view.

Posted by: Marcela at October 16, 2009 5:39 PM

What in Godtopus's name made you think Spike Jonze was making a children's film? Karen O did the soundtrack. That's enough to give 60% of America nightmares.

Posted by: Robert at October 16, 2009 5:46 PM

Is there anything in theaters these days that can help one feel a sense of transcendent joy?
I could need me summa that.
Posted by: Spender at October 16, 2009 3:53 PM

**********
I dunno, Spender, but I felt pretty joyful at Zombieland. In an inappropriate adult sort of way, of course.

My daughter is 3 and she enjoys the Disney Robin Hood; during the archery tournament scene when Robin is discovered and the chase ensues she squeals with delight and always runs to tell me, "Mommy, the Rhino grabbed the Chicken by the pants!" and she laughs hysterically. She is joyful in that moment.

As adults, I don't think we get to feel that very much. Our laughter and joy is always balanced with cynicism.

Posted by: Miranda at October 16, 2009 5:47 PM

I admit the trailer was impressively styled, but I have no desire to see this. That's less a knock on Jonze than an admission of the fact that I never liked the book, even as a kid. To me, Max always came across as a selfish, rude, ungrateful little jerk who didn't appreciate anything anyone did for him. I don't understand why he was supposed to be empathized with. I'm honestly more intrigued trying to figure out why so many people love the book so much.

I will give them credit for not going overboard marketing it to kids since it's clearly not a kids movie - no Burger King cups or plush stuffed Wild Things as far as I know.

Posted by: Lance at October 16, 2009 5:51 PM

Totally, lvsmithmarsh, it was all about Micky and the Night Kitchen for me too! I liked the drawings in WTWTA, but the story scared me a bit too much. Somehow giant cooks making cake in the middle of the night and needing some milk weren't as terrifying.

Posted by: Alarmjaguar at October 16, 2009 5:58 PM

@malechai
Btw. Is it Mal-uh-kai or male-chai, like tea?
Were you being sarcastic about the Pan's movie? I'm really literal,
so sometimes I don't understand when someone's making a funny.
I think the movie had scary creatures / weird beings / some gore / efx
make-up, so I've still not seen it. Are there subtitles involved also?

Posted by: Ms MoMo at October 16, 2009 6:10 PM

Never read the book. Saw some clips and scenes at Comic Con this year. In one instance, I remember feeling terrified that Max was going to be crushed and killed. I knew then that this was no movie for kids. I also realized that I must see this. I will see WTWTA this weekend. I expected to feel angry, sad, bored, giddy, terrifed and all the really pure emotions, because that's what Spike Jonze brought to the table. The adult muppets are finally here!!!

Posted by: James at October 16, 2009 6:15 PM

Gentleman Farmer {Barbarian}:
I wholehearted agree with your sentiments. Nomination for next
week's EE, right there.

I will say that I'm looking at your thoughts in a serious way though.
Re, arming the kiddies and prepping for battle.

Posted by: Ms MoMo at October 16, 2009 6:16 PM

Thanks for the really though provoking review.

funny- a visually stunning "profound, heart-achy and magically wistful indie flick" is totally what I hoped for and expect out of Spike Jonze. I saw one or two trailers and prayed that this would be a movie as visually impactful as Coppola's "The Black Stallion"- and definitely have not gotten the impression it is for little kids.

Then again I don't have a 3-8 year old begging me to take them to see their favorite book come to life. I always saw WTWTA a deep complicated and scary book.


Posted by: juiceinla at October 16, 2009 6:21 PM

Well. Not having kids I don't really give a damn whether kids would like it. I've never read the book, and from the trailer it looked like a truly great, bizarre little movie. I don't get it--I always thought the trailer didn't make it look like some joyous kid's movie. It looked a little glum and dark. So I don't get why everyone seems so disappointed that it isn't a kiddie movie. What exactly made you think it was, based on the trailer? The Wild Things have always looked vaguely terrifying and sad! In fact, knowing that it isn't a kiddie movie just makes me want to see it more.

Anyway, it looks and sounds like I will love it, and I still can't wait to see it.

Posted by: figgy at October 16, 2009 6:30 PM

I absolutely adored the movie, and I agree that this will most likely not stick with the typical adolescent crowd. The depth of it will most likely bore kids off, that is if they haven't been scared by the menace of it first. However, it seemed like this would be a personal best picture candidate based on the hype, and for me, it absolutely delivered.

Posted by: blahblahblah at October 16, 2009 6:41 PM

I wonder if I'm the only person who detested the book and found Max an annoying character? I got dragged to the movie and was rather pleasantly surprised by it because it was darker and more interesting than I was expecting. I reread the book and found it as bland and uninteresting as when I was child. Kudos to Jones for making a movie I enjoyed out of a book I disliked.

Posted by: Cam at October 16, 2009 6:43 PM

maybe, its good anyway. For what it is. can we even all remember how to like something without political/social/offspring context? I cant.

Posted by: patchfire at October 16, 2009 6:59 PM

I'm seeing this with my parents next week, and now I'm not so sure I want to. I mean I definitely want to see the movie, but I'm worried that having my parents along will be awkward.

Posted by: Lucas at October 16, 2009 7:14 PM

I didn't get if you liked the movie or not, but as to being scary and too complex for kiddies, I remember watching some really scary movies in which I had no idea what was going on and what it was about because I couldn't understand and that made it even more scary but somehow those movies stayed in my mind and I was always trying to understand oh what the fuck was that and what was that scary thing, can it really get me? and stuff like that and that was what made me think about stuff, I mean... I would try to understand the movies, or the memory I had of them, and the memory of being scared, and that is a big thing towards growing up. So maybe that's where that film is aiming.

