MUBI

Sempre que chega às telas um filme adaptado de um livro, um game, uma HQ, é sempre a mesma história. Os fãs mais fervorosos se dividem entre amar ou odiar a versão cinematográfica, sempre compartilhando a mesma opinião: “o livro (game, hq…) é muito melhor!!”. Mas será que é desta forma que devemos avaliar? Já tive minha fase rebelde de considerar a obra original infinitamente melhor. Mas desde que comecei a estudar cinema com mais dedicação, tento nem pensar em qualquer comparação, e sempre mantenho um único pesamento. Livro é livro, filme é filme. No livro não temos grande angular, zoom, travelings, câmera na mão. Assim como no filme não temos parágrafos, número de páginas, corpo de texto. Quando um cineasta resolve adaptar uma obra literária para a telona, esta nova obra deve falar por si só, e jamais exigir do público um conhecimento prévio da obra original, caso contrário a grande maioria da audiência sairia da sala frustrada, com um grande buraco no ar.

Mas calma. Não estou dizendo que conhecer ou não a obra original não faz diferença. Afinal, não tem nada mais emocionante que assistirmos no cinema a adaptação de uma obra que gostamos tanto. Apenas tente se desprender para aproveitar melhor a experiência que só a sala escura consegue proporcionar. Dito isso, agora vamos ao que interessa.

“Onde Vivem Os Monstros” (Maurice Sendak, 1963), é um dos livros infantis de maior sucesso nos Estados Unidos, que por algum motivo que ninguém sabe explicar, só chegou ao Brasil no ano passado, próximo ao lançamento do filme de mesmo nome. Como todo bom livro infantil, a receita é a mesma: poucas páginas e muita ilustração. Conta a história de Max, uma menino de imaginação fértil que, como toda criança de sua idade, só quer a atenção, principalmente de sua mãe, sempre ocupada. Numa rápida discussão antes do jantar, Max fica de castigo em seu quarto, e lá se imagina em um mundo habitado por estranhas criaturas, onde se torna o novo rei. Lá ele faz o que bem entender, cria suas próprias regras, e passa os dias fazendo o que mais gosta: se divertindo. Aprende novos valores, reaprende os antigos, se encontra consigo mesmo e tira grandes lições desta aventura.

Então, recuperando as ideias do primeiro parágrafo desta resenha, como dizer que um longa-metragem de 100 minutos de duração é melhor ou pior que um livro infantil de 20 páginas escrito na década de 60?

“Onde Vivem Os Monstros” (Spike Jonze, 2009) definitivamente não é um filme infantil, apesar de assim ser (equivocadamente) vendido pela distribuidora. Assim como as recentes produções animadas dos grandes estúdios, este filme apenas se utiliza da temática infanto-juvenil, mas por trás discute temas tão adultos e contemporâneos quantos as pessoas que leram o livro na época de seu lançamento.

Nesta versão, frequentemente acompanhada por Sendak (um dos produtores), Jonze faz pequenas (e grandes) intervenções no texto original, para assim trazer a personagem principal mais perto do público, composto pelos mais diferentes tipos e idades. As duas principais, ao meu ver, são o começo, onde acompanhamos Max em seu cotidiano, e a fuga, onde ao invés de estar trancado de castigo em seu quarto, faz a famosa travessia do limiar mais clara e reconhecível. Em casa, Max se sente só e perdido. Tenta chamar a atenção da irmã, que está na idade de preferir sair com os amigos à ficar em casa com o irmão menor. Tenta chamar a atenção da mãe, que está mais preocupada com o relatório que tem de terminar ou com o novo namorado. É aí que, numa das tentativas de conseguir a atenção da mãe, Max foge para sua grande aventura interior. A viagem (num pequeno barco) é longa e bastante difícil. E ao desembarcar em terra firme, descobre um mundo habitado por estranhas criaturas em grande conflito. A partir deste ponto, todas as cenas passam a representar seu próprio eu em constante conflito. Cada “monstro” encarna um estilo, uma personalidade. Aqui caberia uma longa descrição de cada personagem e seu respectivo estilo, mas não quero me estender ainda mais. Depois do filme fiquei viajando enquanto imaginava um livro de Freud e Jung discutindo Carol, KW, Douglas e cia.

Um dos grandes destaques do filme certamente é a veracidade dos monstros que Jonze conseguiu transmitir. Com representações super fiéis das ilustrações de Sendak, os monstros do filme ganharam uma expressividade impressionante, conseguindo convencer que eles realmente existem, mesmo que apenas ali no mundo particular de Max. Mesmo sendo grandes bichos de pelúcia, grandes não, enormes, o carisma é tão grande que fica impossível não se deixar levar. Para dar vida ao protagonista, ninguém melhor que o próprio Max. Max Records (sim, eles tem o mesmo nome!) é um verdadeiro achado, e já me deixa angustiado pensar que ele ainda tem muito chão pela frente e pode cair na maldição dos atores mirins. Espero ainda vê-lo brilhando muito no cinema.

Tecnicamente, a fotografia de Lance Acor (parceiro de Jonze em outro projetos) é excelente, se aproveitando das ótimas locações naturais da Austrália, onde o filme foi rodado. Reparem que na maior parte das cenas, a câmera baixa nos coloca na altura do protagonista, nos trazendo para perto de Max e quase nos possibilitando patcicipar de toda diversão que ele propõe. Mas não é só na ilha que o trabalho de Lance se sobressai. A ótima sequência (de ação?) inicial já deixa claro que aquele não é um filme para crianças, e relembra porque Spike Jonze é considerado um dos mais inventivos diretores de videoclipe.

