Reader comments
Film review: 'Where the Wild Things Are' comes to life on big screen
54 comments | Read story
Anonymous | 6:44 p.m. Oct. 15, 2009
hey my name is megyn and i love the book were the wild things are and i am ganna
see the movie yha me
Screen Age | 8:36 p.m. Oct. 15, 2009
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 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!
Why? | 9:59 p.m. Oct. 15, 2009
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?
Comments continue below
RE: Why? | 10:35 p.m. Oct. 15, 2009
I agree, the potty humor is pretty lame.
Art | 2:27 a.m. Oct. 16, 2009
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.
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.
rdha | 5:14 a.m. Oct. 16, 2009
Looks like another great looking show that'll be on my to see list in the
cinema.
Sammy | 8:02 a.m. Oct. 16, 2009
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.
Hollywood is full of losers.
Andrew Wiggin | 8:48 a.m. Oct. 16, 2009
Sammy, you are right. I don't know why they had to make this movie. Makes
me sad.
Jason | 9:08 a.m. Oct. 16, 2009
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.
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.
The Authority | 9:21 a.m. Oct. 16, 2009
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?
Jason | 9:22 a.m. Oct. 16, 2009
"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.
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.
Chadders | 9:35 a.m. Oct. 16, 2009
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!
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!
To Sammy | 9:37 a.m. Oct. 16, 2009
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.
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.
RE: Sammy | 9:47 a.m. Oct. 16, 2009
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.
Heaven forbid that town full of losers attempt to portray anything other than the "perfect" life. Sheesh. Get over yourself.
Screen Age | 10:38 a.m. Oct. 16, 2009
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.
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.
Screen Age | 10:43 a.m. Oct. 16, 2009
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.
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.
Not Asleep | 10:54 a.m. Oct. 16, 2009
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.
MacBeth | 11:44 a.m. Oct. 16, 2009
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.
not afraid of the big bad | 12:04 p.m. Oct. 16, 2009
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.
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.
what the? | 12:31 p.m. Oct. 16, 2009
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.
So everyone just chill out and enjoy this great adaptation of an admittedly better book.
Complainers | 12:50 p.m. Oct. 16, 2009
Those of you who complain that about certain types of movies being made must ask
yourself a simple question:
Will you see it?
You may complain about your favorite book being adapted to film, or complain that a movie has "bad" content, and buy an illegally edited copy from some chump in Orem, or whatever. The bottom line: You see it. Hollywood makes money. So they keep making them. If you have objections, don't see the movie. That's the only valid way that you can protest. Of course, the majority of people will disagree with you, and keep seeing the movies, and so Hollywood will keep making them.
Will you see it?
You may complain about your favorite book being adapted to film, or complain that a movie has "bad" content, and buy an illegally edited copy from some chump in Orem, or whatever. The bottom line: You see it. Hollywood makes money. So they keep making them. If you have objections, don't see the movie. That's the only valid way that you can protest. Of course, the majority of people will disagree with you, and keep seeing the movies, and so Hollywood will keep making them.
Max | 1:19 p.m. Oct. 16, 2009
Apparently even such innocent films as Where the Wild Things Are cannot escape
the harsh judgment and endless controversy of Deseret News readers. How sad.
You guys never cease to amaze me.
On a lighter note, I can't wait to see this movie! I never cared much for the book, but the previews for the movie are very persuasive. Looks like fun.
On a lighter note, I can't wait to see this movie! I never cared much for the book, but the previews for the movie are very persuasive. Looks like fun.
Anonymous | 2:55 p.m. Oct. 16, 2009
What's lame is when posters shoot down with absolutely no merit those who
have made legitimate or reasonable comments or observations. Hollywood does turn
out mostly low-quality garbage. No we don't have to watch them, but that
doesn't change that perception. Hollywood does have a unhealthy
preoccupation with broken, screwed up families and lifestyles. That's a
valid perception. All the haters and trolls will tell you they would die to
protect our free speech. But then they make comments on boards like this telling
people to shut up, be quiet, and other derogatory remarks. Go figure.
