Review: Where the Wild Things Are (2009) ****
Where the Wild Things Are, Spike Jonze’s poignant and deeply felt adaptation of Maurice Sendak’s beloved children’s storybook, is a film that remembers what it’s like to be a boy of a certain age. It’s steeped in the simple, playful joys of fort building, snowball fights and pig piles, while also capturing the unhinged fear, rage and melancholy of a little boy in transition. Delicately fleshing out Sendak’s sparsely powerful story, Jonze and his co-screenwriter Dave Eggers have expanded the narrative to big screen proportions while sparing us the pointless back-stories and antic busy work that corrupt similar adaptations. It’s sure to delight imaginative children and adults who still remember their own tumultuous childhoods.
Young Max (newcomer Max Records) is a lonely boy at a difficult age. His sister is now old enough that she’d rather spend time with her friends than entertain her little brother, his father is absent and his mother (Catherine Keener) is consumed with work and a new boyfriend. Max responds as many boys might by acting out and retreating into his own imagination. After a particularly rebellious evening, Max is sent to bed without dinner. However, instead of going to his room as he’s told, he runs away.
Then, in the fluid way of a little kids’ imagination, the film abruptly shifts from reality to fantasy as Max sails to the land of the Wild Things. There he saves himself from being eaten by the monsters that populate the place by using his quick and ready imagination to spin tails of his own glory. In a land where acting out is standard operating procedure, Max is made king and for a time he is at peace. Of course, the complexities of leadership are too much for a little boy and this strange land is ultimately no place for him. Before long cracks begin to show in Max’s world and in his relationships with the giant, unruly creatures who inhabit it.
Childlike without being childish, Where the Wild Things Are never panders to its young audience with crude jokes or slapstick nor does it placate parents with smartassed pop cultural nonsense. This is a pure and honest film that never compromises its child’s eye view of a scary world. It speaks directly to a youngster’s emotions on his or her own terms, never stooping to easy sentimentality or obvious story beats. Unlike the usual family film that must constantly remain active in order to conceal its essential emptiness, Jonze is never afraid to pause and reflect and feel. The film lives as much in the emotional cracks between the narrative highlights as it does in the story itself.
That’s not to say that Where the Wild Things Are is boring or that nothing happens. To the contrary, it bursts with boyish energy and imagination as its simple story unfolds with a child’s logic. Like a boy’s tale, things happen not because they’re preordained by the screenplay, but because they’re fun and interesting. Anyone who’s ever been told a story by a 7-year-old will find it instantly relatable.
From the clutter in Max’s room to the social mechanics of a dirt clod fight, Jonze’s film is rich in the detailed minutia of childhood, celebrating it and elevating it to a kind of art for children. To that end, the production design is exquisite, capturing both Max’s real and fantasy lives and bringing them both to credible life.
Holding together the chaos of Max’s world and his story is Yeah Yeah Yeahs front woman Karen O’s rambunctious original soundtrack. Perfectly complimenting Carter Burwell’s score, O’s work bursts with shouts, howls, raucous rhythms and rough-hewn chanted melodies. It’s a perfect reflection of Max’s energetic and disorderly frame of mind and it’s the key to amplifying the film’s wild soul while simultaneously taming it.
Best of all is the superb character work that seamlessly integrates giant fuzzy suits from Jim Henson’s creature shop, computer enhanced facial expressions, subtle gesturing by human actors and terrific performances by a voice cast including James Gandolfini, Lauren Ambrose, Chris Cooper, Paul Dano, Catherine O’Hara and Forest Whitaker. The finished product is both handmade and high tech and it works beautifully. The individually sketched Wild Things capture your attention every moment they’re on screen, not because they’re amazing special effects, but because they’re fantasy brought to living, breathing life. Capable of surprisingly delicate emotional textures that run the gamut from unchecked anger to consuming fear and from unrestrained joy to deep sadness, they’re at times more real than their human counterparts.