Mas o filme não se vale apenas de toda a técnica, ainda bem. Em quase todos os momentos é possivel se reconhecer em cada personagem, porque se cada um deles representa as angústias de Max, quer dizer que também representam as nossa próprias angústias, receios, medos, inseguranças e também muita alegria sempre que possível. Sem entregar os pontos à quem ainda não assistiu, preciso comentar uma única cena. Alguém me explica o que é a cena (quase final) da despedida na praia? Só quem já viveu uma despedida de verdade, de qualquer tipo, sabe o que significa aqueles uivos emocionantes de Carol, o grande espelho de Max. Uma das cenas mais lindas e tristes que assisti no cinema nos últimos tempos.

Mesmo tendo criado altas expectativas, não imaginava que fosse me identificar tanto assim com o filme. E o mais estranho é pensar que, por culpa da Warner, acabei assistindo o filme no momento certo. Se tivesse visto em outubro, na data original de estreia, certamente não teria causado o mesmo impacto.

Infelizmente o filme não tem agradado gregos e troianos. Tenho visto muito comentário ruim na internet, não que isso faça diferença. Pelo visto o filme não é mesmo para qualquer um. O que dizer diante de um comentário do tipo “fiquei o filme todo esperando que explicassem o porque daqueles monstros, e termina sem explicar!” ?? Lamentável, não? E viva a sétima arte!

The book is always better than the movie, they say. But when the former is a picture book with all of fifteen sentences and the latter is a multi-million dollar production running over an hour-and-a-half, we can safely ask: are the two even the same story? Spike Jonze’s Where the Wild Things Are is undoubtedly a different creature than the 1963 classic by Maurice Sendak. It not only fleshes out themes that, with a bit of interpretation, can be found in the book, but it adds new layers of meaning. The result is a very adult, sometimes depressing, and ultimately beautiful and melancholy reflection on loneliness, the pains of friendship, jealousy, death, and the frustration of our dreams.
From the onset, Jonze and co-writer David Eggers tinge their retelling with the longing for companionship. Whereas Max’s mischief is unexplained in the book, it is provoked here by what he perceives to be his mother’s inattention: divorced, she is spending the evening with her boyfriend rather than him. Upset, Max runs away from home and into his imagination, where the movie follows him. The imagination of a child can make the fantastical palpable (wasn’t your childhood make-believe as real as anything else?), so we are able to see Max’s innermost thoughts, desires, and fears, because he creates an exotic world out of them, populated by strange Things.
These beasts—voiced by James Gandolfini, Chris Cooper, Forest Whitaker, Catherine O’Hara, Paul Dano, and Lauren Ambrose—first come to Max as fierce monsters all too ready to eat him, but they soon reveal a rather gentler side and declare the boy to be their king after he promises to protect them from sadness. This struggle with sadness—and anger, and disappointment, and despair—follows Max and his newfound companions throughout the rest of the film, and each successive sequence presents them with an obstacle to happiness: two unintelligible owls spur jealousy between friends; a chronically ignored goat tries to get the others to notice him; and a fortress, built to keep out sadness and pain, falls into ruin. When Gandolfini erupts into anger over their dashed hopes (even the sun is dying, he points out), we are reminded that this not a typical children’s movie.
But the content of Where the Wild Things Are should not be emphasized at the expense of its style. The wild things themselves were realized through a combination of live action performance, CGI, and animatronics; when Max’s mother cries at his return, I was struck then by how closely the creatures’ faces—and all of the emotions expressed thereon—had approximated humans’. And their world is visually striking as well, particularly in two sequences: Max’s first encounter with the wild things is in a dense forest, where a fire silhouettes their obscured shapes. It is a fitting introduction to a child’s untamed mind, to which so many things seem new and mysterious. Also, the fortress of their plans is a truly imaginative creation; it is something from a dream projected into reality. In short, what could have been a distraction and handicap to the movie—the depiction of the wild things and their land—was in fact one of its strength.
Through a child’s fantasy, Where the Wild Things Are lays bare the basic, pressing desire for love that each of us has. Had it stopped there, it would have only reached the level of many children’s movies, but it goes on to show the neuroses and fears that accompany that desire. There is no permanent solution to Max’s loneliness or fear of death, because it is a fact of life, like hunger or disease; the ending is happy insofar as he recognizes this fact. Not exactly the lesson I got from my kindergarten teacher’s reading.

This review originally appeared, in a slightly edited form, in The Inflatable Ferret.
http://inflatableferret.com/reviews/review-where-the-wild-things-are-vol-i-no-3/

I know this issue’s been a divisive one since the release of the movie (I mean, it’s no Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but people definitely got heated when talking about it in class) but I did not enjoy Where the Wild Things Are. I bring this up because tomorrow is it’s release on DVD/Blu-Ray and I’ve been trying to go over it in my mind just what I didn’t like about it.

Let’s dispel one myth that I’ve seen on countless message boards on IMDb (and yes, I’m one of those nerds that reads them). I did get it. I understood the premise of the movie and what Spike Jonze was trying to do with it. I just didn’t enjoy it. The movie is certainly not without its merits. The camera work is impressive and the performances are incredible. So this isn’t me trashing the movie, it’s just me thinking out loud as to what was missing.