Amazing lack of imagination | 3:37 p.m. Oct. 16, 2009
Just because a beloved book becomes a movie in the post-George Lucas special
effects world doesn't mean that anyone HAS to go see it. In fact, we, who
love to see adaptations of beloved childhood stories, such as "Where the
Wilds Things Are", would prefer that you keep your ignorant and
unimaginative comments to yourself.
Don't see the movie, it will still gross millions and millions because there is an audience for it. Myself included. This was my first book 35 years ago by the way. Please stick to the 32 pages of AMAZING illustrations and 16 sentences that make up the book. The book is a work of art visually. Why can't we, as fans, have a look at might have happened when the 'Wild Rumpus' began?
Don't see the movie, it will still gross millions and millions because there is an audience for it. Myself included. This was my first book 35 years ago by the way. Please stick to the 32 pages of AMAZING illustrations and 16 sentences that make up the book. The book is a work of art visually. Why can't we, as fans, have a look at might have happened when the 'Wild Rumpus' began?
RE: Max | 3:38 p.m. Oct. 16, 2009
Couldn't agree more... How on earth a movie like Where the Wild Things are
turns into yet ANOTHER "let's bash Hollywood/All movies are evil"
soapbox is beyond me.
Next thing you know, we're going to have the comments page for Toy Story 3 turn into a discussion about how terrible it is that Buzz Lightyear espouses evil liberal views, or that Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head aren't portraying marriage in a proper enough light.
Next thing you know, we're going to have the comments page for Toy Story 3 turn into a discussion about how terrible it is that Buzz Lightyear espouses evil liberal views, or that Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head aren't portraying marriage in a proper enough light.
RE: Anonymous | 3:54 p.m. Oct. 16, 2009
I don't recall anyone saying to shut up or be quiet, I think that there
were valid points made about the fact that these people are basing their
judgment about the movie with absolutely no merit. How do they know the boy
comes from a broken home? His loving father could have died while coaching a
little league team for all we know.
I think that suggesting someone actually see a movie before laying waste to it isn't asking for too much. Yes the debate about whether Hollywood has an "unhealthy preoccupation with broken, screwed up families and lifestyles" or if those just make more entertaining and thus more profitable movies than ones about perfect glowing families IS an interesting discussion... But claiming this movie is glorifying a broken family without seeing it is just ignorant.
I think that suggesting someone actually see a movie before laying waste to it isn't asking for too much. Yes the debate about whether Hollywood has an "unhealthy preoccupation with broken, screwed up families and lifestyles" or if those just make more entertaining and thus more profitable movies than ones about perfect glowing families IS an interesting discussion... But claiming this movie is glorifying a broken family without seeing it is just ignorant.
good book - bad movie | 4:31 p.m. Oct. 16, 2009
the book is good but trying to make a movie will be a bust.
jj | 4:45 p.m. Oct. 16, 2009
Guys, LISTEN. Stop bashing about the premise of the kid's reality in a
MOVIE. There has to be SOME drama to get the kid to the point of being with the
Wild Things and I don't think the Ozzie and Harriet lifestyle would fit
into that. I personally can't wait to see this movie (I think I still have
my book and others by the same author) and the Hollywood bashing is useless. Now
if they'd taken a Quentin Tarantino angle on it (now THERE'S a mental
picture I don't want to see) then I'd see an issue. And I agree with
other posters- if you don't like it, don't see it.
Art | 11:56 p.m. Oct. 16, 2009
Well, I should've figured I would be grossly misunderstood, so I'll
have to (ironically) spell it out for those who refuted me earlier:
Firstly, I have no plans of seeing the movie; I see (in the theaters) about 1 or 2 movies a year for the very reasons I mentioned earlier. So, yes, I'm without hypocrisy in this matter.
Secondly, despite my intentions of not seeing the movie, I'm sure the movie may very well be fun and interesting (as I also said quite plainly earlier). That's not even close to my point.
