‘Where the Wild Things Are’: Beautifully Realized By a Visionary Director
by Carl KozlowskiThere are some books that are so beloved and iconic, they’ll probably never be made into films. “Catcher in the Rye,” for one. Or “A Confederacy of Dunces,” for another. And for decades, the children’s book “Where the Wild Things Are” seemed to be among those topping that list as well.

Of course, there were a couple of factors that added to the burden of anyone willing to take a swing at “Things.” The book is only 10 sentences long and takes about eight minutes to fully absorb even when one drinks in the stunningly detailed and otherworldly drawings of its creator, Maurice Sendak. So to stretch it into the 90 minutes or more needed for a feature film, filmmakers would have to invent massive amounts of material, creating the risk that their newly added sequences would upset rather than delight the fans who made the book a mega-seller in the first place.
Thankfully, the 46-year wait to bring it to the screen has paid off due to the ingenious collaboration of visionary director Spike Jonze (“Being John Malkovich,” “Adaptation”) and writer Dave Eggers, who in his own book “A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius” showed his own insights into the melancholy side of growing up. Together, in collaboration with director of photography Lance Acord and production designer K.K. Barrett, they’ve brought Sendak’s wildly inventive alternate world to rich life.
As anyone who’s ever taken a couple minutes to look over the book knows, “Wild Things” follows the adventures of a lonely boy named Max who gets a little too rebellious one night and is banished to his room without supper by his mother. While in his room, a wild jungle and sea appear in his imagination and he sets sail for another land far away that’s inhabited by monsters. He becomes their king and lives the high life before realizing he’s lonely, sets sail back to home and finds that home is not so bad after all since he has his hot dinner waiting for his return.
Max embarks on his journey in a more elaborate way in the film, and his trek across the land of the wild things is vastly expanded to incorporate some of the most stunning scenery this planet has to offer (the film was shot in Australia). The film also departs from the book in giving the various monsters names and extensive dialogue with Max, but thanks to a wonderful performance by literal newcomer Max Records in the lead and transfixing vocal characterizations by actors including James Gandolfini and, costumes and large-scale puppetry for the wild things, it almost all works.
A few brief moments drag here and there, and the film adds in some messages about friendship and inclusion. But these thankfully do not come off as forced PC goodness – rather, they are actually a rare modern example of how the children’s classics of decades past used to pull off being both entertaining and influential without being heavy-handed.
Above it all, crashing and soaring in equally stunning measure throughout the film is one of the most unique scores in movie history (I know it sounds hyperbolic, but you seriously won’t find a comparable score anywhere). Co-written and co-produced by Karen O of the Yeah Yeah Yeah and sung by Karen O along with a massive children’s chorus billed as The Kids, it captures perfectly the mix of jubilant madness and occasional sadness that form the happy-sad hallmarks of any childhood.






Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
49 Comments
<<the film adds in some messages about friendship and inclusion. But these thankfully do not come off as forced PC goodness >> Wait, it's a kid's film without a "green" message? How the heck did Hollywood let it get made?
I was skeptical when I heard about this film, but the scenes I've seen look beautiful, and I was captivated by the idea of James Gandolfini as one of the voices. I get very concerned when they add material to a children's book for a full-length feature film, and they take too many liberties with the story–the Grinch effect, if you will–but I'm going to give this one a try. Thanks for the review.
Catcher hasn't been adapted only because Salinger has blocked every attempt to do so.
Sorry, but the kid in this movie reminds me too much of the Balloon Boy in the news lately. Is anybody else tired of our culture's relentless celebration of rebellion and wildness? It's gotten to the point where the most rebellious thing a kid can do is to sit quietly and read a book.
Blocked isn't really the right term, IMHO: the old cuss simply won't sell the rights to it. (Sue Grafton refuses to ever let her mysteries be adapted as well). You can bet his kids will probably cash in once he passes.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Big Hollywood, Risha Holmes. Risha Holmes said: RT @bighollywood: ‘Where the Wild Things Are’: Beautifully Realized By a Visionary Director http://bit.ly/1dpp7G [...]
Bingo. Nowadays rebellion is conformity and vice versa.
I want to see it just to see how they pulled off the wild things. Probably not in theaters though- I'm cheap. But it looks really well done.
Well, I can't blame authors for not wanting to sell the rights. Look what Hollywood usually does to beloved books – they ruin them! I'm sure I could give you a list of examples, but I would run out of space.
The first one I usually think of is DUNE by Frank Herbert as it was butchered TWICE! Sometimes a book was never meant to be a movie and I've reconciled myself to that.
