Two Torches (Out of Five)
It’s a bad movie.
But according to Rottentomatoes.com, Where the Wild Things Are, which opens on Friday, isn’t being panned. In fact, it’s getting mixed-to-decent reviews.
I’ve spent a fair amount of time trying to figure this out, and here’s what I’ve come up with: there are two kinds of bad movies. There are those like G-Force or Year One, which are either cliched or formulaic, or just plain incompetently made.
Where the Wild Things Are isn’t bad like that. Director Spike Jonze at least tried to make something truly different, and critics really, really like it when filmmakers do that.
Much has been made of the fact that Jonze was trying to create the sense of being a nine year-old boy — the sense of confusion, the feeling that the world doesn’t make much sense.
He succeeded in that respect. He just didn’t make a very satisfying movie, or even an effective adaptation of the children’s book on which the film is based.
Here’s the story: a lonely, ignored kid runs away to a boat to sail to a land where monsters are real. Is this all in his imagination? We know from the book that it is, but we don’t know that from the movie. It’s like the movie can’t be bothered to fill in this part of the story, not even vaguely. It’s too intent on getting us to the land of monsters so it can show us:
- A ten-minute sequence where the boy and the monsters knock down their huts.
- A ten-minute sequence where one monster takes the kid on a journey to show him his model city.
- A ten-minute sequence where the monsters have a dirt-clod fight.
- A ten-minute sequence where the monsters all build a fort.
Sure, there’s a little flurry of an interesting conflict toward the end, and Catherine O’Hara has some funny lines as one of the monsters, but otherwise, story and character and conflict barely seem to matter.
So if it doesn’t really have a plot or a story, what is Where the Wild Things Are?
Basically, it’s an impressionist film “experiment.”
I’m all for film experiments, but the thing about experiments is that they sometimes fail.
Look, I’m as sick as the next film critic that every kids’ movie has to be about saving the world or keeping some parents from getting a divorce, but even I need more than a dirt-clod fight.
Yes, yes, I get it: it’s supposed to be told from the point-of-view of a nine year-old boy, and nine year-old boys love dirt-clod fights. That’s why the movie doesn’t tell us if the land is “real” or imagined: a nine year-old boy doesn’t know the difference.
But if the movie is told from that point-of-view, why do all the monsters talk like neurotic, ironic twentysomethings?
Almost everything about this film just seemed off to me, like it was either sloppy writing or made to be deliberately obtuse.
Here’s the thing: Where the Wild Things Are is a classic children’s book about an angry kid who learns that he can control his own anger — that his anger isn’t an out-of-control “wild” monster that controls him. The book is sophisticated and definitely works on an “adult” level, but it’s so brilliant because, in its deceptive simplicity, it also works on a “kid” level.
Where the Wild Things Are, the movie, doesn’t even try to work on a “kid” level. I suspect there’s going to be a whole lot of bored kids in theaters this weekend, and a lot of pissed-off parents.
There’s a whole genre of brilliant, sophisticated, but subversive fantasy children’s movies that went on to find widespread success: Time Bandits, Toy Story, Babe, and even Beauty and the Beast, to name just a very few.
Why can these movies be appreciated by the “unthinking” masses, but also by film aficionados looking for multiple layers and deeper meanings? Because first and foremost, they take their characters, and their story, seriously.
I never felt that Where the Wild Things Are did. It seemed to me that, first and foremost, the filmmaker wanted to make a POINT about how childhood is “confusing,” to show how clever and avant garde he is — “Look, I don’t need to have a ‘plot’!” — or maybe just to show us some (admittedly) cool film imagery.
Basically, this is a movie for Spike Jonze and all his film school friends.
Which is fine for an indie or arthouse film, but this is a $80 million studio film that’s being heavily marketed to mainstream audiences.
Deceptive much?
There is definitely a small minority of folks who will love this movie, in spite of its slow pace and the non-narrative (or maybe because of it, because they like rule-breaking for rule-breaking’s sake).
And apparently many of these folks are film critics.
These folks will all say I missed the point of Where the Wild Things Are, that we’re sometimes supposed to be confused and frustrated and bored, because the character is confused and frustrated and bored. That there’s no real point because life has no real point.
Or maybe they won’t be bored at all — they’ll be satisfied by the non-plot and the ironic monsters. They’ll say to me, “The movie is pure emotion put on film.” Or, “It seems to be about nothing, but it’s really about everything!”
I can’t say these folks are wrong, because that’s their opinion. More power to ‘em.
All I can say is that I was mostly either bored or annoyed with Where the Wild Things Are, and it seemed like most of the preview audience I saw it with thought that too.