The character of Max is an interesting place to start, seeing as the whole movie revolves around him. I’m not sure how, but I got a completely different idea of who he was from the book. I think that’s one of the issues I had with the movie is that, in the book, sure he threw tantrums and caused all sorts of trouble, but none of it stopped me from being able to relate to him. Maybe it’s an issue of time? Now that I’m older if I see a kid like Max (and as a youngest child this saying a lot…) I would just want to smack him. It was the crying that got to me. He’d pick a fight or throw a tantrum and then he’d start crying. I understand he’s a product of divorce and his life is hard and he’s been forced to grow up too fast, but that was something I was faced with in my childhood and I still saw nothing of Max that i could identify with on any level. It wasn’t the same boy that I read about before I went to bed as a kid.

I understand that’s my issue and this isn’t an assault on the movie (although I could have done without the Karen O and some of the self-masturbatory indie moments) but it does a lot to take you out of a movie. Still, whether I liked the movie or not, I did appreciate some of the things that it had to say (plus Lauren Ambrose was pretty awesome). I was upset to see parents criticizing the movie because they took their kids to it and found out it wasn’t a children’s movie. While it’s true that the book was a kid’s book, it also dealt with some pretty intense stuff albeit in a more accessible manner. Nevertheless, I did appreciate the movie for its perspective on childhood without being a children’s movie. It takes a lot of courage to do something like that and while I could argue whether or not Jonze succeeded, I give him credit for trying.

Where the Wild Things Are doesn’t need much of an introduction. An adaptation of the classic children’s book by Maurice Sendak, it tells to story of Max, a troubled boy who, after an argument with his mother, transports himself to a magical land of friendly monsters where he is king. After playing around on his make-believe island for a while, Max learns some lessons about the importance of love and compromise and returns home to his worried mother with a new sense of maturity.

Indie darling Spike Jonze was an obvious match for this film and he does a good job bringing the fantastical world of Max’s adventure to life. The cinematography is great and, as Sophia Coppola would say, every shot looks like a photograph. The monsters are brilliantly brought to life using a mix of CGI and good old fashioned costume, giving them an interesting appearance and movement on screen which adds to the fantastic deadpan script. You won’t find any silly kids voices a la Pixar here, instead the monsters interact like 20-something flatmates bickering over who’s left their dirty dishes in the sink. And this is where we come across the first awkward element of the film – if Where the Wild Things Are is for kids then a lot of the humour will be over their heads, and the slow pace of the story will bore them to tears. If Where the Wild Things Are is for adults then a lot of the humour will be appreciated but the slow pace of the story will bore them to tears. There’s no escaping that for all the wonderful cinematography and funny script, the film loses it’s way after about 30 minutes and just becomes, well, dull. Once Max arrives on the island there’s no real climax and we’re presented instead with little more than a string of scenes showing him play, sleep and explore with the monsters. The crux of the story – Max’s realisation that the world isn’t perfect and that all beings have flaws, including his mother, sister and (presumably absent) father – should have been built up more as this would have given much needed weight to the film. Given Spike Jonze’s background in commercials and music videos I’m not really surprised that we have this problem; he’s great at short, attention-grabbing visuals, but on feature films I just don’t think he cuts it. I felt the same way about Adaptation – a film with great potential that was let down by a focus on aesthetics and no emotional backbone.

Overall I was impressed stylistically with Where the Wild Things Are; the direction, cinematography, script and voiceovers are great and Max Records is very good in the role of Max, demonstrating a naturalness that’s rare in child actors. On a less superficial level though I felt it lacked punch and drama; this is a film that could have been so much more but instead proves to be a textbook case of style over substance.

www.dreamtreader.tumblr.com

Well thanks to a theater full of scared little kids at a test screening, we had to wait over 2 years to finally see this. I must admit, it was worth the wait, but I’m always gonna wonder what Spike Jonze’s Original cut was like. I gotta say how happy I am that this wasn’t a pixar movie (not that I’m hating on pixar), or someone like Ron Howard didn’t direct this. I don’t know about this being Spike Jonze’s best or most mature or whatever, but he has grown as a director since “Adaptation”. When you compare Wild Things to Malkovich and Adaptation, it is the most different of the 3 films. It’s been less than 24 hours since I saw this, so my thoughts on the movie might seem jumbled, so I apologize in advance. We all know the story, but for those of you who don’t, “Where The Wild Things Are” is the story of an imaginative little boy who’s sent to his room without dinner by his mother for being bad. In a fit of rage, he runs away and through his imagination ends up on an island with big, furry, make-believe monsters called; Wild Things who befriend Max and make him their king. If you grew up with book or have a soft spot for the story like I do, I’m sure you’re just as fascinated and in awe to see actual “wild things” in live action (courtesy of Henson studios). One issue with the movie, that I didn’t even realize until Mr. flud CEO mentioned it, was that James Gandolfini’s “tony soprano” voice was kinda distracting as one of the wild things, unlike all the other voice actors (who do a great job, especially Catherine O’Hara). It’s kinda hard to disassociate the iconic mafia voice with a big furry monster. Also, some people might be slightly confused with some of the “imaginative” stuff in the film. Bottom line; don’t think too much, it’s a movie about big furry monsters. It’s an entertaining movie. The movie is also unique, because along with other movies like; “beetle juice”, “the incredibles”, “wal-e” and “pee wee’s big adventure” its one of the few true family movies that can actually be enjoyed by ALL ages and not just little kids.

Where the Wild Things Are adalah sebuah film fantasi yang diadaptasi oleh sutradara Spike Jonze dari sebuah buku anak-anak populer berjudul sama karya Maurice Sendak yang dirilis pada tahun 1963. Walt Disney Pictures sendiri pernah membeli hak pembuatan versi film dari buku ini pada awal 80-an untuk diadaptasi menjadi sebuah film animasi yang akan menggabungkan karakter yang digambarkan secara animasi tradisional dan digabung dengan setting yang dibuat oleh komputer.