But probably not.

Posted by: zito at October 16, 2009 7:17 PM

I'm with figgy on this one. Nothing about the trailer made me think this would be a cute kiddie movie. I saw darkness and foreboding and that's precisely what made me so excited about it. Can't wait to see it.

Posted by: Queen Lena at October 16, 2009 7:23 PM

I'm definitely on board with marcela, here.

Rowles and Co.,
It was a kid's movie. It wasn't a kid's movie in that it resembles other kid's movies, but in that it doesn't try to explain itself to anyone else. Maybe all of you were just too shiny as children, but to my mind that's not what kid's or "Where the Wild Things Are" are all about, book or film.

Will kid's enjoy it? Depends on the kid. I know that I would have lit the hell up seeing this movie as a kid. But how many reviews on this site say that a movie was great and meaningful and clearly intended for a specific group that would not, in fact, enjoy it. That's up to the kid, but let's not try to dictate for them what we think they should be interested in or how their movies should try to speak to them.

Kid's aren't just "little adults," but they are little human beings. And this movie needed to be made, whether parents decide it will entertain their kid's or not, whether every kid is entertained or not, and whether a couple of Pajibans completely trusted Dustin or not.

Nothing against Dustin, and nothing against Pajiba. 99% of the time I am scarily in line with you guys. But not today. Not after seeing this movie. I wish I was a kid to see it again, and I wish I had a kid to see it with, and I cannot wait to see it again with my mother.

Until we agree on something again,
coryo out

Posted by: coryo at October 16, 2009 7:47 PM

But Harry Knowles said it's the best movie he's seen this year?!

Posted by: John W at October 16, 2009 8:50 PM

So I don't get why everyone seems so disappointed that it isn't a kiddie movie.

See, this is the kind of bullshit that's been bugging me in the comments. If it really wasn't supposed to be marketed as a kids movie, Jones should have buckled the fuck down, and given the damn thing an "R" rating, but he didn't. It was toned down for a "PG" level, and marketed on every single station in the world as a kids movie, hell, it's based on a damn kids book that's so synonymous with childhood, it ranks up with pointless collectable action figures as a childhood icon.

Hell, Jonze said that the whole objective of the movie was to capture what it was like to be nine, and when your movie has a nine year old as the main character, the first thing you think of is "kid's movie." I wouldn't be so pissed if he didn't make it look like a kids movie, but what else could anyone with any sense think a Where The Wild Things Are movie would be?

Posted by: George at October 16, 2009 9:08 PM

Although this is being heavily marketed as a kid/family movie, I would seriously caution parents of children under 10 (and probably under 13) to avoid this movie or at least be prepared to deal with the issues it raises. The serious adult themes are confusing and inappropriate for little ones. As an adult I found the movie to be quite depressing and a big departure from a beloved children’s classic. Two words: highly disappointed to say the least.

We wrote a full review of the film from a parents'perspective right here: http://www.fivehens.com/where-the-wild-things-are-movie-review/

Posted by: Five Hens at October 16, 2009 9:15 PM

Dustin, I really enjoyed this review, but I disagree that this is not a children's movie. It is not a young children's movie. I knew it wouldn't be right for my six or four year old, but my nine year old loved it - and in fact she said right away she'd see it again.

The film was visually beautiful and at times breathtaking. And though the wild things were indeed terrifying, they were also tender and warm and funny. The boy who portrayed Max was just about perfect. He threw himself into each moment with wild abandon, and his face played emotions like an instrument.

I fear that my own childhood memories will overwhelm me if I see this film. It hits much too close to the nerve centers.

My eyes leaked several times. I think Jonze was able to capture Sendak's idea that childhood is sometimes terrible and scary.

Posted by: Cindy at October 16, 2009 9:41 PM

I hate children, and am thus apathetic to this criticism. I am sure it will warm the fixed gears in my cold cold hipster heart.

Posted by: sheshakes at October 16, 2009 9:55 PM

I just want to know if you still get the feeling that in the end Max knows that no matter where he goes or what he does that his mother loves him and he will always be able to return to her and she will be waiting with a warm mean/a mother's love?

Posted by: jules at October 16, 2009 10:11 PM

I love you, Cindy.
Thank you.

Posted by: Spender at October 16, 2009 10:16 PM

Back at you Doc.


jules: Yes, absolutely.

Posted by: Cindy at October 16, 2009 10:25 PM

I loved it. It made cry. And I don't cry. It was beautiful. It made me think. I got to go all film snob on my friends' asses. It reopened my childhood to me and made it universal. It was just lovely.

Posted by: esme at October 16, 2009 10:29 PM

I just got done seeing it. Maybe because I don't have children, but the part of me that remembers being that old loved it. I find it no end of irony that a book that was banned many, many places for being too dark for the target audience has a movie based on it, and the movie is said not to be like the book because it's too dark.

The monsters look like the works of Jim Henson. (Which means they show more emotion in one eye then all the cgi in hollywood, but I digress.) Jim Hensons' works were dark and scary. Even on sesame Street, the monsters were cuddly, and they'd be your friend, and then they might eat you. Same here.

Posted by: Trek Barnes at October 16, 2009 11:05 PM

My six year old prefers Hotel for Dogs to any other kids movie out there. I have to remember that I loved Benji the same way. I can't help but think that most of the greatest kids stories are almost always hailed as such when viewed through the lens of an adult remembering their own childhood. What Dustin wrote up there made me think of this Shel Silverstein poem:

Forgotten Language

Once I spoke the language of the flowers,
Once I understood each word the caterpillar said,
Once I smiled in secret at the gossip of the starlings,
And shared a conversation with the housefly
in my bed.
Once I heard and answered all the questions
of the crickets,
And joined the crying of each falling dying
flake of snow,
Once I spoke the language of the flowers...
How did it go?
How did it go?