Similar Posts:
- Just How Weird is WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE?
- Review: TELL THEM ANYTHING YOU WANT is Dark, Fascinating Look at Maurice Sendak
- Review: A New Book Takes SUPERNATURAL Seriously (At Last!)
- The Tinder Box (This Fantastic Week!)
- “Coraline” Review: Is This the Best Movie You’ll Ever See That Doesn’t Quite Work?
![[Bloglines]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/bloglines.png)
![[Digg]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[Fark]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/fark.png)
![[Google]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/google.png)
![[Squidoo]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/squidoo.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Technorati]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Twitter]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Windows Live]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/windowslive.png)
![[Yahoo!]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/yahoo.png)
![[Email]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
You forgot to make it: “the critics are wrong… except me.”
Ha! Yes, well, I guess that’s implied. Headlines are imprecise — but I meant “most” critics…
I walked out of this movie with my 7 yr old son crying. It was too disturbing. BAD MOVIE! The preview was deceptive…I thought I would really enjoy the movie as I have enjoyed the book. WRONG! Don’t waste your money.
Thanks! I had seen some positive comments about the movie, but the preview did absolutely nothing for me. I can feel less regret removing it from my Netflix queue now.
It looks like an interesting movie.
I am curious to see it.
Where the Wild Things Are is classic literature and all, but come on! The book only has about 200 words in it. It’s not even enough words to make a decent movie poster, let alone an actual movie.
Spike Jonze seemed too smart to do something this stupid.
Saw it, hated it.
Me too! Walked out of it. BAD movie.
I see Where the Wild Things Are as more of an art film than a children’s film.
I couldn’t agree with you more. It’s not just a bad movie, it’s a really, really, REALLY bad movie. Lovable Max from the book became a latchkey brat in need of serious therapy.
Amen to “I suspect there’s going to be a whole lot of bored kids in theaters this weekend, and a lot of pissed-off parents.” My wife and I absolutely hated it; the four kids we went with (ages 8-11) had one word to describe the movie: “weird.” When the entire audience leaves a movie in silence, it’s not a good sign.
They should’ve called the film, “Where the Clueless, Child-Hating Hollywood Producers Are.”
I agree. I walked out of it with my 7 yr. old son in tears. Very disturbing for children and parents.
I took my four kids to this today ages 9-14. We now have to rewind our minds and delete this and go back to the book! My daughter told me that Maurice Sendak helped produce it. What happened?
The whole island needed a good psychiatrist. What an awful music score. This one should have gone straight to dvd. And I thought Barney was bad!
I completely agree with you. This movie is *entirely* bad, through and through. By comparison, it puts “Fly me to the moon” in Oscar territory.
I saw it with my kids and they wondered why the key scene in the book where trees and vines grow in Max’s bedroom was not incoporated in the movie. That would have presented an opportunity for special effects wizardry that might have partly rescued the movie.
I thought the beginning was OK but once it got to the bit where Carol was smashing those nest-like huts, I thought “Oh dear”. It just got worse from there. No fun, no imagination. The way they tried to cue the audience’s reaction using the soundtrack was really pathetic.
“Now audience, this part where we play bright indie-pop music and Max sprints pointlessly from the left of the screen to the right, is where you are supposed to feel happy/excited, OK?”
Uh, no.
I enjoyed the movie. If you are going to take your child or children to this movie, it would be good to read the story to the them. Also explain to them this is not real, only make beleive. The story had so many themes. Just to name a few themes I that enjoyed: leadership, working together as a term, respect for each other no matter what your character is, not being afraid to let your imagination run free, and the love for family. I read one critic response which said, the movie should have included more about how Max go to the island.
Thank you for putting into words exactly what I was thinking! I cannot describe how deeply I detested this movie. I loved your point:
“If the movie is told from that point-of-view, why do all the monsters talk like neurotic, ironic twentysomethings?” UGH! So true!
And I’m sorry, but 9 year olds are way more sophisticated than this movie makes them out to be. Max is a 4 year old in a 9 year old’s body.
At the theater I went to, the 3 year old and 7 year old started crying about twenty minutes in and said “Daddy, can we go home now?” If nothing else, please don’t torture your children by taking them to this movie!
You sound like someone who loved the book as a kid, now that there’s a movie, it’s not true to what you remember as a kid (who have warped perceptions anyway, i think that’s the point of the story…..) so you’re pissed off that they “ruined” the story you loved.
