I cannot think of a more disappointing film than Spike Jonze’s adaptation of Where the Wild Things Are. I hadn’t been expecting anything at all, really, since first seeing the trailer. But even those expectations were lowered. The beloved children’s book by Maurice Sendak is about 13 sentences, 330 words. How long is the film? Too long. I felt deeply betrayed when being told I was going to see this film a film that had been marketed as a kid’s film. “But kid’s movies can be adult movies too!” Yes, they can be, but do kid’s film have deep philosophical babble in the? “Well, no.”
The beginning of the film managed to portray Max (newcomer Max Records) as a whiny brat. In the book, Max is sent to his room for being rude to his mother. In the film, not only is he rude, he is completely obstinate. He yells “Feed me, woman!” dressed as some sort of monster. He then jumps onto the dining table and acts like the monster whose skin he inhabits. All while his mother is having a dinner with a “friend”. His mother, then giving up playing nice, picks him up and he actually bites her. What happens? She brings him to the floor and stares in shock and wonders as he begins to tear up and runs away from home to go off and wallow in self pity. This self pity started from the moment the film started, when his sister’s friend ruined his igloo and then he decided to vandalize her room. He just seems to be a rather selfish child. And I doubt any parents really want to watch that when they have to deal with it at home.
He gets on a boat and travels to an imaginary land where he lies to the creatures there and tells them he’s a king. He does so for odd power lust, something that I would be worried if my child had that. There, he meets Carol (voiced by James Gandolfini, The Sopranos), the anger management needing creature; Ira and Judith (Forest Whitaker and Catherine O’Hara), one who’s a pushover and one who’s a “downer” and described as this throughout the entire film; Alexander (Paul Dano), a seldom noticed creature; Douglas (Chris Cooper), Carol’s right and man; and KW (Lauren Ambrose, a seemingly quiet and sensitive creature, someone who may have had a “relationship” with Carol in the past.
The most fun and least annoying part of the film is when they’re having fun and neither being overly message pushing nor whiny. Oh, well, that lasted about 15 minutes, back to depressing and whiny characters.
The Wild Things seemed to be manifestations of Max’s feelings. It’s such a shame all these feelings were annoying, whiny, impatient, nosey, and in need of anger counseling. This portrayal pushed a message that Spike Jonze really wanted to show his audience. That message never appears explicitly or even subtlety. Lost in all the “fun” of the film was that message, whatever it was. He seemed so vehement as to show a message, shoving down the viewer’s throats, with all the philosophical symbolism and emotional plot lines, yet he never shows us what the actual message is, which loses the purpose of having a meaning to the film at all.
With all this “deep” content of the film, doesn’t that kind of ruin the mainstream demographic? Yes, it does, because it barely even lets the film become two stories that depend on the audience’s interpretation. It doesn’t even let it become a fun film. With Toy Story, for adults, you had a cheeky film about jealousy, and for kids you had a fun animated movie with cowboys, spacemen, and a message of friendship that was both coherent and not so annoying that you wanted to vomit. Subtle enough not to make parents sleep, yet wonderful enough to get the message across. This is exactly what Wild Things did not do.
The shaky camera movements are kind of a slip decision. If you don’t mind that sort of cinematography, it envelops you in the current scene (running, jumping, screaming, Rawr-ing, etc.) but if it makes you nauseous, be sure to close your eyes. The score, which featured songs Karen O and Carter Burwell, seemed to exemplify “wild rumpus”. Its main objective was to make it sound fun, no matter how inappropriate the music was for the given scene.
Another problem the film had was that it was far too scary for kids. Like Coraline before it, the film had an amazing amount of content that would deem it too violent for children. Seriously, who throws dirt clogs at each other for fun? I never did that. Am I simply a deprived child? Scenes where the Wild Things jump on each other look so realistic, mostly because of the camera work, and it makes one feel queasy and slightly violated. I cowered during the film. (SPOILER WARNING: Out of anger, Carol, rips off the right arm of Douglas. Sand seeps like blood from the wound. I think that’s a bit violent, don’t you?)
On a positive note, the costumes for the Wild Things are simply amazing. They look incredibly realistic and the facial movements, created by CGI (The only thing Jonze was willing to use it for), seem so emotional. Okay, done with that.
The movie was too deep for children to appreciate. When I walked out of the theater, I watched as ten children complained about how much they disliked the film. It was pretentious with neither support for its pretentiousness nor any real reason to be that way. The characters were whiny. And the violence was a bit ridiculous for a kid’s film. Kids complain that it’s boring and scary. I would advise you not to see this mess of a film.
Grade: D
Have you ever been manipulated by a completely crazy person? Are they related to you? Thought so. But was it so bad that they crippled you with their car? Thought that would get you. In the classic thriller What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? Starring Joan Crawford and Bette Davis, Davis shows us child stars were bratty and manipulative even in 1917. This chilling film had problems during production, mainly doubt that the film would even be released. The director, Robert Aldrich, kept hearing “I wouldn’t pay a dime to see those two old broads on the screen.”