Namun, karena keterbatasan teknologi saat itu, proses adaptasi film ini lama-kelamaan menjadi tertunda hingga akhirnya di tahun 2001, Universal Pictures membeli hak adaptasi buku tersebut, namun tetap berencana untuk membuatnya dalam sebuah bentuk animasi. Akhirnya rencana untuk membuat adaptasi buku ini dalam bentuk animasi berubah setelah kedatangan sutradara Spike Jonze.

Mengisahkan mengenai Max (Max Records), seorang bocah 9 tahun penyendiri yang merasa bahwa kakaknya, Claire (Pepita Emmerichs) dan ibunya, Connie (Catherine Keener), mulai menjauhi dirinya. Kesal dengan keadaan yang ada, Max membuat keributan saat pacar sang ibu (Mark Ruffalo) datang berkunjung. Hasilnya, pertengkaran antara Max dan ibunya membuat Max melarikan diri dari rumahnya.

Dengan menggunakan sebuah sampan, Max mengarungi lautan dan tiba di sebuah pulau asing. Disana, ia menjumpai tujuh makhluk aneh berukuran raksasa yaitu Carol (James Gandolfini) yang sensitif, Ira (Forest Whitaker) yang selalu berbicara dengan suara halus, Judith (Catherine O’Hara) yang pesimis, Alexander (Paul Dano) yang bertubuh meyerupai kambing dan merasa selalu disisihkan, Douglas (Chris Cooper) yang bertubuh mirip burung dan merupakan teman akrab Carol, Bernard (Michael Berry, Jr) yang bertubuh mirip kerbau dan tidak pernah berbicara sekalipun, serta K.W. (Lauren Ambrose) yang suka menyendiri dan disukai oleh Carol. Segera, Max dan ketujuh makhluk tersebut cepat menjadi akrab. Bahkan, Max diangkat menjadi raja bagi mereka. Namun, sifat Max yang memang suka meledak-ledak ternyata menjadi halangan tersendiri bagi keakraban mereka. Berulang kali, perpecahan antara kelompok tersebut hampir saja terjadi karena Max, khususnya antara hubungan Carol dan K.W., yang memang sepertinya sangat rentan.

Menyimak cerita yang ditawarkan di sepanjang film ini, mungkin sebagian orang akan sulit untuk menerima bahwa film ini merupakan adaptasi dari sebuah buku cerita anak-anak. Dengan tone yang gelap, cenderung lebih dewasa dan tanpa kehangatan sedikitpun, Where the Wild Things Are sepertinya tidak akan mudah untuk dinikmati kaum muda (baca: anak-anak), maupun bagi mereka yang cenderung akan segera bosan dengan jalan cerita yang sedikit lamban.

Namun, justru hal-hal “gelap” itulah dimana keunggulan film ini banyak muncul. Spike Jonze, seorang yang lebih dikenal sebagai sutradara music video, berhasil memberikan unsur keindahan dari berbagai kesedihan hati yang coba dikeluarkan oleh Max. Para karakter-karakter raksasa yang ditemui Max sendiri, sebenarnya dapat dikatakan adalah perwujudan perasaan Max yang selama ini sering membuatnya merasa terisolir dari dunia luar, khususnya dari keluarganya. Jonze dengan pintar mengekspresikan hal ini dengan bahasa gambar yang indah.

Max Records, yang notabene adalah seorang pendatang baru di dunia akting, berhasil dengan sukses menggambarkan bagaimana perasaan seorang Max, yang sedang marah kepada dunia, sekaligus merasakan kesepian yang mendalam. Records berhasil membuat karakter Max terlihat (seringkali) menyebalkan, namun adakalanya membuat penonton merasa iba akan kesendirian yang dimunculkan Max. Para karakter pendukung – kebanyakan hanya dalam bentuk vokal – juga memberikan kesan tersendiri untuk kesuksesan Where the Wild Things Are. Lewat karakter-karakter pendukung ini, Where the Wild Things Are menjadi lebih hidup, sekaligus menyampaikan titik terkelam dari cerita film ini kepada para penontonnya.

Satu hal lagi yang menjadi keunggulan film ini adalah lagu-lagu dan score yang dibuat oleh Karen O (vokalis The Yeah Yeah Yeahs) dan Carter Burwell. Bersama, Karen O dan Burwell berhasil menambahkan emosi yang ingin ditonjolkan dari karakter Max, khususnya ketika Max mulai merasakan rasa depresi dan kesendirian.

Secara otomatis, berdasarkan jalan cerita yang ditawarkan, Where the Wild Things Are tentu bukanlah sebuah film yang dapat dinikmati oleh semua orang. Film ini membutuhkan tingkat kesabaran yang lebih tinggi untuk menikmati kelamnya jalan cerita yang ditambah dengan lambannya cara penceritaan yang diberikan oleh Jonze. Namun, dibalik itu semua, Jonze berhasil memberikan sebuah keindahan atas berbagai kesedihan emosional yang ditampilkan oleh karakter Max dan tujuh karakter ‘monster’ yang ada di jalan cerita film ini. Oh, dan ending film ini, dimana Max berpisah dengan tujuh sahabat barunya tersebut, mungkin akan menjadi titik puncak emosi Anda dalam menyimak perjalanan Max bersama tujuh makhluk liar tersebut.

Rating: 4 / 5

Spike Jonze es uno de los elementos más interesantes del cine independiente alrededor del mundo, director de Adaptation (2002) y Being John Malkovich (1999), ambas sorprendentes, es también capaz de traer al mundo cosas como Jackass, sí, ese programa que nuestros padres y maestros odiaban, pero que provocaba risas alrededor del mundo.

En esta ocasión, Jonze, lleva a la pantalla grande una adaptación del libro para niños Where the Wild Things Are de Maurice Sendak, aunque la película difiere bastante de los dibujos de Sendak, ya que estos carecen de diálogos.

Y ese es el principal reto del filme, la transformación de las viñetas al celuloide, y que gracias a la labor de Spike Jonze, Dave Eggers y el mismo autor, Maurice Sendak, se logra de manera satisfactoria.

Max (Max Records), es niño de unos 10-11 años, hijo de padres divorciados, madre trabajadora y con una hermana transitando la adolescencia, estas características no son ajenas a cualquier persona hoy en día, todos hemos conocido a alguien que las sufre o, en su caso, las sufrimos en carne propia.

Obviamente Max tiene severos problemas de adaptación con el mundo que lo rodea y la noche que mamá decide llevar a su nuevo novio a casa, empeora las cosas, por lo tanto Max huye primero entre calles oscuras y después sobre una lancha, hasta llegar a una isla a mitad del mar.

Ya dentro del bosque del islote, el niño conoce a siete monstruos y se autonombra rey de todos ellos. Este es el primer indicio de que Max y las botargas son uno mismo.

Las aventuras del pequeño rey y sus amigos, le mostraran que todos tienen problemas, pero que depende de cada quien el lidiar con ellos y resolverlos.

La isla es la continuación de la metáfora del universo interno de Max, y el monstruo Carol (con la voz de James Gandolfini) la maxima expresión de la misma. Carol representa el estado emocional con el que Max llega a la isla, a pesar de que hace las cosas con buenas intenciones, su agresividad y ensimismamiento termina complicando las cosas.

Un ejemplo más de esto es Judith, con la voz de Catherine O’Hara, simboliza el lado más caprichoso de Max, sino recibe atención se enfurece y lastima a la gente a su alrededor, formando un puente entre el personaje y la escena de la cocina, donde Max muerde a su madre.

Siguiendo esta línea de pensamiento, Douglas (el pajarraco) a quien da vida Chris Cooper, personaliza a Max en los momentos que acompaña a su madre y hermana, debido a la fidelidad que Douglas muestra hacia Carol, no importando que este lo lastime y le arranque su brazo favorito.

El personaje más enigmático sin duda es el Toro, porque solo tiene dos líneas durante toda la película, sin embargo podemos decir no es una imagen de Max, sino, de su padre el cual se encuentra ausente en su vida y por lo tanto no tiene injerencia en ella.

No es raro que Donde viven los Monstruos, no sea apta para menores. No es que su contenido, sea insatisfactorio para un infante, pero el nivel de abstracción necesario para entender la historia, sólo se logra con los años y la experiencia.

Tampoco resulta extraño que los asistentes a la sala de cine, lloren como Magdalenas, la universalidad de la historia y las situaciones que representa provocan identificación en el espectador.

La música de Carter Burwell (compositor de cabecera de los hermanos Coen) y Karen O (vocalista de los Yeah Yeah Yeahs), acompaña a la perfección los momentos y sentimientos mostrados en pantalla, aunque a mi gusto la señorita Karen debería gritar menos y cantar más.

Spike también utiliza la cámara en mano, para transportarnos a la visión subjetiva que tiene Max de los eventos, evidentemente la cámara se sacude constantemente, casi tanto como en Bailando en la Oscuridad de Lars Von Trier (la oda a la cámara en mano).

Where the Wild Thinghs Are funciona por que nos lleva de la mano a los temores de la infancia, cuando el mundo nos era desconocido y el futuro lucia como un sitio muy distante.

This is just what I needed to wash the taste of Tim Burton’s ALICE IN WONDERLAND out of my mouth. I wasn’t sure if I would be put off by the giant hipster doobie that is the talent behind this movie (Spike Jonze, Dave Eggers, Karen O, et al), but everything came together nicely. What’s so lovely about this movie is how it captures so many wonderful and painful truths about childhood. Children are, by nature, selfish creatures that don’t understand how the things they do can hurt others, and I think this movie is really about a kid who has to face up to that. Even though this movie features fanged monsters and bipedal goat-men, the wild rumpus that is Max’s island kingdom holds truths about childhood that are wondrous and heartbreaking in how real they feel. Unfortunately I’m not sure if kids are self-aware enough to truly appreciate what this movie has to offer them, I think it’s better appreciated by those who have already experienced the things that Max is going through here. Still, I look forward to going through it again and again via this brilliant adaptation of Maurice Sendak’s classic book.

spike jonze has done it again. i repeat, spike jonze has done it again. and this time, he don’t need charlie kaufman’s help. instead, he reimagined maurice sendak’s story into something nothing less than profoundly beautiful and adultly childlike.

max records, the boy who acted in the film as max, acted wildly in the film and that wildness is such a joy to watch. his chemistry with those dolls add more joyous aura for the film. i smiled everytime max and the wild creatures have some fun and i was sad when they have their conflicts.

the light yet imaginative storyline give this film its own innocent and childlike attitude. this department makes this film enjoyable for all people, regardless of the age. it’s easy to follow, fun, and like i have said before, imaginative and innocent.

the cinematography and the atmosphere of the film is the ultimate power for spike jonze’s where the wild things are. the fashionable colors, the amazing sets, the wondrous editing, and the beautiful furry costumes. i even want to have max’s costume for my casual hangouts. no kidding.

the score? spike jonze made an amazing decision to use karen o for the original score. what already has been a joyous film, has become more joyous!

overall, spike jonze has made something out of the ordinary by reimagining maurice sendak’s amazing children book into something beautiful that could free your mind, stir your soul, and warm your heart. a joyous wild rumpus.

It’s been a while since the last time I enjoyed myself so much with a film. And I mean truly enjoy myself. I’m talking the kind of enjoyment that comes from being dragged into something you know will be awesome and still be swept away by it. Because it was not only a tale of imaginative child, or of cute big-headed monsters, but because it was about a journey, a journey inside the mind and heart of a child that might well could have been any of us. The joy, the pain, the fantasy, the enthusiasm…the fear… all given new meaning when viewed through Max’s eyes.

And that is the main achievement of this film (for me at least), that for over a 100 minutes or so, more than being taken to a fantasy realm, I was reminded of how it feels to be a child, of the seemingly endless joy and the excitement but also of how helpless and frustrating and scary it can be to be to be a kid sometimes.

This film is genius, and with it Spike Jonze has delivered an unparalleled view at the growing pains of the often-misunderstood childhood. Beware though, for as enjoyable as this ride might be, it might not be suitable for children at times. For everybody else, here is a film that accomplishes something you might not have even realized you wanted: A place for us to relate to our own selves of yesteryear.

That two adaptations of children’s books by ur-offbeat directors have come out nearly simultaneously has been oft-remarked upon. But there is a vast difference in not only style but the two aspects of the psyche the directors represent.

“Fantastic Mr. Fox” takes place in a circumscribed world. There’s no Plato’s cave dichotomy – even among the human and animal planes, there exists the same mundane rationality. Not so for Max and his wild pals.

Max’s trip to the island of his id is far removed from the us vs. them of the outside world. Instead there is only internal struggle. Carol, appropriately voiced by James Gandolfini, has Tony Soprano-esque dilemmas. His explosive anger, paradoxically born out of a desperate fear of abandonment, drives those around him further away and literally tears members of his pack apart. The morality tale that Max witnesses on the island serves as a reflection of his true life, which Spike Jonze keeps tinged in believable grays and browns and rooted in real childhood angst.

The externalization of a conflict of desires within characters is familiar territory for Jonze. Foreshortened office hallways for a worker who feels trapped by his occupation, the literal splitting of one personality into two beings – circumstance accounts for the manufacture of surroundings in the Jonze universe.

Alternatively, Wes Anderson’s characters are always fantastical creations of their own egos – fox or not – and Anderson accordingly whimsifies the world around them. With creatures of vulpine, badger and opossum origin, this is less necessary than usual but more encompassing. Taken out of the alterna-New York that Anderson characters often inhabit, he instead starts out with the premise that it doesn’t take urbanity to be urbane.

Like all egoistes, Mr. Fox is buffeted by his own petard. It’s his wile that both gets him into trouble and saves him from the consequences of following his nature. In a slick bit of commentary, Anderson illustrates how the members of the Fox family surmount their wild instincts by having them behave as paragons of civilized virtue – until mealtime.

The two films make a neat Freudian pair; perhaps even more telling is that both directors put themselves at a remove and, by doing so, take on the role of the super-ego.

Read more at We Made a Blog.

Astoundingly beautiful, unique production design and visual effects combined with a child-like parable of a plot make Where The Wild Things Are an exercise in imaginative genius. The characters of the wild things are adorable, hilarious and intimidating all at once with a myriad of engaging personalities given life from the pages of Maurice Sendak’s picture book. The story is a little heavy I felt for its intended audience, although I use the term ‘intended audience’ very loosely because the film is quite clearly aimed at teenagers and young adults with its’ childish indie soundtrack and overall atmosphere. It provides an escape, I suppose, for all viewers desiring a glimpse back to the days of their youth. Indeed, the cinema in which I watched Where The Wild Things Are was full, but there were very few people under the age of twenty present.

Reminiscent of Coraline in its confusing target audience, younger children will no doubt be frightened by a variety of scenes in the film and will likely not grasp the full extent of the plot in others. Nonetheless, an interesting and ultimately successful bid to recreate the look and feel of an indie film in a big-budget motion picture. Jonze’s stylistic interpretation is true to the book while expanding and providing creative depth to originally, a fairly two-dimensional story.

However, the plot does not tie up the loose-ends between Max and his sister which I felt were important, being established in the first scene and later reiterated with the film’s ongoing theme of family ties and learning to live in harmony together. This marginal error leaves Max’s return home to his family somewhat hollow and unimpressive, as we never see his real family entirely together at last. However, this is unimportant in relation to the film as a whole, and is dwarfed by Max’s heart-rending farewell to the wild things. A highly original and imaginative film, Where The Wild Things Are is certainly not to be missed by audiences of all ages.

Spike Jonze and the rest of his cast and crew deserve high praise for taking such a small children’s book and fleshing it out so successfully. The wild things are stunning to look at, with wonderful voice work, Catherine Keener is fantastic in the short time we get to see her, but it’s Max Records, our young lead, that truly makes this film shine. His acting was so natural. I’m sure Jonze deserves a lot of the credit for his fine performance. This is a lovely film that made me laugh and cry. I felt for these characters and understood them. It’s an interesting look into the mind of a child. Also, thankfully, it’s got the best score I’ve heard all year. It sets the tone for the film perfectly and I never tire of hearing it. This is one of the best films of 2009.

There is some silliness and perhaps uselessness in adapting a nine sentence picture book into a feature-length film, but the expansion from rise and fall of temper tantrum to an observation on family dynamics and conflict is a worthwhile one. The wild things can be seen as metaphors for Max’s emotions, or his family members, or both. I like the analog to very conflicting, yet very realistic viewpoints most. “It’s hard being a family,” one of the things innocently remarks.

Where the Wild Things Are didn’t do a lot for me, as an adult. The film is best at the beginning, before Max even steps foot on the island. Here it is a genuinely moving meditation on childhood, reminding us that being a kid is pretty awkward and lonely. There is a particularly beautiful moment that captures Max as he, eyes glossy and altogether somewhere else, cascades a toy boat over his sea-blue bed spread.

I was afraid that what I loved about Spike Jonze’s previous films were Charlie Kaufman’s genius screenplays, but I can see now that the man has a talent and an eye for showing things we all understand and feel, but rarely solidify or are even aware of. In this film he has such a grasp on the mind and experience of a child, and I think this is a great one for children to see. Its themes and situations will feel dark, but that’s only because of the general schlock that is deemed worthy for up and coming generations. Compared to most kids’ films, Where the Wild Things Are is master class.

A two hour journey into the mind of a child can be a trying and bizarre task (and that’s what was made out of this adaption) so I’ll be damned if I can’t admire such a groundbreaking venture. Eggers may know very little about writing about things like adult love (AWAY WE GO) but he knows boundless amounts about the Id of a kid. Marvel at how the wild things are extensions of Max’s psyche, how they play out the inner dialogue and dramatic feats that must undergo in a mind troubled by things he/she can’t quite understand yet. It takes a very powerful imagination to apply such psychological sophistication to what is essentially meant to be marketed as a ’children’s film’.

By capturing the subtle, intelligent graces of the book they’ve done Maurice Sendak good in attaining the spirit of his book. As for the length of the movie? Sorry it’s too long for some. I have a feeling it was meant to be a little longer and to be honest if I was an angry little kid why would I ever want to leave?

It was cute, but I wouldn’t consider it a children’s film. I think each monster was either a part of his personality, or a member of his family. The home of all the wild things seemed to be his subconscious. In this world, Max (as a conscious being), reigned over the inner workings of his mind. Nothing was really resolved at the end, but I liked that-it made Max’s domestic situation realistic.

The color scheme and slow, melancholy tone to the film also appealed to me. It was a really good downer. ;)

I think they captured something very special here. When we look back on childhood we see it from a false perspective most of the time… like maybe life was easier or we felt like the world was fun and new. But that’s really not how I felt at the time. I used my imagination as an escape from mundane problems that come out of being human… but when everything you know is attempted connection with others, the awkwardness of finding friendship or being forced into it based on where you are, and never knowing how much you actually belong. That’s what this is about. And it’s true… heartful… I think as a child I would have loved this movie without understanding why. But having seen it now, I do. Where The Wild Things Are does not try to dumb its self down. It flows off of true emotion, what childhood actually feels like. To me it was a great success.

The story didn’t really go anywhere or establish anything (unless you chose to make your own assumptions), the movie seemed to be based on adult ideas about childhood from the point of view of an adult who doesn’t have a clear or thoughtful understanding of life in general, the characters didn’t progress at all. Nothing happened, basically. Decent cinematography doesn’t make up for it. I can enjoy “OK” movies, but this was like trying to draw purpose or understanding out of a glamorized picture of dog crap, there’s nothing of value to absorb.

If you want to bear witness to a few moments of perfect cinema, watch the first couple minutes of Spike Jonze’s Where the Wild Things Are. Here we’re introduced to the indefatigable young Max as he builds a snow fort in his neighbor’s yard. He’s packed the snow tight into an igloo and slides in and out of the opening he has made without a care in the world. The icy tones of the image, the crackling of the snow, Max’s breathless panting, the smile on his face; this is childhood, and a moment perfectly suited as an opener to the long-awaited adaptation of Maurice Sendak’s classic children’s book.

The rest? Bcause it tries so hard to faithfully envision childhood imagination, Where the Wild Things Are is often visually and aurally confusing. The wild things act like children and while Jonze’s camera inhabits their land, it does too. We’re taken from one immaculately designed set piece to another, faced with the immaturity and confusion of one wild thing after another and soon enough we’re disoriented. Is this the point? Perhaps, but cinematically less is more for a land like this.

Amazing. I can’t say it enough. I’ve already seen it twice. The film transcends the confines of a basic children’s story and becomes a loving treatise on human emotions and even conveys themes of existentialism, yet remains simplistic and has the feeling of being told from the mind of a child. The scene where Max and Carroll are walking through the desert captures the essence of the film. Talking about loneliness and the prospect of the sun dying. The film is touching and i even found myself welling up at certain points. Absolutely beautiful. No one could have directed this film better. Jonze and Eggers also did a phenomenal job of expanding a ten sentence book into a full length feature.

I think that people who don’t enjoy this film the first time they see it are either expecting something else, and let down by those expectations, or just not in a place where they’re ready to appreciate it.

It’s undoubtedly a brilliant film about what it’s like to be a Wild Thing. I was one (still am to some extent), but maybe that spirit is killed off so early in some that they’re just not geared to ‘get’ this movie.

It taps into exactly what the book explores, but in a much more realistic and detailed way that’s never obvious or condescending, and always interesting and affecting. It’s fucking beautiful in ways few movies ever are—mostly because it approaches what it’s like to be nine in a way other films don’t dare—by being honest.

The most important line in this film, the one I feel is closest to it’s theme (and brilliantly, wordlessly elucidated in the final few seconds) is this:

“There are no kings.”

The most striking thing about where the wild things are is the fact that it is so real. How they speak, what they talk about considers issues true to our own lives. This is no fantasy world where order is restored and everyone lives happily ever after. There is causality, there are real consequences for their actions. This is a fantasy world in desperate search of its own sources of fantasy. It is a first in that it begins to explore the notion that fantasy is just as much in need of us as we do fantasy.

I am divided by this film. On one hand, I think it’s brilliant fantasy that captures the essence of being young and angry. On the other, I think that the film is clouded in a wishy-washy mess of depression on the parts of almost every single character. While the spectacle of seeing these wild things and their home is truly awe inspiring from both a filmmaking and film-watching perspective, the story is too loose to be considered complete.

Had such high expectations coming into this film. Its visually stunning. Beautiful characterizations of the creatures and their world. Creative and crafted. Impressive on these fronts.

I recall the feeling I had reading the book as a kid. There was a universality to the story as Max is sent upstairs and angry. By making Max now part of a suburban home with a teenage sister and a divorced mother dating someone new… its doesn’t allow as many to connect with Max or identify with his journey. I couldn’t relate to his angst, though I understood it. With the book’s Max, I felt as if I intimately knew his anger.

I left the theater, somewhat indifferent to it all, as if journey of the film lacked the warmth, and mysticism I had hoped for.

Regardless, worth watching. And impressive nonetheless.

When the majority of Hollywood children’s films seem to be a vehicle for escapism, teaching the audience that everyone lives happily ever after, it is so refreshing to watch such a beautifully crafted film as Where the Wild Things Are and be shown the opposite. It is on the island of the Wild Things that Max learns that the world he’s run to has just as many problems as the one he ran away from, and that he doesn’t have all the solutions. And what makes it all the better is that Jonze avoids the sugar-coated ending that would tell us that everything has been resolved between Max, his mother and his sister.

Wow…never imagined the movie would be this good.
Beautiful visuals, the scenery, lighting and monsters were all done to perfection. To me they did not look too fake and im still unsure if their puppets or digital. Either way they looked awesome.

The story kept me engaged all the way through and the music was inspiring and gave even more depth to the film. Perfect soundtrack.

All in all a great movie and one couldn’t help but cry at the end of the movie or at least try and hold back your tears.

Visually interesting! Strong acting! Intriguing symbolism! It seemed a little slow and philosophical to capture kids’ attentions though. Jim Henson’s Creature Shop did an excellent job of bringing the Wild Things to life as expected. Maurice Sendak wrote and illustrated Where the Wild Things Are in 1963 and was awarded the Caldecott Medal for distinguished American Picture Book in 1964. There was controversy surrounding the themes of the book for awhile from parent and teacher groups. By the time I was in elementary school the book was more accepted. It seems as if this movie was created more for the teens, 20’s, and 30’s audience who grew up with the story.

I noticed some connections to Joseph Campbell’s The Hero with a Thousand Faces mythological structure. I would assume Jonze and Eggers made use of Campbell’s writings when formulating the plot of this movie, or else they just happened to use visual and psychological imagery that fits the Hero’s Journey. I read that Jonze intended each Wild Thing to represent an emotion that is part of childhood, part of Max. Yet the Wild Things are not flat characters. What each Wild Thing represents is open to a bit of interpretation. Here’s mine. Carol (Gandolfini) represents anger or hurt or a tantrum. Carol shares the closest connection to Max. KW (Ambrose) represents maturity or protection or growing apart. Also I saw a parallel between Carol’s and KW’s relationship and Max’s and his sister’s relationship. Alexander (Dano) the goat looking Wild Thing is the smallest of the bunch and represents not being heard or the feeling of insignificance. Douglas (Cooper) the bird looking Wild Thing represents loyalty or reliability. Judith (O’Hara) the self described downer represents doubt or meanness. Ira (Whitaker) the hole digger represents looking through things or affection perhaps. The big dark bull looking Wild Thing who doesn’t have his own name (Berry) represents being an outcast or staying in the background silently not getting involved. The philosophy behind Carol’s model world where “It’s going to be a place where only the things you want to happen, would happen” I thought was very meaningful. Also Max failing as a King who claims to have super powers to bring everyone together and keep the sadness and loneliness away is powerful philosophical stuff too.

Director Spike Jonze has crafted a fantasy that reaches an emotional authenticity that few films – particularly big-budget Hollywood children’s films – ever achieve. Superb, always believable performances from young star Max Records and an impressive cast of voice actors (James Gandolfini is particularly excellent, this may actually be one of his most effective roles) – and it was a brilliant choice to go with Jim Henson Company creations rather than the usual CGI effects. A visual masterwork with an instantly compelling atmosphere that seamlessly combines gritty realism, with its loose handheld photography, and dream-like fantasy with excellent, but always subtle, special effects. It does have its flaws, mostly with the plotting of Jonze and Dave Eggars’ screenplay, but this really is an audacious film unlike anything that has ever been seen before. Excellent score by Carter Burwell and songs by Karen O.

I regressed right back to childhood with this film. I felt transported into Maurice Sendak’s world — I’ve grown up loving his books. The Wild Things are more wonderful than I could have ever hoped for. I’m not sure if this film worked for the children in attendance at the screening. Most of the biggest laughs and sentimental "aww"s came from the grown-ups. It’s probably too long and perhaps a tad frightening for children. I don’t see that as a problem: this doesn’t necessarily have to be a film marketed to kids. It’s perfectly alright to offer this as a gift to adults who may have forgotten what it was like to be a kid.