Folks, once again I am clueless as to why this book was a 'megaseller'. When I read it, I remember staring at the pages and thinking 'THIS lousy book is what all the fuss is about?'. My second impression was the reaction of a friend of mine who was a single mother of a young boy the same age as Max. Her nose wrinkled when she remarked how she couldn't stand Max, he was a 'little monster' and as a mother she wouldn't have welcomed him back. All this is a long-winded way of saying the book never touched me – so the film won't either.
So looking forward to the DVD release (I'd rather take my chances with a dollar rental and have the pause capability). I've been checking BH often for a review of this film. What I want to know, though, is if it comes across as Max's experience (as seen through the mind and eyes of a non-indoctrinated, nor spoiled child of that age), or if it is obviously an adult's interpretation, without the wonder, innocence, fear, question, imagination, adventure, etc., that kids who love that story, have.
Confederacy of Dunces is one of my all time favorites. I guess it's safe to say that no one will attempt to make a movie of Goodnight Moon…
I have to admit I am "wildly" curious about this movie. I happen to love the book.
I'm waiting for them to bring "Alexander and the Terrible Horrible No Good Very Bad Day" to the big screen.
I remember the monster, that's about it. I read it to my goddaughter a couple years ago when I was taking care of her. I still only remember the monster. In other words I agree with you.
According to film critic Michael Medved, this movie is extremely dark, disturbing & terrifying; it nearly deserves an R rating. The monsters are not just innocent fantasy characters, but the effects of serious mental illness suffered by the main character. The boy is bi-polar & violent toward his family. In one scene, the main monster (Gandofini's character) tries to kill the kid, so he repels inside of the maternal monster… literally INSIDE. Ugh. It looks like a beloved children's book has been adapted into a very adult movie, much to the delight of a very deranged & fatalistic Hollywood industry. Don't trust the critics: screen it first before taking little kids.
[...] the original here: ‘Where the Wild Things Are’: Beautifully Realized By a Visionary Director This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
Maybe they'll make a movie about the little boy with a pencil that draws all over the place.
Ahhh. I can see it now. Claim the Wild Things used to be people but were banished from civilization after mutating into Wild Things at the hands of an Evil Corporation's experiments.
Very true ladykrystyna. Although I thought that Dune was the most over-rated book I had ever read, that doesn't mean it deserved the treatment it got in both (and the upcoming) adaptations. Some stories should simply not be made into film. Alan Moore had that to say over each one of his stories that has been made into a movie and he still refuses to see Watchmen.
They'll wangst (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Wangst... it up so all sorts of things happen like picked on by American flag waving bullies over his decision to be a non-conformist and refuse to stand during the national anthem and then have nothing but Linkin Park songs on the soundtrack.
I don't remember if this book was around when I was a kid, but I have no sentimental attachment to it. What puzzles me is that I thought this book was about imagination. How exactly will kids work their imagination if it's presented to them on the big screen.
Do kids even have imaginations anymore? Everywhere I go I see kids with either a video game or DVD player. Am I old enough to yell at kids to stay off my lawn yet?
They'll wangst ( http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Wangst ) it up so all sorts of things happen like picked on by American flag waving bullies over his decision to be a non-conformist and refuse to stand during the national anthem and then have nothing but Linkin Park songs on the soundtrack.
The more sugar sweet the trailer voice, the more bitter the message.
I'm passing.
The things that made Sendak's books what they are is the illustrations.
I have the book, I don't need overblown movies
This movie is NOT too dark or "scary" for kids. It IS however probably too dark and scary for their parents.
That's like saying they shouldn't ever watch a Superman cartoon or the Wizard of Oz because they aren't using their imagination there either. A kid can have a great imagination and still enjoy movies; a great movie can spark a kid's innate creativity/fantasy and that's a big part of growing up, IMHO. I agree that they shouldn't be buried in a video game all the time, but I suspect every kid who's seen Star Wars created their own unique drama about defeating the Empire, probably more creative than anything Lucas came up with for those damn prequels!
Well, wow! I was horrified at the thought of this movie even being made, for the reasons you've set forth here. Some stories are just so alive in your memory as a child that the thought of seeing someone else's imagining of it seems wrong somehow. You don't want to destroy the image you've had in your mind since childhood.
But if it's this good perhaps I will give it a try!
Is nothing sacred?
The character seems like he should be five at the most yet the movie selected a much older kid who doesn't fit the role. What 11 year old wears pajamas with feet?
Well you know my name is Simon,
and the things I draw come true …
Jesus Christ, do you have to take everything so seriously?
Hmmm… I'm going to see the film with a young friend (not THAt young, she's 21) tomorrow and I'm frankly curious now about just how dark it's going to be.
