Comments about ‘'Where the Wild Things Are' comes to life on big screen’

hey my name is megyn and i love the book were the wild things are and i am ganna see the movie yha me

I have really been looking forward to this movie, and am thrilled (and relieved) that it reviewed well.

I also appreciate the heads up on the age thing; I wouldn't have otherwise thought to be concerned about bringing our youngest to see it.

Now the wife and I might first need to prescreen it on date night, THEN bring the young 'uns. Sounds like seeing this one twice will be more than fine by me!

I love this book, and my children loved this book. The movie sounds fun. But why do writers and directors continually feel they have to add gratuitous potty humor, slurs, profanity, etc. to something that was successful without it?

I agree, the potty humor is pretty lame.

Why oh why oh why did they have to turn this beautiful, innocent book into a movie? Why must Hollywood insist on turning every creative invention known to man in its purity and insist it must be turned into a movie?

I'm sure the movie is good. I'm sure it adds its own interesting angle, but please tell me I'm not alone in wanting many things in life (particularly art) to simply be left alone.

I'm a huge Tintin fan, and I am DREADING Spielberg and Peter Jackson's upcoming movies on one of the most famous cartoon heroes. No version of Les Miserables will ever be done justice on the big screen. What, are they going to make the movie 40 hours long? Why can't our imaginations be simply left alone? Too much of society insists on spelling everything out for us, to the 't'.

I'm not sure if there is a single original bone in all of Hollywood's decrepit, immoral body.

Looks like another great looking show that'll be on my to see list in the cinema.

It's lame that Max can't come from a stable home with a normal dad who loves his mom and coaches little league baseball and get sent to his room anyway like all normal little kids.

Hollywood is full of losers.

Sammy, you are right. I don't know why they had to make this movie. Makes me sad.

I agree that there is a general dearth of creativity and imagination in Hollywood - which is why most of the movies I watch nowadays are made outside of the studio system, and generally outside of the country - but its not because they're adapting too many books. Cinema is also an art form, and some of the greatest films of all time have been adaptations from books or stage plays - and their greatness comes from the director's ability to take the material and offer his (or her) own vision of it.

The director of this film is responsible (along with screenwriter Charlie Kaufman) for two of the wildest, most original and most enjoyable films of the past ten years (though I wouldn't recommend them to most here, due to their R-rated material.) So I certainly wouldn't accuse him of a lack of imagination or creativity. And there definitely does have to be some imagination involved when turning a very short children's book into a full-length feature.

Sammy is right. My kids get sent to timeout, and they have a mom, a dad, and neither of us are neglecting them. Why does he have to be from a broken home? Why do you add body fluids into this beautiful story that's always been about the power of imagination?

"No version of Les Miserables will ever be done justice on the big screen."

Actually, Raymond Bernard's 1934 adaptation of the novel is a great film that does do the novel justice. No it (obviously) does not contain every scene from the novel - but it doesn't have to.

The film is respectful to the themes of the novel, but also has enough directorial vision to make it its own original work. It is a great work of art in its own right.

Here is my 2 cents:
If you are so crazy about you beloved books be left alone, don't see the movie. That will solve your problem.
If you are so upset about every detail not being exactly as you imagined it, then become a director.

I'm fairly certain everyone imagined some differences from the book and this movie. The movie looks gorgeous. I'm pretty sure it will be worth the price of admission. The movie is the movie and the book is the book. No movie could ever change what I'll imagine when I read the book. Especially since I grew up with this book like so many others. Enjoy both!

The reason is that Hollywood feels that having Max come from a nuclear family would be cliche. They see 1950s sitcoms in which all family relationships are sugary sweet as the overdone and unrealistically idealized stereotype, and feel that they should tell the underrepresented story of "real" people from suboptimal home situations.

The irony, of course, is that Hollywood's been portraying nothing but suboptimal home situations for 40 years. Broken homes and alternative family structures is the cliche in Hollywood, not nuclear families. What would be truly envelope-pushing and daring would be a movie that portrays a happy, functional, nuclear family as 1) realistic, 2) successful, and 3) normal.

Seriously? That's the whole point of the story, the need of a young boy to release into a story-book world BECAUSE his home life isn't perfect. Hate to break it to ya pal, but there's a LOT of homes out there with single moms or dads who don't coach little league baseball.

Heaven forbid that town full of losers attempt to portray anything other than the "perfect" life. Sheesh. Get over yourself.

I guess see what some of you are saying.

When a movie is lame, it can taint and diminish the book as well in some people's eyes.

But as popular as the Harry Potter books were, I've been surprised at how many people have not read them, yet have seen the movies.

Seeing as not all readers watch movies, and not all movie-goers read much, there seems to be enough room in this town for the both of them I think.

I'd add a caveat though.

There is an oft quoted axiom that, in my experience, is usually true:

"The book is usually better than the movie."

If everyone understands that, and manages their expectations accordingly, then when a movie is well done, it only speaks even better of the movie. And when a movie is lame, hopefully movie-goers will still give the book a chance.

Although yes, even while reading the book you do tend to still flash on the imagery you experienced in the theater, and that's not so good. :-(

I guess it is a good thing, then, that movie attendance isn't mandatory.

Rats. I should have proofread before submitting my last comment.

I meant to write...

"... when a movie is well done, it only speaks even better of the BOOK."

In other words, good movies may and should signal the books are very worthwhile.

This notion must be out there, as book sales seem to re-surge whenever its movie is released.

At any rate, I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.

Jason: I have heard of that version and have been intending to rent it. I agree with Art somewhat but always cave in to see Hollywood attempts. Sometimes they don't dissappoint but usually they do (like Liam Neesam version of Les Mis). Film is a form of art but I feel sorry because the PC monster devours much honesty and so what ends up on the screen is so wishy washy of any substance.

I saw the movie and I must say, I only disagree with Jeff Vice about the fact that this movie veers into PG-13 territory; it doesn't. While it evokes sadness and sometime depressive feelings in Max, and in turn, the audience, it isn't anything children don't feel on a day to day basis. I feel this film is too subtle and nuanced to be a film that kids would understand, but i think they will without knowing it. It is far more a movie for adults.

Chill out!

If you think Hollywood is so lame, don't pay attention to it. Don't see the movies and don't read the reviews.

If you'd rather keep only to books, do it!

If you want to see a movie, see it!

Everything is always better in your own little mind. Mine too.

Just chill, people. Move on.

I don't understand you people who are bashing on the movie without even seeing it first. I saw it and it was incredible. It was pretty intense at times but it captured beautifully the essence of childhood and a child's imagination. As for the whole broken home angel, Max doesn't really come from a broken home. It's not made clear where his Dad is but it is clear that his Mom loves him in a very touching way. And with respect to the potty humor and bodily functions "warning" I honestly don't remember any parts of the movie that had such material. None.
So everyone just chill out and enjoy this great adaptation of an admittedly better book.