Where the Wild Things Are - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Where the Wild Things Are Reviews

Page 1 of 799
Super Reviewer
February 6, 2011
Spike Jonze perfectly captures the essence of childhood.
Daniel Mumby
Super Reviewer
April 14, 2014
There's always a certain amount of trepidation when a filmmaker gets their hands on a book that you loved as a child. Even if we overlook the general risk that the whole project may become a cynical Hollywood cash-grab, the director's vision may be so different to your childhood imaginings that it ends up tarnishing the original experience, perhaps permanently.

We find ourselves in precisely this predicament with Where The Wild Things Are. Maurice Sendak's 1963 book has become a classic in children's literature, beloved for generations and in various stages of development hell since the early-1980s. Spike Jonze is a director with a glowing reputation, but a seven-year gap between features isn't immediately reassuring. Fortunately, the results are very good, and while the film is by no means perfect, it remains a touching and compelling work.

There has been a fair amount of debate as to whether Where The Wild Things Are can be called a children's film. Certainly its marketing didn't position it as such: its trailers played more on the indie cred of Jonze, highlighting the soundtrack work by Karen O of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs and using a re-recorded version of Arcade Fire's big hit 'Wake Up', which doesn't appear in the film.

This is a touchy subject given that Sendak's book has become so iconic: surely any successful adaptation must be considered a children's film? Additionally, I've railed against many so-called children's films which are blatantly not for children - films like Ratatouille and much of Dreamworks' output, which are films aimed at an adult audience disguised as children's animations. But what becomes quickly apparent is that Jonze didn't want to make a typical children's film - not by a long shot.

Instead, Jonze wanted to make a film about what it felt like to be a child - a film not just for children in a demographic sense, but about children in a behavioural sense. He wanted to capture the burgeoning, pre-pubescent energy of Max, exploring how his rage and frustration manifests itself as the Wild Things and how he comes to grow in realising how hard is it to govern one's personified rage. Certainly there's nothing about the film that could be called cutesy or sanitised, which comes as a relief given Disney's involvement in the early stages of development.

The next issue that any adaptation would have to confront is the story. Where The Wild Things Are is barely 10 sentences long, and sure enough there isn't a great deal of plot in the film. In a more extravagant fantasy vehicle, such as the ongoing Hobbit trilogy, the paucity of story would either be stretched out with ancillary material or serve as a jumping-off point to take things in a new direction. But again, Jonze does it differently: he completely acknowledges the limits of the source novel, delivering a film which is more about mood than story.

The visual tone of Where The Wild Things Are is one of whistful melancholy, into which the great pockets of childish energy can invade. The colour palette is rooted in earthy, wooden browns, pale yellows and the greys of faded stuffed toys, giving the world of the Wild Things an instant feeling of age and mystery. Lance Acord, who has worked with Jonze since Being John Malkovich, emphasises the scale of the Wild Things and their isolation; they tower over Max in the close-ups, but otherwise the landscape towers over them.

In creating this whistful tone, Jonze succeeds in both rooting the angst of Max and conveying the way in which time passes for a child of his age. Young children do not have the same grasp of efficient narrative storytelling that we embrace as adults; in their fantasies they often feel like they've been away for years, even if they can't describe everything they did in that time. Jonze beautifully captures the feeling present in the book that Max's adventure is like a half-remembered dream - and, as a bonus, works around the fact that not very much happens.

The film also deserves credit for the realisation of the Wild Things. Having toyed with various CG options between the early-1980s and mid-2000s, the creatures were eventually brought to life through the Jim Henson Workshop. Despite being partially created with animatronics, they have none of the creakiness or jerky movements that we associate with this form of puppeteering. And while some CGI was involved to sync up the dialogue with the characters' lip movements, they still have an amazing and distinctive physicality, without which the film would simply be a failure.

This brings us on naturally to the cast, who are generally very good. James Gandolfini is the stand-out among the voice actors, bringing a lot of anger to the part of Carol but also conveying the age of the Wild Things. Catherine Keener doesn't get a great deal of screen time, but she does convey the sense of frustration that sets the story in motion. As for the lead, Max Roberts takes a little while to bed into the role, but his performances is naturalistic enough to be convincing in the end.

The other great success of Where The Wild Things Are is its subtlety. The book has often been interpreted as a Freudian text, in which the Wild Things are different manifestations of Max's anger. The lazy thing to do in these circumstances would have been to divide up Max's personality traits and deal them out to the Wild Things, so that each one would represent something at the expense of proper characterisation. Instead, Jonze leaves it open to us to decide the different Wild Things' significance, letting us be as imaginative as Max is.

There are a couple of small problems with Where The Wild Things Are. In spite of consciously addressing the lack of plot and the choice of pacing, the film still feels slow or baggy in places. For everything that I've talked about, and all the successes in Jonze's approach, there remains a nagging feeling that more could have been done with the characters, which would in turn have justified the cinematic scale.

Another smaller problem is the sound mixing. While the musical soundtrack fits pretty well with the action on screen, at times it is difficult to discern what the Wild Things are saying, particularly during their first encounter with Max. This becomes less of a problem as the film goes on and the acting becomes more boisterous, but it prevents us from getting in the zone with the characters sooner, which may put younger viewers off.