That's a great poem. It would bore the shit out of a kid.

Posted by: megbon at October 16, 2009 11:11 PM

Just came back from seeing this movie and I agree and disagree with Dustin. It took me back to me childhood. It made me remember being so angry and so frustrated that things were changing and I could do nothing about it. But also, his stories to his mother and his gleeful face when he starts the snowball fight. I remember that feeling. I remember running through the woods with my sister in our own world where we were princesses and a tall tree our castle. It also took me back to the days when I felt that loniless of my parents splitting and not getting as much attention as I used to. It was a very touching film. I loved it. My 7 year old niece acts just like that boy and I am interested to see if she will figure it all out.And Catherine O'Hara was HILARIOUS. She cracked me up the whole time.

Posted by: lyricalcatt at October 16, 2009 11:13 PM

To those saying it's not a childrens movie - please pay attention to the way it was marketed. Cutesy music, on Nickelodeon, the young actor doing the voice over at the end. They are totally marketing this for children. I for one thank Dustin for an honest review, as I now know I should not take my younger boys to this.

Posted by: Alex at October 16, 2009 11:15 PM

I agree with Marcela. The Dark Crystal, The Neverending Story, and Labyrinth, all gave me the creeps when I was a little girl, and yet I adored them and cherish those memories.

I mean, when in the Neverending Story, Atreyu's horse gets stuck in the Swamps of Sadness, I sobbed. And the whole thing with The Nothing, and that terrifying wolf...well, life is sometimes sad and terrifying, isn't it? I was a weak, naive, sheltered child, and yet, I knew the moment I saw the Neverending Story (it was the first video we ever rented), that I had seen something amazing. A bit of truth disguised as fantasy.

Perhaps WTWTA isn't for little children, but I hope it speaks to the slightly older ones. And I hope it resonates with them years later.

Posted by: lucy at October 16, 2009 11:22 PM

I think all the parents involved need to think back a little differently about their childhoods. How many of you would happily sit down with your children to watch The Wizard of Oz? I you would, then you already have "scared" your children. I you wouldn't, then you seriously need to think how badly you're over-sanitizing your children against both the fantasy and the real world.
And if you're sending them out on their bikes with helmets and pads, yes, they're safer, but do they get the joy you did?

Posted by: alacrify at October 16, 2009 11:44 PM

Speaking as someone that just got back from the movie, I cannot disagree more. Theater was packed with children of all ages. Stadium seating, to boot! The audience applauded afterwards. I am sorry that Mr. Rowles couldn't bring his 2 yr old, but this wasn't a movie for 2 yr olds! My 7 yr enjoyed it. There were scary parts, but hell, my first movie was Star Wars! I remember ET and the Dark Crystal in the theater.

Posted by: Juice at October 16, 2009 11:48 PM

Thank you lucy and Marcela (and lyricalcatt) - that's just what I was trying to say.

Posted by: alacrify at October 16, 2009 11:49 PM

why, oh why didn't i just go see this tonight?
instead i went to see paranormal activity and now i'll never sleep with every light on and something thumped in the hall and my roomie is out of town and look, i may or may not make it through the night, so i'll try to comment on the weekend thread, so you guys please please please check to see if i made it cause i don't want to die and i swear to god the curtain just moved and roseanne is on and it's the episode where jackie's water broke and she doesn't want to lie on the couch because she doesn't want to give birth where dan takes his naps,so good night and remember to have bucdaddy check in on me.
i love you all.
also, i'm sorry jesus for the, you know, gay stuff.

Posted by: gp at October 16, 2009 11:51 PM

Oh, and I was only 4 years old when I saw The Neverending Story. Not that WTWTA is the same movie, but just for the sake of comparison.

Posted by: lucy at October 16, 2009 11:59 PM

Good luck gp! I always watch Golden Girls when I'm too scared to sleep. Nothing bad can happen when the Golden Girls is on. All that old lady sex talk scares the demons away.

Posted by: lucy at October 17, 2009 12:17 AM

Still with us, gp? gp?

*dials 9-1-1*

*Shit, doesn't know where gp lives ...*

Posted by: , (the commenter formerly known as bucdaddy) at October 17, 2009 12:20 AM

Hey Rowles....you couldn't be further from the mark buddy. As a critic, you may not have looked at this objectively enough. Most of your review is tainted with your expectations based off of a trailer cut by the studio, NOT the director. You could tell immediately that this was never, at least not from Spike Jones, intended to be a children's movie.

This movie was intended for people in our age group. And saying there is no harkeing back to childhood...no bridge. Bull - schnickity there too. The entire movie was about how difficult it can be to be a child sometimes, coping with alienation, coping with learning about "the end", coping with growing up. This movie brought up so much raw emotion: remembering what it was like to feel hurt when I was a kid, remembering what it was like when i wanted attention but couldn't get it, remembering resenting my parents for the first time.

You say this movie was sad. That's too broad a description. The easiest way to express it would be to call it emotional. You could tell the entire time that it was made with complete reverence to the source material and love for it. But just as Sendak told Spike in the featurette posted on your very own website...this is Spike Jonze's WTWTA...not Maurice Sendak's.

Go back and see it again. I won't argue that yes, some parts were lengthy and I started to feel restless. But go back and see it not expecting a kids movie. Go back and see it from the perspective that childhood memories aren't all warm and fuzzy and kids can deal with some serious shit...just like we adults do today. Except now, we rationalize, act, and then overcome. Children act out and then learn from what/how they feel afterwards, which is exactly what this movie showed.

Posted by: PissBoy at October 17, 2009 12:35 AM

Jim Doggie...you trust will be rewarded. Nothing was wasted.

