The Effects of Where the Wild Things Are

...and what an amazing job they did!

Dec 11 - 07:55 AM

This movie was garbage. 2 hours wasted on "emo-monsters." It lacked any semblance of playfulness. Throw the monsters some Prozac and run the heck away.

Dec 11 - 08:43 AM

joe smith

the movie was bad, not just regular bad but terribad!

the script was written by an 8 year old, the dialoge gave me a headcahe. "Lets build a fort!" Lets Sleep in a pile!"

I couldn't believe I was watching such a bad movie.

and the effects were the worst! They looked like a grungy pile of rejected Seseame street puppets! The whole movie I was so disengaged I was looking for the zippers and Buttons!! And where are the breath holes and eye holes? how does the actor inside see?

very disappointing.

BTW before you tell me OH YOU didn't get the book! I love the book! It just didnt work as a film.

Dec 11 - 09:56 AM

William Snider

Oh course the script seemed like it was written by an eight year old boy, the movie was a study of the psychology of eight year old boys dimwit! You are such a freaking idiot, morons like you make me sick. You stupid people that can't enjoy anything that doesn't fit their preconceived notions. You stupid Twilight fans! I don't why you loved the book, because you sure as hell missed the the whole point. ... By the way, the monsters are supposed to look fake! They are freaking what an eight year old boy imagines them to be stupid!

Dec 11 - 10:24 AM

kyle T

No offense, but you're advertising Twilight, I don't think you're allowed to have quips about dialogue. Anyways, since all the characters were based off the emotional aspects of a child, it is only fitting that they should speak like him, and think like him. That was kind of the point. So yeah, maybe YOU didn't get the movie (the book can have any amount of interpretations, so it is kinda hard not to "get it"), or maybe it just didn't rub you the right way.
Which is fine.

Dec 11 - 10:27 AM

William Snider

That is a stupid and inaccurate comment. The movie wasn't 'emo' you moron. It was a beautiful character piece about understanding childhood and I found it to be profoundly touching and revolutionary.

Dec 11 - 10:17 AM

Jesse Fearins

"That is a stupid and inaccurate comment. The movie wasn't 'emo' you moron. It was a beautiful character piece about understanding childhood and I found it to be profoundly touching and revolutionary."

That is because you are a douche.

Dec 11 - 10:24 AM

Cameron Harvey

The Cunning Linguist: you are neither cunning or linguistic.

Where the Wild Things Are wasn't meant to be an accurate adaption or one meant for children. It was an artist's interpretation of what goes on in the mind of an 8 year old boy, an age when emotions rule his actions rather than rational though, and then his progression to an understanding. He grows up, basically.
For those of you who didn't like the film, I leave you with Maurice Sendak's words: "Go to hell."

Dec 11 - 10:34 AM

Boomer Johnson

@ William S.,
Will you please gently remove the tampon from your vagina?

I agree that is was a "character piece about understanding childhood", but it was hardly beautiful. I think what was captured was the insecurities of childhood and it made me uncomfortable. I don't want to be reminded of my mother screaming at me for doing something wrong.

Dec 30 - 01:40 PM

Cosmic Charlie

pretty much

Dec 11 - 11:37 AM

JOW Marcello

Terry K your an idiot

Dec 11 - 08:45 AM

Ross Andrew

you're.

Dec 12 - 05:23 PM

Ekaterina Kutznetsova

Well, Max himself was clearly "emo", so it stands to reason the monsters in his mind would share similar sensitivities.

When Sendak spoke at the Rosenbach, he said WTWTA now seems to him to "be a very simple book" and that he doubted he could ever "be that simple again".

I wonder if he still feels that way after seeing the movie version?

Dec 11 - 09:30 AM

Tyler Brown

The film really wasnt much. I was very happy with how they did the monsters but the overall story of the movie was pretty bad. It had little story structure, and no real climax, I and many other people expected alot more.

Dec 11 - 09:35 AM

David Lu

HEY, everyone has their own tastes, so people need to calm down. If someone says "this movie was garbage," what they mean to say is "I THINK this movie was garbage," and so on and so forth. Also, if you think that you can change someone's opinion with a few ad hominems and a 2 sentence description of "what the movie was TRULY about", you need to go outside and get some fresh air and stop wasting your time. Stop feeling like you're better than someone else because you "got" the movie.

Dec 11 - 10:56 AM

Terry Kang

My response to JOW T: Learn the proper use of "you're" before you call anyone an idiot and resort to personal attacks. My opinions are my opinions, and thus the reason for posting comments.