My point is simply for some sacred, beautiful things to be left alone. What's next, an epic movie about Shel Silverstein's "The Giving Tree"? Please tell me you don't see how utterly ridiculous that would be. Of course, I would've said the same a few years ago regarding "Where the Wild Things Are" until they did make it. But you people seriously can't see what the art of the book is? The art is IN the simpleness of it. It's IN the imagination! I mean, that's the THEME OF THE ENTIRE BOOK!
Firstly, I have no plans of seeing the movie; I see (in the theaters) about 1 or 2 movies a year for the very reasons I mentioned earlier. So, yes, I'm without hypocrisy in this matter.
Secondly, despite my intentions of not seeing the movie, I'm sure the movie may very well be fun and interesting (as I also said quite plainly earlier). That's not even close to my point.
My point is simply for some sacred, beautiful things to be left alone. What's next, an epic movie about Shel Silverstein's "The Giving Tree"? Please tell me you don't see how utterly ridiculous that would be. Of course, I would've said the same a few years ago regarding "Where the Wild Things Are" until they did make it. But you people seriously can't see what the art of the book is? The art is IN the simpleness of it. It's IN the imagination! I mean, that's the THEME OF THE ENTIRE BOOK!
Art (cont'd) | 11:58 p.m. Oct. 16, 2009
It's how brilliant the imagination of the young boy is! Can't you see
the irony in someone--anyone--following up such a book with more details in any
medium? Even if someone wrote a book 'sequel' (other than the
original author) , that would still be ridiculous.
Someone who saw the movie | 1:55 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009
Having loved the book as a kid and having seen the movie, I think it's safe
to say that the movie, both visually and dramatically, is very much in the
spirit of the book.
You can tell Jonze approached the project with a lot of love and respect for the source material - plus the fact that Maurice Sendak requested Jonze do the adaptation and is credited as a producer means the movie hasn't strayed too far from the spirit of the book.
Furthermore, sometimes I think the little "rated for"s are maybe a bit overly cautious out of respect for the Utah audience Jeff writes for. Though some of the temper-tantrum scenes are a little intense, there's really nothing else concerning about the movie. The "body fluids" are simply saliva and nothing more. Stop extrapolating the worst from the end-of-review warnings.
You can tell Jonze approached the project with a lot of love and respect for the source material - plus the fact that Maurice Sendak requested Jonze do the adaptation and is credited as a producer means the movie hasn't strayed too far from the spirit of the book.
Furthermore, sometimes I think the little "rated for"s are maybe a bit overly cautious out of respect for the Utah audience Jeff writes for. Though some of the temper-tantrum scenes are a little intense, there's really nothing else concerning about the movie. The "body fluids" are simply saliva and nothing more. Stop extrapolating the worst from the end-of-review warnings.
1957strat | 7:45 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009
For a bunch of people who have not seen
the movie most of you have interesting, bordering on judgemental,
thoughts about this movie. Take it from someone who HAS seen it; THIS
IS THE BEST FILM OF THE YEAR!
the movie most of you have interesting, bordering on judgemental,
thoughts about this movie. Take it from someone who HAS seen it; THIS
IS THE BEST FILM OF THE YEAR!
Perplexed | 9:56 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009
Always loved the book, saw the movie last night. Despite the fauning over the
visuals, Hensen's muppets were the only really great part.
This is a kids book and I didn't like seeing it extropolated into a psycholical analysis of a child's angst. It spends so much time ruminating about the relationships of the monsters. The comment from my 10 year old, who loves the book: "that was weird." I wish they had done the movie for kids and kept it lighter, rather than playing to some emotionlly handicapped adults.
This is a kids book and I didn't like seeing it extropolated into a psycholical analysis of a child's angst. It spends so much time ruminating about the relationships of the monsters. The comment from my 10 year old, who loves the book: "that was weird." I wish they had done the movie for kids and kept it lighter, rather than playing to some emotionlly handicapped adults.
