Come Anticipate Spike Jonz' "Where the Wild Things Are" with me

I don't see the potential here for an Opie/Mike Myers "Cat In The Hat" style fiasco, myself.

I can't even imagine how this could go wrong. I'll take mushrooms first to ENSURE it pans out.

As a rule of thumb, if you take a much-loved book with about 15 minutes of plot and try to expand it to a 100 minute film, you're going to struggle to capture the atmosphere of the book. Maybe there's lots of examples of films that have done that successfully. I just can't think of any.

Seriously, 'salright, Benicio would have passed on a bad script.

the day max wore his wolf suit and made mischief of one kind

and another

his mother called him "wild thing" and max said i'll eat you up!"

so he was sent to bed without eating anything.

Just sayin', yo.

would like jonze to be not making with the children's films.

Please surprise me, pleasantly, Spike Jonze et al.

Who is doing the voice of MAX? Any child besides the I See Dead People kid, PLEASE.

Nancy Cartwright should do the kids' voice, why not.

-- Sym Sym (shmuel...) (webmail), Today 12:44 AM. (sym) (later) (link)

lol x1000

"Universal and Sendak did not see eye-to-eye on the concept, but the current vision of the pic has the strong support of Sendak, who told the New York Times in October, "I am in love with it. If Spike and Dave do not do this movie now, I would just as soon not see any version of it ever get made.""

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117935686?categoryid=1236&cs=1&s=h&p=0

there's a DVD, but it's not an entire movie.

I can't wait for the Flaming Lips/Arcade Fire collaboration that'll be the theme song.
close! though i'm not really an arcade fire fan, that trailer was pretty nice. are they even going to market this to kids, or is it aimed at the 20-40 year olds?

Looks pretty cool. It would be nice to have a successful "dark" movie for kids too

i love that trailer! i don't see why it wouldn't appeal to kids, i dont think children are born disgusted by indie 103 and mcsweeney's

aren't they though?
no, i think it'll appeal to kids, it just seems like that trailer is kinda aimed at an older crowd. which i guess makes sense, since it's a trailer on the net.

lack of CGI is promising (yay guys in big suits) but I dunno...

inside every one of us is BILE

inside every one of us is THE ARCADE FIRE

inside everyone one of us is DAVE EGGERS

HD version on Apple.com : http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/wherethewildthingsare/

inside every one of us is A CONTINUOUSLY RISING SENSE OF DISGUST

inside everyone of us is A LOBSTER

trailer look great but sounds terrible.

my son loves this book but this will be about 100xxx too scary for him (he's not 3 yet), but maybe I'll subject him too it anyway to scar him for life

Man, I've been (passively) anticipating this for AGES.

Terrific trailer. When it was first announced I had no idea how this could possibly be made to work, but if the script is half way up to the visuals then it could be pretty special. It seems Eggers name is mud round these parts, largely, but he's a great fit for this imo.

i'm not a dimmu borgir fan!

― i ain't no daggum son of a gun (latebloomer), Monday, October 26, 2009 2:46 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

lololol at the defensiveness/disgust.

i will not stand for it!

http://www.metalsucks.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/black_metal_fan_mallcore.jpg

hook is so bad

― latebloomer, Sunday, October 25, 2009 11:10 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

sbloomer

hook is worse than bad. there ought to be a law against that movie.

lol does robin williams play peter pan

Never saw this. I remember being in Paris when it came out over there and it seemed to be playing everywhere. Wondered if maybe they would perversely champion it: Le cinema, c'est l'Hook!. Did not know that this was written by l'autore del ciclo di Shannara.

sbloomer

;_;

guess i lost my marbles

bob hoskins is so fucking awesome

Robert William "Bob" Hoskins, Jr. (born October 26, 1942) is an English actor, known for playing Cockney rough diamonds, psychopaths and gangsters, and for his performances in family films such as Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988), Hook (1991), and Super Mario Bros. (1993).

seriously this man is responsible for my taste as it stands today

Hook was bad but the pinball machine based on it was AWESOME.

Also, I was going to comment on the film but i simply agree with everything DAN P3RRY MAD AT GRANDMA has said.

Bob Hoskins in Beardface??????

b.o. fell off 56% this weekend

can't wait until this becomes a "misunderstood" classic

(braces self for sb bombardment)

b.o. fell off 56% this weekend

new deodorant?