Posted by: PissBoy at October 17, 2009 12:38 AM

?em raeh enoyna naC ?olleH
AAAAAAHello? Can anyone hear me?
i'm in hereEEEEAAAAA ?olleH Hello? AAAAAAOOOO!!
AAAAHelAAAAEEEEE HelpEEEEEOOOOlp.
?ereht enoyna sI AAAAAAAHello?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Posted by: gp at October 17, 2009 12:45 AM

I've been following this review site for a long time now (and generally love and trust it), but this is my first comment, as I have never been so disappointed with a review as I am right now.

This movie was amazing. Period. I can't wait to go see it again. Everyone should see this film, even with their kids.

Sure, it was heavy as hell, but that doesn't mean that an interpretation of the film that would be totally appropriate for (and on the level of) children would have been the right choice. Look at all these horrible remakes of our childhood memories that have come out over the past few years, and just thank god that Spike Jonze was the man for this film. This could have been a horrible disaster in the style of the Garfield films or Alvin and the Chipmunks, but instead it was a heartfelt chunk of soulful cinema that will linger with people for generations.

As people have already argued, the best children's films of the past were often dark (I LOVED The Neverending Story as a kid and still do), and most of the lighter ones were best left as warm memories, not pieces of art that could (and should) be returned to as adults. With the advent of whole series of old children's shows being released on DVD over the past few years, I'm sure all of us have (at least once) gone through the whole experience where we got excited about a particular show, re-watched some of it, and then sadly realized that it wasn't any good and actually had no depth to it, despite how much we loved it as a child.

Bottom line: This WILL NOT happen with Where The Wild Things Are. Sure, it might be scary for some kids (none of which left my theatre either), but they'll get over it and look back fondly on this film. It's not just a great indie art film...it's a great film period.

Posted by: rtburruss at October 17, 2009 1:51 AM

Yes, our ranks are swelling.

Posted by: coryo at October 17, 2009 2:55 AM

Dustin and Pajiba community. Sometimes you truly surprise me. You were really expecting a kiddy movie?? Really? Where in the previews were the fart jokes or the inane cgi talking animals?

The director is Spike Jones, written with Eggers and the soundtrack was done by the crazy-brilliant-drunk Karen O. Plus the trailer featured Arcade Fire. What part of that sounds kid-friendly??? I mean even when you consider the source material, we aren't in Kansas anymore. Its a darking fucking story people. Max is mad! And he doesn't deal with his anger well.

Were you expecting a sugar coating?? Is that what you really wanted? Because if you did then stop bitching about every childhood memory Hollywood shits out. This is one of the few movies that is true to the soul of the source. It evokes all the emotions the 10 sentence story hints at. I laughed so hard, I cried and I feared for Max. I feel in love with the beauty of the movie. And all you parents who cant see that because you small children might be scared....get over yourselves.

And to all you anti-scenster/hipsters. Get our yourselves too. Its a movie about a 9 year old and his imaginary Wild Things. The most hip thing he does is wear converse and you can hardly blame a 9 year old for that.

You all disappoint me.

Posted by: Drea at October 17, 2009 4:14 AM

For those of you taking issue with the review because it's not positive enough, did you just skim the review or what? He said "it’s a magnificent, unconventional art film, captivating, beautifully shot, and layered with emotional bruises, a dark fairytale that’s likely to appeal to fans of Spike Jonze and Dave Eggers alike." He might not think it's a good kid's film but he still thought it was "a profound, heart-achy and magically wistful indie flick." That's a rave, in my book. I plan on seeing it tonight.

Posted by: The Great Mango at October 17, 2009 8:18 AM

To be fair to the people who jumped in and started criticizing Dustin's great review, he did title it "The Worst Children's Movie Ever." That's a pretty negative phrase to levy against a film receiving a positive review. I understand the confusion.

Posted by: Robert at October 17, 2009 8:37 AM

And WTWTA is a great adult film marketed as a kid's film. Isn't that just as confusing?

Layers.

Posted by: Great Mango at October 17, 2009 9:00 AM

This was an amazing review! After listening to Jones talk about the story-writing process and his interpretation of a ten sentence story, I'm glad that SOMETHING of substance surfaced! And if it's a melancholy and dark interpretation, so be it. Thank you for the great review!

Posted by: Goldteef at October 17, 2009 9:51 AM

Aww, Dustin. You changed the title! That was both sweet and completely deserved.

Posted by: esme at October 17, 2009 9:51 AM

There’s a few glimpses into the childlike reverie, into that sense of wonder that you might remember as a child, free from responsibility and living in your own world of imagination, running through a forest or howling at the sky.

Is that how it is? Kidhood is deadly serious for those engaged in it. Nothing is quite so solemn as the focus of a child, nor so pure as the I-focused demands of a four-year-old.

Aren't most "children's" books or movies really for adults? Buggs Bunny is incredibly subversive if you pay attention. Fantasia is essentially an acid trip. The Princess Bride is great because it is so knowing. The Muppets were already mentioned.

Even so, "books of childhood" would make an interesting diversion. I came late to them, but am a huge fan - The Phantom Tollbooth, Harold and the Purple Crayon or The Velveteen Rabbit continue to be great favorites of mine.

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at October 17, 2009 9:55 AM

*clap* *clap* *clap*

Dustin Rowles ladies and gentlemen:

Rock-hard abs enthusiast, Seth McFarlane hater and all around.....pooooosey.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at October 17, 2009 12:14 PM

And if you're sending them out on their bikes with helmets and pads, yes, they're safer, but do they get the joy you did?

Considering the time my ass did a somersault after hitting a mailbox without said items, they would have been a ball of happiness for me.