1957Strat | 4:15 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009
@ Perplexed
you picked a fitting screen name if you truly think that thus film was spending too much time" focusing on the relationships of the Wild Things". You really didn't get this movie if you really think it was about the Wild Things. This was a beautiful story about feelings, thoughts, memories, and fears of a little boy and how he plays them out in his mind and concludes right from wrong. Spike Jonze is a bloody genius!! Remember, this is an Adaptation of a book. Were you offended during Horton Hears a Who?.......probably.
you picked a fitting screen name if you truly think that thus film was spending too much time" focusing on the relationships of the Wild Things". You really didn't get this movie if you really think it was about the Wild Things. This was a beautiful story about feelings, thoughts, memories, and fears of a little boy and how he plays them out in his mind and concludes right from wrong. Spike Jonze is a bloody genius!! Remember, this is an Adaptation of a book. Were you offended during Horton Hears a Who?.......probably.
Duane in Texas | 9:16 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009
My wife and I saw this movie tonight and felt the movie was not one to recommend
to anyone. There was such a negative feeling throughout the entire movie. It was
extremely violent, and promoted violent behavior and disrespect to authority
(his mother) and towards one another. There was nothing being taught about
values, morals, etc. It was quite confusing to follow at times. There was no
emotional response from the children (Or adults) in the entire audience
throughout the movie.
We don't expect to go to see a movie and always get something out of it. But, this movie just didn't have anything worth viewing. Even though the costumes were fabulous, this is not enough to want to recommend it to someone. It was basically a total downer. We rarely go to the movies, and were disappointed greatly by going to see this one. If we could get our money back we would. We will not be taking our 8 and 11 yr olds to this movie. It would give them nightmares. We believe that Hollywood has continued to demonstrate its lack of values. (I've worked in the Social Work field for over 20 yrs.)
We don't expect to go to see a movie and always get something out of it. But, this movie just didn't have anything worth viewing. Even though the costumes were fabulous, this is not enough to want to recommend it to someone. It was basically a total downer. We rarely go to the movies, and were disappointed greatly by going to see this one. If we could get our money back we would. We will not be taking our 8 and 11 yr olds to this movie. It would give them nightmares. We believe that Hollywood has continued to demonstrate its lack of values. (I've worked in the Social Work field for over 20 yrs.)
Chris | 12:02 a.m. Oct. 18, 2009
It's hard to say whether you will like this film or not. There are simply
too many good people with dramatically different tastes to even guess. But if
the following describes you, I might be able to save you from a bitter
disappointment: If your family dislikes leaving a theater with a dark, confused,
depressed feeling (mind you, this is altogether different from only liking
silly, predictable movies, it's about the "soul" of a film, happy
ending or not), and if you are at all concerned that the talented Mr.
Jonze's vision of the Where the Wild Things Are may spoil the goodness and
spirit of one of your very favorite books in the world, stay away from this one.
Let the awesome, yet misleading, movie trailer work in your imagination (like
the book), and keep the Wild Things pure in your mind. We went tonight as a
family (no small kids) and openly loathed this creation. The genius art
direction, musical score, creatures, acting, and direction, only made the
soul-less screenplay more painful. If you loved it, I'm genuinely happy for
you. I wish I could have said the same.
just me | 10:40 a.m. Oct. 18, 2009
and i just got back from watching this film saturday afternoon....it is not good
and not bad at the same time..personally found it a tad depressing and boring at
times....i see no harm in making the film, it just didn't entertain me much
Terrible | 12:53 p.m. Oct. 18, 2009
This film jumps around between gravely disturbing, mind-numbingly tedious,
naively innocent, and severely depressing. Our nearly seven-year-old daughter
and her friend were bored to tears, our two-year-old was freaked out, and our
whole family felt simply awful afterwards. What a waste of time, money, nerves,
and my 35th birthday!
The movie is not at all a delightful adaptation of a beloved children’s book. It provides absolutely no entertainment for children or adults. Its seeming claims to educational value are far from viable. It embodies a perfect recipient of the complaint relegated to poor films: “That’s two hours of my life I’ll never get back!”
The movie is not at all a delightful adaptation of a beloved children’s book. It provides absolutely no entertainment for children or adults. Its seeming claims to educational value are far from viable. It embodies a perfect recipient of the complaint relegated to poor films: “That’s two hours of my life I’ll never get back!”