Special notice should be given to young Max Records making his film debut as an elementary school-aged anti-hero. On the surface, his character is a brat whose behavior would not have been tolerated in less permissive parenting times and he’s a difficult boy to like, but thanks in large measure to Records’ sensitive performance, the underlying insecurity that fuels Max’s anger is palpable, sympathetic and moving.
Where the Wild Things Are works because it is unafraid to tap into the feelings of children by speaking directly to them. As such, it’s a must-see for any parent who would stimulate their children and their imaginations instead of merely pacifying them. Being challenging and dark material that refuses to underestimate its audience, the film might not fit accepted notions of family entertainment and in the short term its performance will likely pale in comparison to crowd pleasing time killers like Ice Age 3. Nevertheless, this is a heart wrenching and beautiful work of art that will be fondly remembered.
Where the Wild Things Are. USA 2009. Directed by Spike Jonze. Written by Spike Jonze and Dave Eggers. Cinematography by Lance Acord. Music score composed by Carter Burwell and Karen O. Edited by James Haygood and Eric Zumbrunnen. Production design by KK Barrett. Starring Max Records, Catherine Keener and Mark Ruffalo. Featuring the voices of James Gandolfini, Paul Dano, Catherine O’Hara, Forest Whitaker, Chris Cooper and Lauren Ambrose. 1 hour 44 minutes. MPAA rated PG for mild thematic elements, some adventure action and brief language. 4 stars (out of 5)
Filed under: Reviews
Tags: Carter Burwell, Catherine Keener, Catherine O'Hara, Chris Cooper, Dave Eggers, Eric Zumbrunnen, Forest Whitaker, James Gandolfini, James Haygood, Karen O, KK Barrett, Lance Acord, Lauren Ambrose, Mark Ruffalo, Max Records, Paul Dano, Spike Jonze, Where the Wild Things Are
Great piece of writing Craig. I always love reading reviews where the writer feels so much affinity with and passion for a film.
They’re the easiest reviews to write.
For me, your review was as beautifully rendered as the film itself, Craig. One of your very best. I second the sentiment of Sartre’s comment.
It was heartfelt with genuine sentiment, and to borrow your words, it never talked down to its audience. In short, it made me feel giddy as I watched it unspool.
The soundtrack and score are rightly praised here, as they were quintessential in allowing this viewer to gently submerge into this most pleasant and satisfying film’s environment.
Childlike without being childish, Where the Wild Things Are never panders to its young audience with crude jokes or slapstick nor does it placate parents with smartassed pop cultural nonsense.
That says a lot — if not all.
It’s a lovely piece of writing; of this there can be no doubt. And I won’t be obnoxious or repetitious, just to say here that I simply didn’t feel what you did. The film had grand ambitions, but the script was tedious. I just didn’t feel the wonderment throughout.
Regardless, I applaud the display of passion and appreciation for the film, and for this outstanding review, which makes quite the fecund statement.
hmm no and hell no. wild things is further proof i should stay way from with *any* type of kid slant slant movie even one that’s supposedly aimed a bit more at adults (oh i forgot i’m an adult )
but if trad rock crap like the fire arcade gets to go to the top of ‘indie’/'alternative’. hell the wild things movie/ may as well have people drooling.
yeah craig, you did bring up some points i missed. but wild things doesn’t inspire me to use my limited potential brain power to really even attempt to say any coherent. oh and my spelling sucks too.
this is the film people are going crazy over. f**k this.