It is interesting to see the mentality at work here. At first glance, it seems most of the folks who hate the "worst children's film ever" appellation are (supposedly) adults with no children of their own.

"Well, I saw Neverending Story when I was a fetus." Whoopty-freaking-doo. You aren't Dustin's kid. You presumably don't know the kid better than he does. If Dustin doesn't feel comfortable having his kid watch such things, stop acting like he is a bad parent for doing so. Especially considering the constant times folks around here talk about the nightmares and such they got from such movies. Scaring a kid shitless, while amusing, isn't Parent of the Year material.

I dare say, you people are acting like the Twihards in the previous post. Only thing is you all have better spelling and grammar.

Posted by: Vermillion at October 17, 2009 12:26 PM

Yeah, I have to agree with the commenters who take issue with the review. I understand that Dustin did praise the film at times but I think that he wrote this review with the bitterness of having been 'tricked' by the WB advertising into bringing toddlers still in his system. It doesn't do the films excellence justice.

Take everyone to see it, seriously. As long as they are old enough not to cry (loudly) in a theatre they should go. My date was soo not the presumed child/chick/hipster target audience. He's a guy's guy, of a more base sort (he only took me because he owed me) and he loved the film because everyone either is or was a child and can relate or at least recognize what's going on and appreciate the beauty and complexity of it.

The film is very much like childhood and brought me back to a lot of confusing feelings even though my childhood wasn't as chaotic as Max's. He is a brat and he learns his lesson the same way Sendak's Max does. There's actually so little in Sendak's book as far as words and explanations go that its a wonder that anyone presumed it just to be about a childlike romp with no conflicts. In my opinion the book was written the way a child would tell Jonze version of the story but wanted to leave all of the complex and potentially negative or misunderstood parts out. Like when your mom asks how your day was and you say 'nothing' when you know it wasn't nothing. "Will you say good things about us?" indeed.

I'm glad Jonze had the insight to fill in the obvious blanks in the story and actually create a universe where Max could genuinely learn a lesson about life, respect, love, and responsibility. Max needed to have an experience that would truly earn him that hot supper that he has waiting for him at home.

I say bravo!

Posted by: Shai at October 17, 2009 12:40 PM

I dare say, you people are acting like the Twihards in the previous post. ..

Posted by: Vermillion at October 17, 2009 12:26 PM

-------------------------------------------

Oh, here we go, talk about inflammatory.

Twihards?

Seriously?

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at October 17, 2009 12:50 PM

I never had this book as a kid, tho I did buy it for my own. I like the story, but my kids never want to hear it, no matter how many times I offer to read it. I think the monsters freak them out. So I won't be taking them. If you've ever spent a night dealing with a scared child, you learn to be careful of what you let your kids watch. It might be the most benign thing in the world - by your standards - but if it freaks out your kid, it is not worth subjecting them to it. This might be the best movie ever made, but if you value your sleep at night, you will think twice about taking your kid if he/she is sensitive to that. I'm selfish. I like sleeping.

Posted by: Chickaboom at October 17, 2009 12:54 PM

Agreed Vermillion. What a bunch of blethering gonad munchers, completely missing the point of Dustin's review. What he is saying is (and this is a view shared with many other parents of young children, including myself), WTWTA is a book that we enjoy reading with our young children, and it is disappointing that we cannot do the same with the film. It's easy to reflect back on your childhood and disagree, but it's only until you have kids that you think seriously about what experience you are giving them, and as any decent parent knows, you don't want to scare the shit out of your three-year-old. Now go back and read the review again, and mentally circle all the positive things Dustin wrote about the film in regards to older audiences.

Posted by: vab at October 17, 2009 1:11 PM

So all the fucking Hollywood Reporter Film website could Blog about is the problem with Gandolfini as Carol. More bitchy people need to comment on that predictable, nauseating tripe.
"...every time he opened his mouth to muse in Max Records’ magical land, we couldn’t help wondering when he would order Christopher to keep an eye on Uncle Junior."
I guess it's exactly the unimaginative, simpleminded excrement you expect to come out of Hollywood.
PS. I'm gonna jump on the bandwagon -- exceptional review, Dustin.

Posted by: jmulbe at October 17, 2009 1:46 PM

Quoting my 10-year-old daughter: "It was good. I just didn't like it."

Her father, however, loved it. Completely captured childhood's possibilities for careening between joy and terror. And Max Records gives one of the most wondrous performances I've ever seen from any actor, child or adult.

Posted by: lactic at October 17, 2009 2:21 PM

Saw this movie with my 4- and 7-year olds. They both loved it. It was sad and a little heavy, to be sure, but so are most of the truly great children's films, the sadness and emotional trauma are what draw you into the story. They were both asking when the next time we were going to go see it again would be.

Also, I cried. Not single emo-tear either, like here comes the waterworks level crying when Max leaves the island.

Posted by: GoreMotel at October 17, 2009 2:27 PM

My husband said that he knew he could turn me against this movie with two words: Dave Eggers. I seriously hate Eggers's more-precious-than-thou writing style, so I can't imagine watching his treatment of one of my favorite childhood books. Spike Jonze made the movie look absolutely gorgeous, though, so I have to applaud him.

Posted by: Geek Whit at October 17, 2009 3:17 PM

I completely honor Dustin's take on this, and Maybe modify with my own after actually seeing the movie. I did however want to point out that there HAVE been movies that were both dark and resounded deeply with children. They did sort of become extinct as the Disney Machine blotted out the genre.