The Difference | 4:09 p.m. Oct. 18, 2009
The book suggests that boys will be boys. The film suggests that boys will be
maladjusted demons.
jrn | 5:33 p.m. Oct. 18, 2009
Thank you, Mr. Reviewer, for your warnings. You see, as a child, I never had
any emotions, or emotional responses, to things. I was never confused or upset,
just whimsical and carefree all the time. So the fact that this movie deals
with emotions makes me see how truly inappropriate it is for children. Thanks
for your helpful review, I'll make sure to take them to something that
won't prompt a conversation afterwards. Because, you know, mommy's
tired Max, go play in your room alone.
Re: Terrible | 9:29 p.m. Oct. 18, 2009
If you take a 2 year old to a movie it probably explains some of your mentality
of not getting the movie. This movie and any movie in theaters is not meant for
infants. If you can't find a sitter, take the kids to the park.
Bryan | 8:17 a.m. Oct. 19, 2009
My wife and I went to see the movie this weekend and we both agree that it is
too intense/scary for our 4 year old and maybe even our 7 year old. I'm
glad we went by ourselves to see it first.
I also agree that it leans towards PG-13 simply because of the intense violence and I felt bad for a lot of the little traumatized 3 and 4 year olds in the audience.
I also agree that it leans towards PG-13 simply because of the intense violence and I felt bad for a lot of the little traumatized 3 and 4 year olds in the audience.
To Mr. Mentality | 4:46 p.m. Oct. 19, 2009
Any movie in theaters is not meant for infants? Says who? And anyway, a
two-year-old is not an infant.
Not just our children but our whole family was rather freaked out when a certain character lost an appendage. How inconsistent and insulting it was for the filmmakers to conveniently gloss over any expected pain and replace it with a joke during that scene, yet clearly demonstrate suffering in another character who was wounded with a dirt clod!
Max's terrible behavior in the film, far worse than that in the book, made the resolution infuriatingly shallow, incomplete, and one-sided.
This film was made for lunatics who will unfortunately not benefit from it. The rest of us were punished by this movie for a minority's maladjustment.
Enjoy your cake while you can, Max. Desserts just won't taste the same when you wind up in prison.
Not just our children but our whole family was rather freaked out when a certain character lost an appendage. How inconsistent and insulting it was for the filmmakers to conveniently gloss over any expected pain and replace it with a joke during that scene, yet clearly demonstrate suffering in another character who was wounded with a dirt clod!
Max's terrible behavior in the film, far worse than that in the book, made the resolution infuriatingly shallow, incomplete, and one-sided.
This film was made for lunatics who will unfortunately not benefit from it. The rest of us were punished by this movie for a minority's maladjustment.
Enjoy your cake while you can, Max. Desserts just won't taste the same when you wind up in prison.
Max | 5:46 p.m. Oct. 19, 2009
Guess I'm a lunatic. Isn't that just another way of saying "wild
thing"?
RE: To Mr. Mentality | 11:23 a.m. Oct. 20, 2009
The Motion Picture Association of America states this about PG rated movies:
A PG-rated motion picture should be investigated by parents before they let their younger children attend. The PG rating indicates, in the view of the Rating Board, that parents may consider some material unsuitable for their children, and parents should make that decision.
I guess you made a poor decision by taking your infants to this movie.
A PG-rated motion picture should be investigated by parents before they let their younger children attend. The PG rating indicates, in the view of the Rating Board, that parents may consider some material unsuitable for their children, and parents should make that decision.
I guess you made a poor decision by taking your infants to this movie.
@Mr. Mentality | 1:36 p.m. Oct. 20, 2009
Says who? Responsible parents,the American Academy of Pediatrics, moviegoers,
your toddler, and ME!
frieda's boss | 10:46 p.m. Oct. 21, 2009
We talked as a family about WTWTA informally on the drive home, as we do after
all of our movies. My eleven year thought the movie was less imaginative than
the book. She was also offended by the unnecessary swearing. My daughter also
had some interesting insights into the psychology of Max and understanding that
the monsters might be different egos (she used a different term) within Max.