Dark comedy is not easy to do, since comedy itself is hard enough. With dark comedy, you have to have the right amount of bleakness or terribleness and then a mix of comedy for it to work. The Coen Brothers have perfected this art in such films as Fargo. Martin Macdonagh’s new dark comedy/thriller/action/shoot ‘em up film is called In Bruges. Think of it as Fargo with thicker accents, less niceness, and more cursing. Collin Farrell plays a gun for hire named Ray. He has a mentor named Ken (Brendan Gleeson). And they have a guy after them named Harry Waters (Ralph Fiennes). Oh and there’s a “dwarf” named Jimmy (Jordan Prentice, from American Pie Presents the Naked Mile) Why, yes, this all ties together, but I shan’t give the plot away.
The visceral thrill of a film is very important when concerning actions, thrillers, horror movies, westerns, etc. Almost any genre, you will find that visceral experience like no other. Whether it be head turning in The Exorcist, mind blowing like in The Dark Knight, a whirling feeling only experienced when running like in Casino Royale, that visceral thrill can make or break a movie. In terms of critics and box office. And that is where producers do their worst. They have the strange need to think to themselves “That would look great in 3-D, wouldn’t it?” Well, movies seldom ever do. They’re a ridiculous gimmick that comes back every twenty or thirty years. It was popular in the 1950s with horror movies, utilizing the new technology in Creature from the Black Lagoon, House of Wax, and Thirteen Ghosts. It came back in the 1970s and ‘80s again, with horror movies, but this time, a cut below the rest. Friday the 13th Part 3-D. Amityville 3-D. Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare (had one 3D sequence that was about 10 minutes long).
The Final Destination 3D Review
I am a self professed theater geek. A “drama-rama”. Or, now, a “Gleek”. Fox’s new show, Glee, created by Ryan Murphy (Nip/Tuck), is my kind of dream show. It brings together all the clichés of high school life and makes the viewer care less that there are so many of them. There’s the shrewy cheerleader, the gay fashionista, the paraplegic outcast, the girl who loves herself but is unanimously hated by others, the jock hiding a secret passion, and the jock-ass. These stereotypes are brought together by a string of excellent songs, ranging from theater geek-tastic show tunes like “Mister Cellophane” from Chicago and “On My Own” from Les Miserables, to classic rock and roll tracks like “Don’t Stop Believin’” by Journey, and contemporary pop like Amy Winehouse’s “Rehab”. A little weird? Too musical for you? You won’t even notice.
Julia Child is a giant and how they could get a 5’6” actress to play a 6’2” icon doesn’t really surprise me. Not, at least, when it’s Meryl Streep in the role as the warbley chef. Julie & Julia is based on Julia Child’s autobiography published in 2005, My Life in Paris, and Julie Powell’s memoir Julie & Julia: 524 Recipes, 365 Days, 1 Tiny Apartment. To say the least, this movie is food porn. Succulent beouf bourgeoning and delicious almond-chocolate cakes are on screen for a good part of the film. But enough about walking out of the theater starving let us move on to the film itself.
John Dillinger had a very obvious suaveness to him. He liked cars, movies, and could woo a girl in no time. He is one of the most famous bank robbers. And his career, if untimely short, has been put on the screen. The director is a very able one at that. Michael Mann knows how to direct an action flick. With smashes like Heat, he was certainly the Mann for the job to direct Public Enemies. Johnny Depp plays Dillinger, embodying his spirit and his mind set, and he does just a fantastic job doing so. Marion Cotillard plays his love, Billie Frachette. She, I think, gives the best performance in the entire film. She won the Academy Award in 2007 for her turn in another biopic, La Vie en Rose as Edith Piaf. Christian Bale, who has lately been choosing roles in which no one can hear him speak, plays the conniving and efficient Melvin Purvis. In this time, 1934, the FBI is just starting and J. Edgar Hoover is as corrupt as can be. The film works very well not only as a historical docudrama but also as an action film and as a character driven film. Great performances and spectacular authenticity. The film has a very glossy feel about it; replicas and props that look as if they came out of Grandma’s closet, cars that Clyde Barrow would be envious of, and spectacular picture quality. The Collateral director chose to film the movie digitally and in high definition, which means that though it looks like you could poke the chin of J. Edgar Hoover, there are a few “blips” in which the pixels are a little misplaced. Another problem with the film is that it feels as if the cameramen, in the intent of getting an “in-your-face” view of the Dillinger gang, used handy-cams. The shaky feel, depending on the viewer, makes you feel closer to the characters or simply distract you from the story. An otherwise excellent film, we should be seeing an Oscar nomination for both Depp and Cotillard.