Ever since my Mom first read Maurice Sendak’s Where the Wild Things Are when I was quite a young lad, I have loved the book. Indeed, it ranks as one of the favorites of my childhood. When I took some Facebook quiz to determine which character from children’s literature I most resembled, I came out as Max, the hero of this tale.
So, naturally, I’m excited to see the movie (now in theaters), perhaps as soon as this weekend. I have absolutely loved the trailer, perhaps that’s because of the absence of CGI to which we’ve become accustomed in so many movies which attempt to realize imaginary realms on the silver screen.
This trailer has a neat look, with these giant “puppets” prancing around in natural settings. Now, just because the movie has a good look on a trailer doesn’t mean it will be entertaining, but the preliminary reports I have heard have all been good.
I wonder if the trailer would look as good as it does to eyes less acclimated to computer generated images of imaginary realms.
Just FYI,
Michael Medved gave it a really crappy review. I dunno how you feel about his reviews, but hes the only movie reviewer Ive ever found that I usually agree with.
He says it is visually beautiful, but very dark and he called it “probably the most depressing movie of the year” and definitely not for kids. Apparently Max is not only very violent, but in need of serious counseling. gave it 2 out of 5 stars.
Also admitted that liberal reviewers will love it because its just what liberals love in a movie.
Maurice Sendak, when asked about how violent max is and whether kids should see it, said he wouldnt deign to answer such a question and they should just stay home and pee their pants.
I think I’ll skip it just based on that.
On the “neat look” of (the) Where the Wild Things Are (trailer)
It’d be cheaper to drive down to Jefferson Blvd. & La Brea or cruise Inglewood.
I read the review on Pajamasmedia and advised my kids to read it before they truck the grandkids off to the movies, spend $75 and end up hating themselves.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/where-the-wild-things-are-nowhere-youd-like-to-be/
WTWWA is a perfect book. It doesn’t need to be a movie. I’m sure Hollywood infused it with all sorts of liberal themes and I’m sure everyone hugs all the time. It might have worked as a movie if they didn’t add a plot (the way they ruined Polar Express) and simply had a hour’s worth of wild rumpus. The book isn’t about anything–it’s about a kid who gets mad. That’s the brilliance. Why destroy that with backstory and plot?
For a truly brilliant adaptation of a children’s book, see the animated short, Tuesday.
Really? The Polar Express looks kinda cool. I haven’t read it or watched the movie yet. I keep thinking I will one day.
Disney’s Christmas Carol looks pretty cool.
Don’t even get me started on A Christmas Carol!!! Nobody does it right. It needs to be done without adding any dialogue to the original. Dickens got it exactly right–why change it? Why make it cute? The only one that comes close is the George C. Scott version. (In the interest of full disclosure, I like the Mr. Magoo version as well.)
The Polar Express, Jumanji, Zathura–all great books, all crappy movies. Do they never learn? You can’t translate Allsburg onto the screen.
And, for future reference–I want to see an Alice in Wonderland that STICKS TO THE BOOK. I’m not sure why people want to make it cute or do whatever Johnny Depp in a funny hat does. You don’t need to change it!
The best kids movie? The ORIGINAL Willy Wonka. A perfect blend of magic and menace. One of the few movies better than the book.