Our six year and five year olds thought it was boring. I have to agree. I had
a hard time staying awake, as well. It was a little creepy in parts like when
Max gets inside KW mouth to hide from Karol. And the way KW introduces Max to
Bob and Terry, both of which are owls, by throwing a rock at them to get them to
fall from the sky. That was also creepy. I recall two movies from the
80's, both with quirky monster themes: Dark Crystal and Labyrinth with
David Bowie. WTWTA was not as interesting, relevant or human as either of those
movies. Go rent them on VHS....or Beta....if you can find them.
Anonymous | 10:23 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009
How about this. Instead of listening to all the people hating on this movie and
Jonze's adaptation, I'll take the word of Maurice Sendak who said it
was amazing? That sounds like a better idea.
To frieda's boss | 12:49 p.m. Oct. 23, 2009
Both Labyrinth and the Dark Crystal have been out on dvd for years. Why hunt
down the VHS? Does anybody even still have a VHS player these days, anyway?
Canderson | 10:46 a.m. Oct. 26, 2009
My husband and I took all 6 of our kids ages 19-4 and everyone of us hated this
movie! (And yes, we love and own the book.) We all just looked at each other
and laughed when the show was over because we couldn't believe how dumb and
boring that show turned out to be. My husband told the kids he was going to buy
that DVD and when they did something wrong, he would punish them by making them
watch that movie -- they all screamed "NOOOOO!"
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Movie Info
Rated PG for violence, mild profanity, mild vulgarity.
Cast: Catherine Keener, Max Records, Mark Ruffalo, Lauren Ambrose, James Gandolfini, Catherin O''Hara, Forest Whitaker
Cast: Catherine Keener, Max Records, Mark Ruffalo, Lauren Ambrose, James Gandolfini, Catherin O''Hara, Forest Whitaker
FIND LOCAL MOVIE SHOWTIMES
Find a Movie Theater
Video
Related content
- Top cartel kingpin killed in shootout 1:24 a.m.
- Utah Grizzlies fall to Steelheads 1:19 a.m.
- Watching over the Sacred Grove 1:16 a.m.
- The sites and lights of Christmas 1:15 a.m.
- China detains U.S. engineer 1:14 a.m.
- Church: You know what's on menu 1:14 a.m.
- Temple, family trees at heart of site 1:14 a.m.
- Written history of nursery 1:14 a.m.
- The gospel in words: 'Lowly' 1:14 a.m.
- What's new: 'Treasure in Heaven' 1:13 a.m.
- Josh Powell gives DNA
- Will Chambers keep his promise?
- Josh Powell meets with WVC police
- Conan mocks Orrin Hatch, Mormons
- Star on field, in community
- BYU singers compete in 'Sing Off'
- David Archuleta's different mission
- Boozer plays at an All-Star level
- Jazz miss Harpring's toughness
- Frances Monson recovering well
- Jazz stunned by Timberwolves
114 - Stay the course with our president112
- Letters: 'Liberal conceit'111
- Josh Powell meets with WVC police109
- TV mom gives birth to 19th child106
- Sources: Josh Powell hires attorney100
- Letters: Explaining Palin100
- Tethering of pets could spur charges94
- Conan mocks Orrin Hatch, Mormons87
- Cougar seniors see a new Bronco84
Having made it to the finals of "So You Think You Can Dance," Ryan and...
We seem to get far more blog comments on our video games when we write...
Latest comments
That would be five. Wyoming, AF, UofU, BYU, TCU.
The way I understand it, the Braithwaite name and gallery will transfer to...
USE COMMON SENSE Your Dog doesnt need to be out on a chain. Ask a Vet why...
WOW........
Defeat it, Mr Bennett! And then, go write a song like Mr. Hatch. Stay tall.
Who cares since few think healthcare is a right anyway in this State of Utah
Why must there always be someone else to blame for our problems? "If the...
Max lost to Utah once. Beat them twice. Your clever "joke" only worked last...
There is not near the competitions is wrestling for everyone that whats to...
20+ years in insurance finance and I can guarantee the "market" won't solve...
Advertisements