‘everybody’s waiting /for you to focus on the things/you’re hating’ ; )
just make it stop. and i’m glad this isn’t getting across the board glowing reveiws. although i suspect if i check more blog type things/ this well be the case….oh hello craig. :)
craig, i saw wild things at the angelika (8 pm friday showing) and i think it was the room that holds 280 something people wise. and everything aside from the first three rows.were filled. (yep i got there late had to sit in row three )
and kids. what kids.at this showing it was all adults. (and most of those weren’t of the super young ) variety .there was some smattering of kids. but it looked like they were dragged there by the adults. *ha ha *
i could have ad the wild thing book read to me when i was younger/or maybe i read it. but i don’t remeber.
sorry, my memory is beyond beyond horrible. i contrast to seemingly everyone else that can remember evry detail when they were younger. hell and i’m probably happier that i don’t remember. :)
oh well it’s probaly for the best since i’ve currently forgotten oh to read….
and no craig, i’m not fondly remembering this film *at all*. i even hate the soundtrack/score whatever it is/called.oh wait but i forget i hate music. ; )
now if i could only forget the wild things movie….
The film had grand ambitions, but the script was tedious. I just didn’t feel the wonderment throughout.
Sam, I can see where you’re coming from though I still liked the film. As often is the case, I feel ambivalent about this one. There were times while watching this film that I felt the tediousness, for example. My reaction reminded me of how I felt when seeing WALL-E, which I nevertheless liked. My rationalization is that I have a lower tolerance than some for special effects that seem to be there for their own sake.
In any event, WtWTA is a grand attempt at a monumental challenge. I give it an “A” for effort. I keep thinking at the ingenuity of fleshing out what I view as the personification of various psychological states into separate characters. Though I feel the dialogue could have benefited from more work, I ask myself, “Who else is even attempting something like this with as much result?”
I second Pierre’s second comments here. For me it swung for the fences and hit a ground-rule double – over the fence but not a home run. I haven’t been that impressed with a visual landscape in a long time, and I also enjoyed the acting and the soundtrack. Pretty much a solid “B” as I just wasn’t moved emotionally.
I think it’s pretty much an impossible movie to defend or criticize, because everyone’s reaction is extremely subjective. You’re recreating a collective childhood memory, and half of the people are going to say, “I remember it differently.”
Yeah. What Daniel said. This is obviously a movie that’s grabbing people or its not. The former are delighted and the latter feel like they’re having their teeth pulled. Also apparently there’s a strong group in the middle who admire the craft but still don’t quite click emotionally.
I’ve made my case for the film the best I can. I don’t begrudge anyone who doesn’t share my joy.
“My rationalization is that I have a lower tolerance than some for special effects that seem to be there for their own sake.”
I don’t know what you’re referring to, Pierre. This clearly wasn’t a Transformers or Star Wars prequel, where effects and elements are being added just to sell toys or fill out a scene. If anything, I thought WTWTA is one of the very few movies out there this year that uses its SFX very sparingly and only to serve the purpose of the story. The only shot I thought was unnecessary or completely throwaway was the giant dog. Not only did I not find the joke funny, it had nothing to do with the rest of the film and felt like some weird in-joke.
Otherwise, I guess I don’t agree with you unless I misunderstood your point.
Yeah, I’ve got to agree with Joel on this one. One of the great things to me about the movie was that the effects were subtle and integral to the story telling.
The giant dog also made me laugh, but I don’t know why.
I got a bit bored with all the bonding and cavorting of the characters early on. It reminded me of WALL-E.
That I’ll buy. It’s a complaint I’ve heard elsewhere too. I just took issue with your comment about the effects.
Me, I found the monsters totally captivating.
Oddly enough you can’t say it was derivative of Wall-E because this movie was done before Wall-E was even released. Not sure it matters now, just saying.
I have no idea what my reaction to this will be. On the one hand I love Spike Jonze’s creativity, sensibility, humor, and intelligence but I’m not big on Hollywood films aimed at family audiences. If WALL-E mostly didn’t charm or impress me does this have any chance? Will I again show myself as dead inside?
The At the Movies guys loved it ->
http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/atm/
Sartre, this is definitely not aimed at families which partly explains some people’s (though not all people’s) disappointment in it. There is zero pandering to little kids or their parents.
There may well be other things you don’t like about it, but it won’t be because of the usual family movie tropes.