I agree with TB Virus and nogard46 on this. Despite many of your profound explanations to the story of "Where the Wild Things Are", the fact remains that this movie was based on a children's book. Should I have expected differently for the movie? This movie is NOT for children. It was a grown man's perspective of childhood. And a boring one at that. (And please spare me any of your false anecdotes about how your 3 year old niece thought this was a wonderful cinematic masterpiece. Your 3 year old niece didn't see it, and if she did, she didn't say "cinematic" or "masterpiece"; she was asleep.)

I'm not saying that a children's movie needs to be dumbed down and be void of deeper themes. But as TB Virus said, there wasn't much of a storyline to this movie (a psychological account of a child, maybe). It mostly consisted of a pile of uninteresting scenes after another. Overall, very disappointing.

Dec 11 - 11:02 AM

joe smith

I have to list Where the wild things are as one of my biggest disappointments of the year. Since we are near the end of the year here is my list of top 5 movies of the year. (Still quite a few movies haven't been release so this is my early version)

Top 5 movies of 2009

1) Star Trek
2) Micheal Jackson this is it
3) Distric 9
4) Paranormal Activity
5) Zombieland

Honorable mention the very Under rated Orphan movie, and of course everyones Fav The Hangover.

Dec 11 - 12:07 PM

joe schmoe

As ambitious as WTWTA, I still count it as an interesting failure. Watching this movie is like having a conversation w/ an 8 year old, at first its fascinating watching their imagination work but after a few minutes it becomes unbearable. Sendak himself has commented on how people over romantisize childhood, that seems like the sole purpose of this movie. I'm more interested on seeing my nephews reaction when I show it to him eventually.

Anyways, as far as the FX go, I think that this is more in line w/ the future of special fx, and not movies like Avatar, which sport a ridiculous amount of CG in every frame. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the way Jonze blends physical objects w/ CG is most impressive. I like the way he blurs the line between CG and reality.

Dec 11 - 12:42 PM

Dave J

By reading some of the comments by Cameron H, Terry K, TB Virus especially Nogard "Where The Wild Things Are" does not seem like the type of movie I would want to see either, if by what they say is true unless I have an eight year old sitting beside me I have to look after or something so I refuse to put my brain aside for any eight- year old at this time.

Dec 11 - 02:08 PM

Vance Shepherd

MOST people were disappointed in this film, were they not? I haven't read the book since I was a child, so I am not a devoted megafan of the work. As I understand it, most fans were disappointed at the depressing, non-family friendly tone of the film. It's definitely not the runaway blockbuster it could have been.

Dec 11 - 05:07 PM

James C.

Just because most audiences didn't like the film doesn't mean they didn't get it. Art is the most sublime form of communication and this one just didn't seem to speak to the majority of moviegoers.

I loved the book and enjoyed the effects, actors and overall story, but the direction was self indulgent and lacked teeth. I do not understand why Jonze wouldn't try harder to reach a wider audence. He could have done so *without* dumbing the film down or compromising the spirit of the piece. There's a reason why studios don't fun 100 million dollar indie pictures. This will justifyably serve as an example.

Sendak might give this film his approval, but I feel that might have more to do with Jonez directing a documentary about the author. I feel Jonez let the Sendak book down, along with the wonderful work put in by the actors and Jim Henson's Creature Shop. It's a middling film with some shining moments. Rent the Dark Crystal you want real moody dark fantasy.

Dec 11 - 06:32 PM

Kirk McCarty

"Just because most audiences didn't like the film doesn't mean they didn't get it. Art is the most sublime form of communication and this one just didn't seem to speak to the majority of moviegoers."

Are you serious? Most "moviegoers" go in droves to see trash like Saw and Twilight. I highly doubt they would or did understand this movie.

Dec 11 - 07:10 PM

James C.

Yes, I'm quite serious. Even most of my friends who eagerly anticipated this film felt let down in one way or another...even the ones who ended up enjoying it admitted to me that it could have been better. There's much to like about Wild Things, but ultimately a film should be more than a mere collection of scenes. I still recommend this picture on some of its merits, but always with a disclaimer. This was the island about nothing.

Dec 12 - 02:02 PM

Jess Saunders

why do so many people think Twilight is trash? yes, I know, the first movie was pathetic in the highest degree, but new moon was actually pretty good! I think it was even better than the book - and I have read the entire series. The book focused more on the absolute depression... that was horrible. In the movie, things were a little more positive. I don't exactly care if you don't agree with me, but I was surprised by how I actually liked it.

as for WTWTA, I haven't seen it, but my friend wants to take me to see it. should I bother?

Dec 11 - 10:58 PM

Kyle Falcon

There's you problem. When people say Tiwlight is trash they are referring to not only the movies but the books as well. If that's what passes for good literature these days then I'm happy I'm a pompous/pretentious art house prick. The only people who liked the movies were fans of the books. There's not a whole lot 'to get' when it comes to Twilight; Where the Wild Things Are did require you to think a little deeper. Whether you enjoyed the movie or not it was still far more sophisticated than that pre-teen tripe.