They are rare, but an excellent one is Espiritu de la Colmena. Nothing about this movie is graphic, but it deals with the secret universe of one child's imagination in a way that's fucking breathtaking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_of_the_Beehive

Posted by: Stacy D at October 17, 2009 4:33 PM

I'll rather have my children watch this film that doesn't talk down or act dumb to children, then reather watch some lame-brain family film like Cloudy with a chance of meatballs and other overhyped, too much color films that doesn't treat children well.

Posted by: Corey W. at October 17, 2009 5:00 PM

Oh, here we go, talk about inflammatory.

Yep. Thought you of all folks might appreciate it.

It is just ridiculous to me that folks are slamming Dustin for being concerned about what his child is exposed to. I was under the impression that was part and parcel of the whole "parent" deal. Your kid can handle it? Fine, Fantastic. But if another person doesn't feel right about it, why make them feel bad about it.

And more to the point: did any of you ever consider that by labeling it "worst children's movie ever", he was actually paying it another compliment? You know, since so many of you feel kids shouldn't be talked down to like other so-called "children's" media?

Posted by: Vermillion at October 17, 2009 8:13 PM

Haha. Just noticed the change of title. Nice. I had actually avoided reading this review at first because of the original title. I thought Dustin had hated it and I'd just be upset.

Posted by: Marcela at October 17, 2009 8:50 PM

I have no problem with Dustin not wanting his own kid to see it, but that doesn't make it a bad children's movie. That's my major gripe: don't assume your kid is indicative of kids as a whole.

Posted by: coryo at October 17, 2009 10:31 PM

If you want to bring the children to the movies, go see Ponyo.

Posted by: mamitabrujita at October 17, 2009 11:37 PM

That's my major gripe: don't assume your kid is indicative of kids as a whole.

But isn't that what they/you are doing? Assuming that because your kid can handle it, it is somehow appropriate for any child to watch?

What is the definition of "children's film" here? Coming from the perspective of the review, it is merely a film marketed to children, which is why Dustin's complaint has some merit. Considering it was also based on a children's book, this perception is not unreasonable.

Posted by: Vermillion at October 17, 2009 11:42 PM

Ms. Momo....
It's "Mal-uh-kai" like from the Bible or from The Children of the Corn, "It want's YOU TOO Malechai!!!"

Yes, I was trying to be funny in my post. Uh, apparently I was less than successful as I am now having to explain myself. Sorry about that.

As I said, I don't have any kids myself, but I sure as fire wouldn't let them watch Pan's Labyrinth. Not so much for the creatures, - although many were creeptastically freaky. It was the humans in the movie, which is set in war-torn Spain, that were pretty grim. At one point the sadistic stepfather threatens to disfigure the girl with a knife.

Yes it does have subtitles, but it's a hell of a film. I really reccommend it to those over the age of... er.... I don't know...14? Sure, 14.

Posted by: malechai at October 17, 2009 11:47 PM

From a previous posting of Dustin's:
But then again, who — if not for hipster children — is Where the Wild Things Are for? Let Tom and Wilma MiddleAmerica have Monsters and Aliens. We culturally elitist douchebags will gladly inflict Spike Jonze on our crumbsnatchers.

Hmm...

Posted by: lucy at October 18, 2009 12:09 AM

Vermillion, what I'm saying is that it is the individual parent's decision. Dustin doesn't want his kid to see it yet, so I won't offer to drive them. I respect that, I just don't want universal claims made about it not being a children's film. It was marketed as one, yes, and given the source material I actually believe it remains one.

Posted by: coryo at October 18, 2009 12:38 AM

malachal, I'm with you. a PG13 rating would have targeted this movie perfectly.
I walked into the movie with my 3-1/2 year old, and beside us was this bright eyed little girl with her parents, clutching her copy of the book. My daughter pointed to her and I asked if she was seeing the movie too,she smiled wide and nodded, and her mother said "it's her first movie." We told her well, sometimes movies are loud at first but they are lots of fun.

I imagine that kid will never want to see a movie again.

Towards the end, when Max returned home I looked at my daughter and her tiny little face was just starting to crumple, so I picked her up and we both just started crying. She didn't have any idea why she was so sad though, so it was very difficult. She glammed on to Max not giving Carroll a hug goodbye and on the way home, I heard her sniffling softly, and she was still crying 1/2 an hour later- when I asked her why she just said, I shit you not, "Mommy I just don't know why Max didn't hug him goodbye!"

I feel like the biggest dope in the world for taking her there and for sticking it out. The joy in her "mom! IT'S the WILD THINGS!" was crushed so quickly, and the resolution was so unsatisfying from a kid perspective... it deserved one or two "damn its" to get a PG13 and I might have known.

Posted by: lilianna28 at October 18, 2009 12:41 AM

coryo have you seen it?
It's just not a children's movie. it just isn't.

Posted by: lilianna28 at October 18, 2009 12:42 AM

I have no problem with Dustin not wanting his own kid to see it, but that doesn't make it a bad children's movie. That's my major gripe: don't assume your kid is indicative of kids as a whole.

That's his job! All he has to go on is the way his children responded, which was not positively, so he reviewed it that way. I take the word of someone who actually took children over the word of a reviewer that has none.

Posted by: Alex at October 18, 2009 12:44 AM

One last thing and then I'll be done. I read this story to my 3-1/2 year old because that's the appropriate age level for the story- visually stunning, lots of things to talk about and a rather simple theme when all is said and done. Reading level for this book would be what, First Grade maybe? So a PG movie for a book at this reading level, it isn't crazy to assume it would have been more appropriate for kids 6 and under. My daughter has been pumped for weeks to see it.

We'll be happy sticking with Beverly Hills Chihuahua and Hotel for Dogs for now. I don't need my kid to be "cool" at 3-1/2.