If memory serves, you and Pierre disliked different things about WALL-E so I’m not sure if his reaction here is a useful signpost…other than to the extent you generally agree or disagree with him about things that is.
All this is a long way of saying “I don’t know if you’ll like it or not” I kind of hope you give it a shot and fall for it. If nothing else I think you’ll appreciate the filmmaking even if the story and tone don’t do anything for you.
Haha! I found myself thinking, while watching WtWTA, “Just who is this movie for?” Certainly not for kids, I thought. But then, I thought, certainly not for a lot of adults, either.
So where does that leave us? Young adults? . . . or maybe those who haven’t fully resolved some major issues involving childhood? I really dunno.
Just to reiterate — despite my reservations about aspects of the film, it still gets a good grade from me.
Well, there is a meme going around at certain film blogs that Jonze intended the picture for New York City film critics and sundry elitists, professional critics or no. So perhaps that is the case, Pierre. (I doubt it, however.)
I think Jonze made the film for himself. For better or for worse, I doubt he had a demographic in mind.
I think it’s appealing to people in the 20 – 40 range. People who grew up on the book and who don’t remember childhood so fondly.
I actually built a snow fort when I was a kid…complete with an armory of snowballs in the ready to throw…but had no one who would play with me. So yeah. I think I’m Wild Things’ target audience.
Yes, based on all of the evidence, Jonze made this film for himself.
I tend to think of that as a good instinct, though it can certainly backfire and for some people in this case it clearly has.
“Just who is this movie for?”
To be honest, I hope that a really talented and visionary director makes *every* movie for themselves first. Why do I want them pandering to a specific audience? That just leads either to mindless, soulless crap that fills Summers and half of awards’ season or condescending, pretentious dribble.
You can tell me about box office this and test screenings that, but I think many of the best films came from great inspiration and drive, not from some effort to appease an audience. Even Hitchcock, the greatest crowd-pleaser to ever sit in a director’s chair, was still making the movies to please himself and his wife first and foremost.
This is good. Although I posed the question, “Just who is this movie for?” with one sense in mind — a marketing or audience perspective — some responses addressed the creative perspective, which of course should be of primary consideration.
Not knowing how it’s being marketed, I’d guess the film’s appeal is less to family tastes than to an adult sensibility — which now has me wondering about box office. . . .
http://www.seattlepi.com/movies/411288_tvgmovies19.html
Pierre, Patrick Goldstein had an interesting column on the unique marketing challenge posed by the film and how Warners succeeded by selling the film for exactly what it was to the 20 and 30 something audience that seemed to respond to it most.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2009/10/warners-survives-a-wild-ride-on-spike-jonzes-wild-things.html
The alternative was to lie and suck in more of a family crowd for a strong opening weekend. I’m glad they were honest about it. You can’t look at the trailer and say “Hey, that isn’t what the movie is really like”
Well Pierre, I thought the movie actually was for kids and adults. I don’t think you need to sugarcoat it for kids (even though the youngest are going to get bored during the last act) and surely adults can sympathize with childhood being less than a Disneyland experience 24/7.
I’m sorry the movie didn’t work for you, but a fair number of people applauded (adults and children) at the half-packed Sunday night showing I attended.
It was marketed pretty accurately to my mind, from the music choices to the films it was put in front of. Goldstein is right on the mark. It’s not going to be considered a success, but it will do repeat business and sell a sizable number of DVDs and Blu-rays.
Hold on, Joel. I do acknowledge I’ve been harping about what aspects didn’t work for me, but my overall assessment of this film is a good one. I’m impressed by the creativity, originality and rawness of the writing, which often doesn’t make it through the filmmaking process to the finished result. My quibbles are with some of the execution — what I consider unnecessary or overlong sequences as well as art direction that didn’t always work for me.
Fair enough, Pierre. Glad you liked it, but your follow-up comments seemed pretty negative.
The portions of Wild Things that are good more than justify the portions that aren’t so good.