Dec 12 - 11:02 AM

Ekaterina Kutznetsova

Really?

I think I (slightly) preferred the first "Twilight", actually. Although maybe that's just because I hadn't seen "Let the Right One In" yet.

As for WTWTA ... it's not for everyone. (No good movies are.) But is still definitely worth seeing (so you can draw your own conclusions).

P.S. I'd rent "Let the Right One In" first, though. (Assuming you haven't already.)

Dec 13 - 07:59 AM

harrsion harrison

The whole problem is that it is not a childrens film, i took my 11 year old who is hugely film literate. He said it was a well made film, lots of good characterisation, some nice set pieces, he liked the monsters, but he wasnt engaged and why was everyone so miserable? The cinema we attended had 4 people watching the 8pm show on the opening weekend. Thats because if i had young child with whom id shared the book ( which i love) and had taken them i would have been cross, And between the the opening on the thursday and that saturday word of mouth had spread. The magic of the book is that it can be shared across generataions, it affirms the fact that we are all the same. The film doesnt do that, it comes from the adult perspective too much and doesnt give the sense of joy that the escape of imagination gives us, right through our lives. Yes it's a well made film, but it totally sell it's target audience short and that is not acceptable, you wouldnt have a gay 007 or a alchoholic woody, well you might, but you wouldnt market them as james bond or toy story, so really you shouldnt have a melancholic WTWTA

Dec 15 - 07:50 AM

Taniel .Dosh

Spike Jonze's vision for this adaptation was vivid and amazing. He didn't want the normal CG Children's flick. He wanted a raw, emotional film and the monsters came out much better with the puppets and CGI facial expressions. They came off much more real and it gave each monster a personality of their own.

Dec 12 - 02:01 AM

Kelly Poovey

So true Terry K...lost 2 hours of my life watching this movie. Dull, drab, melancholy and just uninteresting...nothing like the book, which was anything but dull, drab or uninteresting. And if that's what Jonez was going for, he nailed it. Forgive me for not liking a below average movie.

Dec 12 - 09:24 PM

Steven Bada

I think its funny how people use the term "emo". 99% of the people that use the term probably don't even know what it means (or think its short for "emotional"). Well let me clue you pop culture c0cksuck3rs in: Emo means Emotive Hardcore, which WAS an underground music genre that started in the early 90's. It has NOTHING to do with jet black hair, tight clothes, and whining. In the early 2000's People (kids) started jokingly (or ignorantly) referring to their favorite (whiney cookie-cutter) bands as "emo". Thus, the always hungry Music Machine began marketing this fashion/music style as Emo. The 15 year olds ate it up, and anyone older than that hated it. So ten years later, we have clueless morons calling anything thats wearing black, tight t-shirts or generally unhappy- "Emo".

Is Good Charlotte Punk? NO
Is Disturbed Metal? NO
Are the monsters in WTWTA "emo"? **** NO

(PS: I know this rant was wayyy off topic, but I saw the "emo monsters" comment and HAD to say something)

Dec 13 - 06:09 PM

Geoff W

To woundedmakers
I think its funny how people use the term "gay". 99% of the people that use the term probably don't even know what it means (or think its short for "homosexual"). It actually means happy.

Get a grip and get off your high horse. Language evolves words change get over it.

Dec 21 - 10:52 PM

Boomer Johnson

I heart you.

Dec 30 - 01:52 PM

summer lee

Over the years, --" classymingle.CxxxxOxxxxM " --has experienced tremendous success in bringing wealthy singles and hot sexy single babies together. It's the largest club where seeking hot babies . No exaggeration, no falseness, check it out , you will believe what you see. You'll never know who you will meet.totally free to join.C'MON now.

Dec 13 - 10:49 PM

Susan Woods

I know a hot club: = - [_www.BlackwhiteCupid.com_]= which is a dating service for whites and blacks to find their interracial love. there has been thousands of single members online and many black and white single girls or guys waitting for you maybe you will like it.Hot and sexy,Share with you~ = - [_www.BlackwhiteCupid.com_]= free to join C'MON NOW!!!

Dec 18 - 02:38 AM

Susan Woods

Dec 18 - 02:38 AM

Opening this week

Movies

New on DVD

DVD

Who's In Theaters This Weekend?

Celebrities

What's Hot on Rotten Tomatoes

News

Spotlight

Critics

The Effects of Where the Wild Things Are

We go behind the scenes with London's Framestore

Comments

Related Links

Where the Wild Things Are

Movie News

Featured on RT

Top Headlines

Related Articles

Latest Features

What's Hot On RT