Where The Wild Things Are is a very interesting achievement which will go down as one of the most intriguing and original children's adaptations in recent memory. While not everything about the story or its execution is entirely satisfying, Jonze deserves a lot of credit for capturing the mood and tone of Sendak's story, and for his realisation of the titular creatures. Whether as a playful exploration of a child's imagination or a complex Freudian journey, it is something that remain with you for a very long time.
Super Reviewer
½ November 18, 2012
Often moody and somber, Spike Jonze's 'Where the Wild Things Are' is strangely an emotionally hefty film. The pathos created is unexpected, but captures the tone of the film well. I've never seen a film so vividly encompass the emotional roller coaster we call childhood. A great soundtrack and amazing imagery definitely work in the movie's favor. A solid film, but it ends on a note that really isn't too upbeat, which is surprising for a film about a children's book. Jonze has definitely captured the soul of childhood, but the real question is whether or not he can capture his audience.
paul o.
Super Reviewer
September 18, 2012
Its a great Spike Jonze film! The music by Karen O. gives a playful tone for one of the most imaginative films of 2009. Even though the film wraps itself in catharsis behavior which leads to dark scenes for a PG film, there is a heartwarming feeling of nostalgia left at the end of this wonderful piece of cinema.
Super Reviewer
March 24, 2012
Not to sound unprofessional but i want one of them monsters.
Super Reviewer
½ December 30, 2010
Wow, "Where the Wild Things Are" accurately depicts the emotions and the thoughts that run through an angry boy in his early ages. The portrayal of such a neglected role in cinema shoots this movie high in my list. The cinematography and the CGI are huge pluses; they create the atmosphere of this movie. Even the most silent moments of this movie create deep emotional stir within the audience. This movie works effectively. There are cons however. The plot of the movie seems to point towards nowhere and the story's interest dips near the middle, but other than that, it is a great movie.
Super Reviewer
March 2, 2012
A great adaptation of a childhood favorite. The reason it's great is because it goes off on it's own thing rather than sticking exactly to the book.
Super Reviewer
½ January 24, 2010
Never been bored to death with movie again so much.Yes, this is for kids,yes, i don't know why people like it and NO i am definitely not recommending it for you or your kids.
Super Reviewer
April 28, 2011
Where the Wild Things Are isn't a bad movie, but it is for kids and kids will be scared at this movie, these Wild Things are huge assholes, and I don't want to be on that island. It has a great story, production, so why did I think its not really good. The book was for kids, and the movie is a sad horror movie that scared the crap oy of me sometime, and was disgusting at many moments, it was a good movie, but should not be targeted for kids because they will be frightened, and leave the theatre not feeling the joy of a normal kids film.
Super Reviewer
½ March 25, 2011
A heartfelt children's story that doubles as a raw and uncompromising commentary on a child's emotional complex, Where The Wild Things Are is ultimately an adorable little film that simply reminded me of what it felt like to be a kid. A triumph for Spike Jonze, although it does carry a very dark tone and is sometimes very difficult to watch.
Super Reviewer
February 2, 2011
A bratty and precocious 8 year old with a fertile imagination rationalizes his life by creating a land where creatures represent his id and ego. That's pretty much the story behind Where The Wild Things Are.

The kid is lonely (for some reason he has no-one to play with), and for an unexplained reason his father is not on the scene. Ok, so he has issues - that's still no reason for him to be an obnoxious snot nosed holy terror that pouts and acts out when things don't go his way. That's the basic problem with the film in my opinion (one of several). The kid deserved to be grounded for life, not be given an "awww" pass and a later wink, wink, ain't I smart final scene.

Once the film moves to the Island of Wild Things, it becomes a bit more interesting, given the large furry characters and the personalities polarized by the understanding of psychology presented by an 8 year old; but that same psychology works against the film, as the dilemmas and character reactions are also based on the imaginings of said 8 year old.

The boy, Max, is drawn to the character who most represents himself - the often angry Carroll, voiced by Tony Soprano himself. We first see Carroll destroying the homes of the Wild Things, angry because things simply aren't working out right (he seems to have the equivalent of a pre-pubescent attraction for another character, CW, and gets angry when she quits the group, or decides to expand her horizons by meeting new friends). It's all a way for Max to work out why he is angry when things don't go as he thinks they should - not that the film sees fit to show that he has any kind of epiphany.

There is a fear angle as well, which has some merit to it - triggered by a school teacher preaching to his students that the sun is going to explode someday, but not to worry - we'll all be dead via some other disasters by then anyway - what a stupid thing to say to an 8 year old - especially when you're in a position of authority.

the film features some nice lighting on the creatures, but day and night kept getting confused for me - I'm hoping that this was intentional, to show that the land Max created was somehow outside the time/space continuum.