I liked a lot of things about this - visually amazing and great monster suits. Hated a lot of the monster dialogue (I chalk this up, perhaps unfairly, either to Eggers's terrible writing sensibilities or just to the general hollywood need to have timeless cartoonish characters say smarmy contemporary-sounding things, because that's "edgy" or something). Almost could have been better with the sound off - I loved the giant desert dog and the image of Carol alone on the cliff staring into the ocean especially.

I thought it was pretty clear that the whole thing was about divorce from a child's perspective. I agree with whoever said above that Carol is pretty clearly a representation of the father (there's a shot early in the movie of a globe with an engraving - something like "You own the world, love Dad," and Carol says the same to Max). Max is the false "king" who thinks he's supposed to somehow make everyone happy and keep the family together but can't in the end and takes the blame on himself. Plenty of allusions to a father that gets a little "out of control" - not only in Carol's behavior (he literally destroys homes, among other things), but in the early scenes, e.g. where Max gets up on the counter and yells at his mom.

I'd like to try it again with the sound off and a really good record playing.

― Nate Carson, Sunday, October 25, 2009 6:41 AM Bookmark

Or what he said.

I thought this was very good. doubt the kids would think the same thing.

I saw Carol more as Max's doppelganger. I thought Gandolfini gave a brilliant vocal performance, ditto Catherine O'Hara.

Music didn't bother me.

Much of my antipathy towards this movie would have been avoided if Dave Eggers hadn't been involved/born.

see, I had forgotten he was, til the end credits!

Also, he doesn't annoy me, as I have never subjected myself to anything of his book-length work.

(or that hipster yuppie film he wrote this year)

Huh. Interesting, well made, original, very good characterisation, still kind of lame. I would've made the Wild Things scarier and FUNNER, at least at first. I think child me would've found it extremely boring.

Oh, and the songs were dreadful.

Though Gandolfini was excellent, as was the kid.

Finally saw this. Take all the dialog out of this and it would be amazing.

Fantastic Fox and Where the Wild Things Are

someone warn enrique that it's Sicinski!

this was fine, but really empty feeling - couldn't help but feel after watching it that basically nothing had happened.

Just like life, man. Just like life.

dude if my life was full of 10 foot tall monster bird men throwing trees around i would hope i would not be all "well so that happened what do we get for lunch now"

yeah but you would, eventually

Yeah, I get the whole Max and monsters = dealing with divorce thing. It's not a hidden thing, it's blatantly obvious. I think this movie will reward with repeat viewings, but based on the first one, 3/4 through it went from fun/exciting/unique/funny to dull/sad/awkward really quickly.

Carol's rule about not letting in the two owls didn't make any sense but then again when you're a kid your parents have rules that don't make any sense, and they often don't take the time to justify them either.

All in all I think plotwise there were so many spot-on recreations of what it's like to be a GenX/GenY kid (forts, dirt fights, mood swings) and that was my favorite thing about the movie. It was really like 'this is what it's like being a kid'.

would've made the Wild Things scarier and FUNNER, at least at first

my main issue with it - the entire experience with the wild things is emo from the start, we never get a sense of their appeal being WILDness; Max being able to escape from his real life for the thrill of fantasy and rule-breaking, rather than for wah wah boo hoo. Even Carol smashing the houses is sooky and devoid of fun, as opposed to Max's own busting up of his sister's room - and it upsets the family around Carol, as it upset the family around Max, so there's no release involved at all.

Carol's rule about not letting in the two owls didn't make any sense but then again when you're a kid your parents have rules that don't make any sense, and they often don't take the time to justify them either.

Uh, petty jealousy...

my main issue with it - the entire experience with the wild things is emo from the start, we never get a sense of their appeal being WILDness

^exactly.

Good god this movie is fucking boring.

It's like he's trying to make the shittiest version of Time Bandits he can.

with a load of muppets

The movie is nothing but heavy. I got the impression the monsters, after Max leaves, are about to go spike their communal Kool Aid and just kill themselves. Like, go back to your life, Max, you still have a chance. Here on monster island there's no hope.

― Josh in Chicago, Saturday, October 24, 2009 1:01 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark

This post cracked me up.

