The reviews are mixed on this film. And I can see why.
There is some charm to it - especially when Max is on the shore with the wild things. They are pretty well done. But it does drag in places. And the main message seems to be that Max doesn't know how to behave - doesn't understand all the conflicting emotions he is experiencing. But what little kid does??I have to agree with Kenneth Turan in the Times that, "In Maurice Sendak's "Where the Wild Things Are," less - 10 sentences, 37 pages, 338 words - became more: a much-loved children's book that's sold more than 19 million copies worldwide, 10 million in the U.S. In the new film version of Sendak's classic, more - admired director Spike Jonze, smart co-screenwriter Dave Eggers, top-flight actors including Chris Cooper, James Gandolfini and Forest Whitaker, and a budget estimated at $80 million to $100 million - has paradoxically become less: a precious, self-indulgent cinematic fable that not everyone is going to love."
He goes on to say that the film makes "explicit what was implicit," and I think that's where I think it falls apart. Sometimes it can be tedious to have everything spelled out.
But it's certainly not the worst film I've ever seen - and there were some highlights . So I don't want to spoil it in case you plan to go see it. (Hint: Look for the chicken arm.)
Eve and Porter stayed with it pretty well - but often asked "Why did he say that?" or "Why are you laughing Grandma?" Baby Harry had a harder time staying with it - but did a pretty good job of behaving well even when a little bored. They all appreciated the "knock, knock" joke sequence however!
So, I'm hoping they never try to make a film out of "Ask Mr. Bear," or "Outside Over There," or "Rain Makes Applesauce!!"
4 comments:
all the young hipsters are just looking for reasons to legitimize not growing up, i think.
i am still excited to see it though! and i never think that it's bad to make a book into a movie, unless it's a bad book like "twilight" or something. books are not movies and they never will be, and i think that people are very emotionally attached to how characters are portrayed in books (myself included) and then dis the movie. but then there's the audience that sees the movie first. so you never know.
Matt and I had a babysitter last night and were trying to figure out what movie to see. Pretty much nothing appealed to us (that would fit in our allotted time). I read a bunch of reviews to try to figure out if we wanted to see anything at all. We were leaning toward Where the Wild Things Are, especially after I read Lisa Schwarzbaum's review (Entertainment Weekly) and a few other glowing ones. Then I read Kenneth Turan's and a few other less glowing ones and was much less enthusiastic about seeing it! I thought he had some good points. Even though I haven't seen the movie.
I wonder if it is a generational thing (Lisa vs. Kenneth) or if it's just because Lisa S's movie reviews are always glowing and Kenneth T's are sometimes a little more critical.
Anyway I try not to let reviews "spoil" movies for me...in fact if I really want to see a movie, I don't read the reviews. I only read them if I am on the fence. Ultimately we decided it wasn't worth our $20! But I will definitely Netflix it just to see what it's all about.
Also, I wanted to say about books vs. movies, I think the emotional attachment to Sendak's original has something to do with some reviewers' disappointment, but even more than that, the attempt to spell out the theme too much, knock us over the head with it, spend too much time developing a thought that is already obvious to so many viewers...using tens of millions of dollars to try to enlarge the implicit theme found in ten sentences. (a paraphrase of a sentence in Kenneth Turan's review, or maybe it was the New Yorker)
I don't know why I'm arguing this since I haven't even seen the movie!
You should try to see Adam and Bright Star. They are worth the $20 and more to my way of thinking.
But maybe they aren't playing in your neighborhoods.
And Harry treated me, so I really didn't feel bad!
I was concerned when I heard that they were making where the wild things are into a movie. Especially since it is a picture book, with few words. They would have to add so much to it to make it a movie. I'm not really a fan of that. I mean, they can make a movie out of a book that has a great story and plenty of material for a movie and still ruin it.
I'm not sure I will see it, and I'm pretty sure I don't want my little kids to see it. I want the book 'where the wild things are' to be the the story they know, not the movie. (I've noticed that happen for many kids, they know movie versions, but not the book versions. Sad)
Post a Comment