The story is based on some evidently much beloved children's book. I of course haven't read the source material, though my final analysis is that, while I appreciate the allegorical nature of the story, I can't help but think back upon my own childhood as an only child. I always found neighborhood kids to play with, or school chums who lived close by, so the loneliness angle of the film didn't strike a chord. When I was sent to my room for misbehaving, I used the opportunity to read or listen to records and even though my father was often out of town, didn't feel the need to act out in his absence. So the entire premise on which the film is built runs counter to my own experiences, leaving me disinterested in what the film had to say, and also wondering what age group the film was created for and what message it was trying to get across. I'm sure there's some new age psycho babble, I'm ok, you're ok stuff that makes a certain sense here, but I'm not buying.
Super Reviewer
½ January 10, 2011
A boy on an island with all the parts of his personality.
I didn't think it was going to be anything other than sad. It did make me cry at the end and I'm a tough cookie. but the movie was cute and just beautiful to watch.
Super Reviewer
½ August 11, 2009
Cast: Max Records, James Gandolfini, Catherine Keener, Lauren Ambrose, Catherine O'Hara, Forest Whitaker, Chris Cooper, Mark Ruffalo, Paul Dano, Michael Berry Jr.

Director: Spike Jonze

Summary: Max (Max Records) imagines running away from his mom and sailing to a far-off land where large talking beasts -- Ira, Carol, Douglas, the Bull, Judith and Alexander -- crown him as their king, play rumpus, build forts and discover secret hideaways.

My Thoughts: "The movie is beautifully made and is visually stunning. But the film itself is a bit depressing. Even the 'Wild Things' are depressed. I have to assume this is how it is in the book (I've never read it). I actually enjoyed the creatures. I thought (even though they were depressing) that they were really great, fun characters. Loved Catherine O'Hara as Judith. James Gandolfini was great as Carol. Just great characters. Max Records as Max, was good as well. Although his character, in the beginning, irritated me because of his behavior. But as the story goes you see why he's been acting out, and then you feel sad for him. The story really is quite sad. Made my niece cry which was shocking. That kid don't cry with any movie. But I think any kid who has dealt with divorce and changes in their family will relate to this story. Great job by Spike Jonze."
Super Reviewer
½ October 19, 2010
It is amazing how a simple child's book is changed to a complicated movie. The fact that it is a movie about childhood and not a kid's movie makes it more interesting. It would be interesting to have a discussion in a film class about each of the six wild things. Is one Max's mom, one his sister, one his teacher, etc.? I will have to watch the movie again to make up my mind if that could be the case or not.
Super Reviewer
July 20, 2008
I can see why some people say this one is a bit of a downer but I think Spike Jonze actually gets the balance of sweetness and sadness just about perfect here. After all, the book isn't exactly a barrel of laughs either. Intentional or not, the only message I've ever gleaned from Sendak's wonderful story is the mildly subversive reassurance that, no matter how bad he's been, sooner or later even the biggest brat on the planet can still expect to get his supper. I think, therefore, Jonze and his co-writer Dave Eggers deserve credit for introducing a couple of valuable life lessons which any child would benefit from learning at the earliest opportunity: a) that unhappiness is a fact of life and cannot be banished, and b) that being the guy in charge is neither as easy nor as much fun as you think it's going to be. My only serious criticism would be that the personalities of the Wild Things are too much of a muchness, each to a greater or lesser extent a projection of Max's own loneliness and insecurities. Since Max is the sole author of this fantasy, this might make sound psychological sense but, consequently, they never emerge as individuals and are soon forgotten.
Super Reviewer
½ September 13, 2010
Dull, uneventful and with a lame excuse for a plot. Because I don't think it counts as a story, when it consists of an obnoxious kid, just playing and jumping around with a bunch of furry fantasy creatures. There's virtually nothing going on beyond that, besides the characters spending their screen-time on building and destroying stuff. And believe me when I say that it sounds a lot more fun than it is. Everyone's having a blast, except me who is watching it. It wasn't very pleasant on the eyes either. Boring landscapes, colored in various shades of brown, isn't my idea of a nice visual theme. So it goes without saying that this was a disappointment. Not that I expected fantasy gold, but I didn't think it would be this bland and uninteresting. In one word: skippable.
Super Reviewer
½ May 1, 2010
I guess it has been too many years since my Mom last read the book to me.... I did not connect with my childhood experiences with the book like I wanted to.
Super Reviewer
July 30, 2010
A very, very boring political allegory that can't decide if it wants to be serious or childish.
Super Reviewer
½ July 12, 2010
Where the Wild Things Are is an innocent kids movie at heart that is not executed to it's fullest potential. There are a lot of questions that may need to be answered by some viewers, and does need a little thought in order to understand. This being said, it does not effect the fact that is very good! A boy who has a whole universe of an imagination, faces this by seeing things he could only imagine, for real. This is definitly great storytelling, however, it was not the greatest novel adaptation, as it seems as though they may have missed a few points. The finale was very weak and rushed, and kind of a big disappointment when it had a lot going for it. Midway through the film, you feel sympathy for the creatures, but it doesn't last long before you hate some character by the end of the movie, when it tries to be playful and happy. It was a tad sloppy, but still very good at heart.
Page 1 of 799