Posted by: lilianna28 at October 18, 2009 12:53 AM

lilliana, I have seen it. I don't necessarily agree. I just don't quite gel with the distinction. But I am sorry you had a difficult experience with it. I don't wish that on anyone, hence my caviat that it is the parent's call.

And Alex, that's very fair. I get a little wrapped up in semantics sometimes (always!) so I took issue with the manner of his review, but the gist and spirit are in the right place for you parents, I suppose. I apologize for any offense.

I just know that I would have loved it as a child, but I'm being a hypocrite there in that I am taking myself as a child to indicate most children, which wasn't really the case.

So, it may not be a children's film. A coryo-tyke film, but maybe not for all terribly young kids.
Thanks, folks!

Posted by: coryo at October 18, 2009 1:17 AM

Are the majority of readers missing the fact that, while it's a bad kids movie, it's a good adult one? Boo-hoo, you can't take your kids. Give them to the babysitter and relive some director's interpretation of your childhood. Don't want to? That's fine, too.

Posted by: duckandcover at October 18, 2009 2:18 AM

WTWTA is rated PG. To quote the MPAA: "A PG-rated motion picture should be investigated by parents before they let their younger children attend. The PG rating indicates, in the view of the Rating Board, that parents may consider some material unsuitable for their children, and parents should make that decision."

Speaking as a parent myself, the PG rating alone probably means that a person ought not take a preschooler to the movie without seeing it first themselves or getting a reliable firsthand review from someone who knows their kid and what he/she may not be able to handle, regardless of what the movie is named, or what it is based on, or to whom it is marketed.

For a kid like mine, WTWTA would have been okay. At six, when I didn't want to let him watch Jaws because it was scary, he looked at me like I was a moron and pronounced, "It's just special effects." There is a huge variability -- that's why the rating urges parents to make an informed decision, since they're the ones in a position to make those case-by-case judgments.

Posted by: appwitch at October 18, 2009 2:29 AM

this lands in ohstralia december,sucks living in the asshole of the globe,we enjoy everything once the rest of the world's onto something else.

that said,being 21 and no issues of whether bringing a child to see this would be a good idea,i'm quite relieved i don't have to go there,and wonderfully written review dustin

Posted by: evenevan at October 18, 2009 2:47 AM

________WealthySocial. c o m________ . We have more than 1200,000 members including: lawyer, CEO, manager, model, actor, doctor, hollywood celebrities, althlets, investors...

Posted by: happyone at October 18, 2009 9:49 AM

Posted by: appwitch at October 18, 2009 2:29 AM

He's fucking with you, kids that age will say anything to see the movie they want. At eight, I'dve sold my soul to satan if he promised I could see The Matrix.

Posted by: George at October 18, 2009 11:42 AM

I heard Temple of Doom was PG also. I saw it as a kid and I came out just fine....

If only Mola Ram could have taught me the 5-fingered heart extraction technique.

It also cultivated an appreciation for exotic cuisine.

And walking on bugs.

Posted by: Recondite at October 18, 2009 11:45 AM

In other words, back in the day you might have thought you were bringing your kid to a harmless Indy (pre-'90s) flick (although after how Raiders ended, questions should linger), but upon negotiating the first 20 minutes, discover this is actually a very glossy snuff film replete with screaming woman and quippy sidekick. It was gloriously traumatic for MY PARENTS, not me. They were in a tizzy over what it would "do to me", which, of course, meant nothing more than 90 mins of fun. Their hand-wringing had more to do with their own insecurities and uncertainties than it had to do with my horror effects-drenched childhood. And here the discussion has to do with "weird emotions" kids will have to negotiate eventually because they are, arguably, going to be adults longer than they are kids.

Wouldn't change a second of it, either.

Posted by: Recondite at October 18, 2009 11:52 AM

In another vein, look at it this way: clueless parents out there thought they were taking their kids to an animated children's movie called South Park. Their rationale was that it was an animated film, therefore it must be for kids. Now whose fault is that?

There is parallel logic here for this context as well.

Posted by: Recondite at October 18, 2009 11:58 AM

"The Wild Things are fucking terrifying. They’re not just old-style, lo-fi movie creatures, the likes you’ve seen in The Neverending Story or Princess Bride."

Ahm, they aren´t? In the trailer they look fluffy-puffily nice...^^

Posted by: Zean-Chris at October 18, 2009 12:06 PM

test

[B]test[/B]

[b]test[/b]

[I]test[/I]

[i]test[/i]

Posted by: test at October 18, 2009 12:12 PM

Wish I had thought to post this yesterday or the night before, but for what it's worth, there is a very faithful animated adaptation of several Sendak works on DVD as part of the Scholastic Video Series. I bought the collection at Costco. It also has Corduroy, Chrysanthemum, the Harold stories, and many others. The Sendak DVD has WTWTA, The Night Kitchen, and The Nutshell Kids. The Nutshell section has music by Carole King and is pretty great.

My daughter and I watched the DVD last night, since I've decided I won't be taking her to see the movie. Sendak is definitely dark. Pierre gets eaten by a lion, One Was Johnny says he will eat everyone up if they don't get out of his house, Mickey is baked in dough. That said, his child characters are wonderfully easy for children to identify with because they throw tantrums and act snotty and generally create havoc.

Sendak and Shel Silverstein definitely win with me. They write (wrote) with magic and heart and darkness and ugliness and beauty all at the same time.

The DVD's amazon posting should link from my name.

Happy Sunday Y'all.