I just saw this movie. I'm a little torn on it. On the one hand it's mopey, crappy shit. But they did do a pretty good job at doing... what they were aiming for, I guess. They really should've made Max younger, a 7 or 8 year old - he'd be less self-aware, less capable of angst, he'd just be a kid having fun with his monster bros. The kid in this was really good though, and so was Gandolfini - and normally I HATE celebrity v/o, because it's almost always lazy and half-assed. And the monster f/x were cool... there was a good issue of Cinefex on it.

i just rewatched this. disliked it the first time, loved it this time. couldn't really tell you why.

I was a major hater of that trailer but I liked this. so did my kids.

I've got those sendak monsters tattooed on my synapses from childhood too, but it's a movie based on a book, it's its own thing. jonze turned it into some weird fabulistic meditation on divorce and how kids experience its effects. it's got his fingerprints all over it, but I don't think some slavish film interpretation would/could work so why not go idiosyncratic?

I wish it was a little more, uh, entertaining? but on the whole I dug it and I kinda respect the struggle the guy had to go through to make it. iirc he spent years on this thing and about halfway through the studio was threatening to trash the whole thing and start over again w/ somebody else.

one of my favorite films of the year. agree with princess TT that it's probably a bit too mopey & grim, but only just. loved the characters, the dialogue, the costumes & effects, photography & scenery, the weird matter-of-fact ambivalence running through it all. skipped it in theaters, but watched it 3 times in as many days when i rented the DVD. and for god's sake, watch tell them anything you want, spike's interview with/documentary on maurice sendak. so freaking great, even better than where the wild things are. sendak = hero for life.

In an interview with Newsweek, Sendak felt that parents who deemed the film's content to be too disturbing for children should "go to hell. That's a question I will not tolerate" and he further noted "I saw the most horrendous movies that were unfit for child's eyes. So what? I managed to survive."

ok i can handle them casting mark ruffalo and letting him keep his top on but why does he have two lines in it? Also this made me really sad, I really liked it. I feel like this movie would not have any appeal for kids at all tho. Thought that while the overall metaphor was p. obvious, carol was still a difficult, complex character whose motivation was not always clear.It was hard to follow in that way. I felt tired for everyone in it. why are they killing me with this daniel johnston cover??? I thought it looked really beautiful, the puppets had actual weight, which i kindof miss from movies. they felt like real things.

Count me in with the haters. One extra criticism not noted upthread, it ruined the "we'll eat you up, we love you so!" line. It should be almost sincere, with the wonderful and terrible passion and rage of a monster - not knowingly and quietly whispered with maternal affection. Ugh. I know it has its defenders but I think it rides entirely on Sendak's title and character designs, if it had somehow been made without those it would have been an utter failure.

It's like he's trying to make the shittiest version of Time Bandits he can.

― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Sunday, May 2, 2010 7:01 PM (9 months ago) Bookmark

hahaha otm

just watched this and it was OK really but man did i get tired of Tony Soprano grumbling and whining

I just rewatched the movie, but this time I had done a bit more research on Sendak and his idea behind his trilogy, including In the Night Kitchen and Outside Over There.

I've no idea whether or not Spike Jonze and co. actually read any of the studies, but I read a bit of Psychoanalytic Study of the Child (volume 63, if anyone wants to look it up). In it, there is a study of Sendak's work and I have to admit, it allowed me to enjoy the movie more.

In fact, I liked the movie even more this time round. I had the same issue with the monsters' dialogue as others did when I first watched it, but I let that 'slide', as I was more interested in its symbolism.

If it can be reduced to one thing, it is that of the classic (albeit overused) concept of art as a cathartic experience. There are many things going on at the same time and the film does add a lot, but these monsters definitely represent 'inner monsters' who do not just live in Max's imagination, but represent various sides of him. They're kind of like living thoughts.

A lot of Max's worries, as others have written, spring from the absence of a parent, but his condition/depression(?) is compounded by the little things of everyday life of a boy. I'm thinking of the snow fight here.

The first time I saw it, I never thought of this, but he seems to overreact when the boys destroy his igloo. But thinking about it some more, I guess small things like this hurt you more when there is so much more going on inside you. Yes, he is a child who is definitely emotionally unstable and traumatised.

First manifesting itself as fury, his way of dealing with this trauma is by escaping into an imaginary world, which allows for change and growth. It's a world some never leave for fear of what reality might bring.

Need to rewatch sometime. This movie is indeed a deep well.