Not that I mind the dark stuff. I just hope the film contains at least one of those wonderful moments (part of what Tolkien called the "eucatastrophe") that lift your heart and make your spirit soar. Such moments are rare and usually depend partly on marvelous music underlying the action but they do happen – heck, there was one in the recent film "UP!" And another which I've always remembered is in "The Dark Crystal" when Jen and Kira leap onto the Landstriders and race off to save their world from the evil Skeksis. Just for a few seconds, music and action and a sense of wonder literally take one's breath away!
i was thinking exactly the same thing. in the book, Max is a little kid, not a pre-teen.
I'd love it if someone could make a movie about Calvin and Hobbs….that comic strip was all about imagination. It reminded me of….me!
Medved doesn't have a clue when it comes to movies. Max is not bi-polar and is not portrayed in the movie as bi-polar.
Where The Wild Things Are is a beautiful, thoughtful movie that acknowledges the turmoil, frustration, anger that a young boy must deal with and the growth and understanding Max undergoes as he is surrounded by the manifestations of his inner demons.
Sometimes to reach the light you must travel down the darkest path of yourself in order to gain understanding.
It was trash. Just like Being John Malkovich, Spike Jonze was fully convinced of his own poseur profundity from the outset and made this film nearly unwatchable. It could have been at least visually interesting, had the crew invested in, say, a tripod or steadicam so that every single shot wasn't a close-up, blurry shaky-cam abomination. Where did John's reviews go? I'm sure he would recognize this pretentious bilge for exactly what it was.
It's not for you because you grew up in the internet/cg age.
When you were a kid, you entertained yourself with cg video games.
But for those of us with no video games when we were kindergardeners, this was one of my first books. There's no way you could have the same nostalgia for it as the rest of us.
Trust me: for my generation, this book is a timeless classic.
I read this book before the internet and cg age and still didn't like it. The book seemed to be all about an angry and rather violent child who gets his way in the end. Oh sure, it's about imagination and the pictures can be pretty. So what? The kid is angry and his imagination is angry. Forgive me, but that is what I took away from it. There are better books about imagination out there.
Hobee Scroganeenee was a better kid+monster art book, in my singular opinion.
Maybe the movie is good, but I won't support it or it's author, who is a self-important cad.
Have you seen it?
I just read a review from someone who took his kids. The kids didn't like it. Don't want the DVD and couldn't wait for it to end.
In a kid movie?
Egad.
Saw it. Liked it enough to recommend it. The music was crazy (means I liked it, too). Excellent puppetry although the jumping and flying about by the "monsters" was a little over the top. The movie followed the logic of an upset child but that'll be infuriating to most adults. Yes, it was dark but not scary. Basically I was impressed with the film.
My kids saw it with the grandparents (they were babysitting and I didn't have a chance to ask them to wait until I read reviews on Big Hollywood.)
My children (10, 12, 13) loathed the movie. It was boring, then it was scary, and then it was so sad that my daughter cried and told me she hated movies where they "twist kids all around to make them cry." My oldest, the newly minted teenager, said it was revolting how they ripped a characters arm off with sand pouring out of the hole like blood. He likes playing Halo and has no problem with the movie "Aliens." He knows the difference between violence aimed directly at children and violence in action sequences.
I don't recommend it for children.
Not a movie for kids. Adults, perhaps, if you like this sort of thing, but definitely not kids.
Confession: I've always thought "Catcher" was a lousy book. Hope it never gets the chance to rot more minds and waste film.
"Harold and the Purple Crayon" was made into a terrific short series for preschoolers that's now on DVD.
I enjoyed the flick. Nothing really scary. My 5 year old wasn't bothered by anything. I wasn't blown away like some have been, but it was interesting to see. R-rating? That's silly. To say the main monster was going to try to "kill" max makes it sound harsher than it was. Yes, he was going to "eat" Max, but that element was in the book, "I'll eat you up". It's what monster do, after all, isn't it?
[...] Carl Kozlowski at Big Hollywood: A few brief moments drag here and there, and the film adds in some messages about friendship and inclusion. But these thankfully do not come off as forced PC goodness – rather, they are actually a rare modern example of how the children’s classics of decades past used to pull off being both entertaining and influential without being heavy-handed. [...]
I like your positive take on the film. So many people seem to be overly critical of the film, looking too much into it without enjoying what it has to offer. http://www.newsy.com/videos/where_the_wild_things...
Sometimes you must, but not when you're under 6 – which is ~ the age this book was written for. You have children? Let them be that and face the dark path in their own time.
[...] Reviews: Carl Kozlowski at Big Hollywood Debbie Schlussel Christian Toto Kurt Loder parcbench John Boot movieguide.org Christian [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.