Posted by: Miranda at October 18, 2009 12:51 PM

Wow 128 comments and I'm still going to bother...
I haven't seen the movie, moreover, I probably won't see it.Hollywood and its ilk have sucked the life out of so very many childhood favorites of mine so much so that I just can't face another disappointment.My son's name is Max...'Where The Wild Thing Are' was his story.Like so many children, my Max (and the Max in the book, who was not a 'tween, but a boy of maybe 7 or 8) he craved autonomy, was frustrated by his own cravings and fearful of the power of his own emotions.WTWTA spoke to all those yearnings and anxieties and at the the end there was the sammich and the bowl of soup, because no matter how much fun the wild rumpus was, it's always good to have mom there at the end watching your ass.
So I will pass on this movie (as good as it may be) because I'm not willing or ready to give up my vision of the story to anyone else.

Posted by: brite at October 18, 2009 12:53 PM

Beating a dead horse, I know, but please read the negative reviews of the Scholastic WTWTA! They are hilarious. People bitch about Mickey in The Night Kitchen being nude and the "discordant jazz". It really made me snort coffee out my nose.

Posted by: Miranda at October 18, 2009 12:59 PM

I saw the movie last night with four children ages 5, 8, 9 and 12, and we all loved it. They were never bored, although, the youngest did get a little scared at one point, but no more so than when he saw Nemo's mother disappear and turned to me and asked, "where the mommy go?" Would I take a 2 year old? No, but if I had a two year old I would limit his viewing to Sesame Street. Otherwise, I think we give children too little credit. They start dealing with issues of identity, lonliness and anger far sooner than we as adults often remember. At the end of the movie my oldest nephew ran to my sister and hugged her and said, "everyone needs a mom." He got it. I call that a successfull children's movie.

Posted by: Michin at October 18, 2009 2:00 PM

If only I could spell I could rule the world!

Posted by: Michin at October 18, 2009 2:11 PM

I think it looks

whatever, i dont, care, its great
click on hey you

Posted by: freddy at October 18, 2009 6:56 PM

this movie was awful.
why was max always so depressed? yes growing up can be hard, but his sadness was overly exaggerated.
it was an hour and a half of sad looks into the distance, scary creatures, and, well thats it.

i heard a little girl near me ask her mom, "mommy why is he so sad? what happened?"

nothing happened. your just watching a baaad movie.

Posted by: alex at October 18, 2009 8:56 PM

Hello?!?!?!?!

"They rolled their terrible eyes.. Gnashed their terrible teeth... roared their terrible roars.."

OF COURSE it's dark. It's tormented. It's all about a child learning that they might or might not really like their mom.... They might hate how that person parents, they might dispute their punishments. There is enough left to the imagination to elaborate what your own psyche is/was going through during any paricular period of discontent....

Growing up is no fucking cakewalk. And this movie defines all that is negative AND positive about being a child.

Taking a 2 year old to see it? Not a good idea.

Taking an 11 year old? Oh hell yeah....

Posted by: Janey at October 18, 2009 10:46 PM

Children's movie or not, I thought that it dragged on for way too long at the end. I thought that it was a beautiful piece of art, and it had a lot of things that I really enjoyed. But as we had gone to the latest showing to avoid the children, I ended up falling asleep.

I really wanted to love it, but I think that if Jonze wanted to make a film for "grown ups" then he should have run with that full force and it would have been a much stronger film. Also the run time could have been trimmed around 20 mins and it would have been much more entertaining.

Posted by: Alli at October 19, 2009 1:01 PM

I'm disappointed but not surprised. I had trouble envisioning how anyone (even Jones) could fill an entire movie with such little original material to support it.

And, to me, that brevity was part and parcel of the book's message. WTWTA is primarily about the boy, not the monsters, and while he's in that imaginary land he's the "wild thing," free to go boldly and break rules. Because this is his land, his imagination.

But, that said, it's not a land you'd where you'd want to spend too much time. Exploration and adventure are well and fine, but there's no place like home, especially with a warm meal waiting.

To my untrained mind that sounds like a really neat 30-45 minute film. Anything more than that entails trading complexity for clarity, which means veering sharply away from Sendak's vision.

Posted by: boscobarbell at October 19, 2009 9:01 PM

I read this in one of the negative reviews out right now, and it's the main reason I didn't enjoy it as much as I hoped I would (paraphrase);

"Where The Wild Things Are is a movie for people who miss being children instead of a movie for children."

The big problem with that is it robs the children of today a chance to experience a story for themselves. The monsters in this movie are neurotic!!! What the hell is that? The movies people are listing in this thread (Labyrinth, Never Ending Story, Princess Bride, Temple of Doom) as being scary when they were younger were good because there was no overriding adult message being shoved in by the writer and director. They're full of adventure and wonder, not sarcastic quips. This a 2009 movie and will remain dated as such years from now. Eggers and Jonze are force feeding their alternative hipster vibes into this film. It really felt like Away We Go with muppets to me.

Posted by: Philip at October 20, 2009 2:39 AM

I thought that Spike Jonze missed out on a great opportunity to make something that would be meaningful to adults and children alike; almost the entire movie seemed like nonsense to me

Posted by: Samantha K at October 26, 2009 4:05 AM

I found it irritating and tedious with only occasional bits of entertainment, and I'm an adult.

My kids hated it. One cried, not because it was scary, but because it was a fucking DRAG.

This is supposed to be a story about the kid's wild imagination as a refuge from his problems with life. Well, this kid has a pretty boring imagination -- the movie adds nothing to the book but a couple of muppet owls that get wrenchingly abused on screen.

If anything, there's less to this movie than to the book, as Max's journey to Where the Wild Things Are is compressed to hopping in a boat, watching a little sailing montage, and arriving. His room doesn't become a forest, he runs out of the house -- into a forest.

It wasn't awful, but it certainly wasn't very good, affecting performances notwithstanding.

Posted by: RudeMorgue at October 26, 2009 8:16 PM





Post a comment

 (required)

 (required)


Preview of your comment: