Start a new thread
But do you think they saw Max as a god, extension of god, or means to a god? I didn’t get that impression. His function seemed to be more of the real world, as a coping mechanism during the doldrums. Once again I feel like I am projecting and would need to see the film again to develop any of this further but I don’t know if I will bring myself to it. I do find some of these elements of the wild thing stories interesting, I just felt like I was being strong-armed into a nostalgic, sentimental state by a story that didn’t earn it. The film was throwing haymakers and they all missed. I do have to say that the opening sequences were beautiful: the color palette was very lush and the sequences were cleverly shot without taking me out of it (I wish I could say the same for the music). The film hinges on an emotional impact and I exited the theater unscathed.
Max is made their god, Cave Bear, flat-out and with zero subtext. He comes into their world from a far away realm and is instantly overburdened with false hopes of magical powers, happiness, peace and unity, with the ability to literally destroy loneliness and, as he falsely claims, “knowledge of all things”. How the Wild Things treat him varies from blind adoration, silent understanding of the truth, and agnosticism, among other nuances of belief.
I hate fake hipster movies, maaaan. I’m only into REAL hipster movies. Faux Hipsters: FAUX OFF!
Movie could have used some trimming in the areas where he is with the monsters but before they turn against him. Then it would be a good film instead of one I fell asleep in.
Movie could have used some trimming in the areas where he is with the monsters but before they turn against him. Then it would be a good film instead of one I fell asleep in.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/from-wild-to-mild/Content?oid=2473062
I just saw it last night and it was actually alright…
>>I just saw it last night and it was actually alright…
Hardly a ringing endorsement. You do go on so about its superior qualities.
So what if all the Hipsters like or will like this movie?
Anyone who wants to get laid in Facebook, puts Casablanca as their favorite movie. Does that make Casablanca a bad movie or hipster trash too??
i’ve read that jones worked a hell of alot with sendak on this film and living up to sendaks vision was huge for him. was senkak a hipster?
Sendak is a total hipster, Simon. Last night I was at a party and he was there, just pounding PBR tallboys like nobody’s business.
It stuns me that someone could or would try to adapt a 9 sentence story book into a nearly 2 hour film. I’ve heard nothing but good things about it, however, what’s the point of using a 30+ year old, 12 page book as your plot point when the same story could be told without adaptating anything?
i laughed a lot reading this thread
Who wouldn’t pork Karen O ?
I mean…
wouldn’t you have her on your soundtrack crew as well?
This thread is pretty ridiculous, I’m sorry but just cause you make a movie a certain way automatically it’s part of some sort of scene? Thats a shallow way for looking at any film. Granted it’s not a perfect film. And sure it was made with 75 million and didn’t go to ghetto alley like Moon and Antichrist, but at least it has a heart. Although I think anything that has a heart automatically wins me. And why are people calling it depressing? It’s hardly a sad movie. People have a very black and white perception of cinema sometimes.
This movie conceiveably could end up being my favorite film of all time.
Yes, I’m being serious.
I love the story, I love the book.
But this movie is going to ruin my childhood.
Moderated
Fredo, you are the man.
I saw the movie and thought it was really good.
Jesse M
I’m interested in the tension in this thread between people who feel the movie was “honest” and those who feel it’s “emotionally manipulative”. I mean, you can’t fault a film simply for having sentimentality… show an empathetic character who’s sad, and you’re going to cause some sadness in the audience. Show some undeserved troubles in a character’s life, and you’re going to make people identify with them. Sentimentality is part of a glorious artistic tradition, stretching back to Romanticism, and even film that doesn’t have any (some Antonioni, for instance?) seems to be reacting AGAINST it, rather than being “neutral” in any authentic sense. But then again, there are movies that go from being authentically sentimental to being “maudlin” (What Dreams May Come)… so where do we draw the line between “compelling” and “manipulative”?
I posted on this thread because I’d like to hear some ideas about this before I see WTWTA… but if you guys think it would be better, I’ll start another thread, devoted specifically to this question. What do you think?