I did the same thing with Transformers, they ruined that story, but that was a hollywood “forumula” problem. This movie seems more down to earth and actually trying to have a good product, but it can still be a shitty movie since the original book had no real plot in the first place. So you can’t really compare the 2, it’s like when they base movies on video games, games never have much of a plot anyway, so they have to work up and write more, unlike movies based on books where they have to cut scenes out and work down
Nah, that’s not it at all. I have fond, if very vague memories of the book. Mostly, I just hated this movie.
But I really, really agree with you that movies are totally TOTALLY different than books, and must be judged completely differently.
So, should I not take my ten-year-old sister and seven-year-old brother to see this, even though they both like the book?
if i had watched WTWTA as a child, i’m sure it would have given me nightmares; i don’t understand how they could even imply that children might be interested in this movie
I kept waiting for it all to make sense somehow - but it really never did. I came away thinking maybe I could make a movie if this is all it takes!
Thank you!!! I’ve been trying to find someone who thought it just wasn’t a good movie, but everyone is saying it’s so awesome, and I just don’t get it. The entire thing just bothered me.
Like the Bob and Terry thing. And the ‘that was my favorite arm’ thing. It was just such a distorted movie, that I didn’t feel comfortable for the whole hour and a half, or however long it was. I understand the need to make it a strange movie, since quite a bit of the book is about Max’s supper, but still, the movie should have made some more sense. I agree with (whoever said this, I can’t find it) when they said that it was supposed to be an artistic movie. I olve the aristic movie, and if this was supposed to be that, then the expectations are raised even higher, and the whole thing was just not well done.
Saw this film in Chicago at the Imax at Navy pier approximately 3 weeks ago. Was interested as made in Melbourne, Australia which is our home. Very very disappointed. Many people walked out of the movie. Whilst we did not walk out; we certainly did not have the feeling that we would like to relive this movie. In fact both of us looked at each other and asked if we could have 1.5 hours of our life back that we wasted, and the money for admittance. I agree with a previous contributor who said in their opinion this was made for film school student and their friends and family. Also as a person who has worked with children (and disturbed children at that) would never have taken a child under 11 years of age to see this film. The way of solving problems is too drastic and drawn out and I thought quite violent. Save your money and buy the book.
To be honest, I loved this movie. Loved it. As “experiments” go, it certainly succeeded from my point of view. It captured the danger and chaos that accompanies wordless rage, the kind that as adults we all suppress. The aim of the movie, to me at least, was to reach the audience on a primal level, in a place we haven’t felt since childhood. It was a movie about the experience of childhood, and as a result of it, I was reminded of a life I had forgotten.
Also, I want to note that it is a post-modern film. Post-modernism doesn’t tend to be easy art.
The largest problem I had with this review wasn’t that the author disagreed with my opinion of the movie. It was that, on account of his dislike for the movie and other critic’s enjoyment of it, his review became the occasion for a rant against any kind of audience that could enjoy a movie he didn’t. Which, at the end of the day, is just bad writing.
I think you read some review other than the one I wrote. A “rant” against people who liked the movie? On the contrary, I went out of my way to specifically acknowledged that it’s all subjective based on personal opinion.
Frankly, I think I was more respectful of your opinion than you were of mine. But I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this too.
For the record, here’s what I wrote:
There is definitely a small minority of folks who will love this movie, in spite of its slow pace and the non-narrative (or maybe because of it, because they like rule-breaking for rule-breaking’s sake).
And apparently many of these folks are film critics.
These folks will all say I missed the point of Where the Wild Things Are, that we’re sometimes supposed to be confused and frustrated and bored, because the character is confused and frustrated and bored. That there’s no real point because life has no real point.
Or maybe they won’t be bored at all — they’ll be satisfied by the non-plot and the ironic monsters. They’ll say to me, “The movie is pure emotion put on film.” Or, “It seems to be about nothing, but it’s really about everything!”
I can’t say these folks are wrong, because that’s their opinion. More power to ‘em.
All I can say is that I was mostly either bored or annoyed with Where the Wild Things Are, and it seemed like most of the preview audience I saw it with thought that too.
Great review, Brent. I watched about half of this turkey on video and couldn’t take anymore. I’ve also never read the book so wasn’t doing any comparisons to the original story. I just felt irritated by the kid who just seemed to be an out of control brat who needed to be grounded for like 10 years.
When my husband and I think back to the day we took our daughter to see this movie, it actually makes us feel sick. I don’t believe there has ever been a movie that was this bad. EVER!! Granted, Lorenzo’s Oil and The Box are somewhere on that list, but they are no where near this one! I seriously cannot think of enough negative adjectives to describe it.