Re: Where the Wild Things Are-Review Thread
 

This year, I see WATCHMEN and WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE in a similar situation - they are both excellent adaptations of the original books, but some people (mainly non-fans) just aren't that wild about the films.

The same could be said about the LORD OF THE RINGS and HARRY POTTER films - they are supposedly excellent movie adaptations of the original books, but I'm personally not crazy about them, probably because I never got into the Tolkein or Rowling books.

I was never crazy about the Where the Wild Things Are book. I prefered In the Night Kitchen, Really Rosie, and The Nutshell Library.

Re: Where the Wild Things Are-Review Thread
 

You're argument only seems to be half true. Watchmen and WtWTA could definitely fall into the category of not offering much for non-fans. LOTR and HP, on the other hand, both managed to transcend their books and be successful to fans and non-fans alike. I know many people who weren't into Tolkien or such stuff until they saw the first LOTR, then they became fans.

WtWTA is unique in that it didn't have much to really go with, so a lot of the movie was written from scratch, so it could be enjoyed by people who had and had not read the book. Watchmen, on the other hand, was almost so faithful to the book in style and look that had you not read it, you couldn't enjoy the material at all. I think the purpose of any adaptation is to make something popular in one medium palpable to those who like another one better (or find it a better way to absorb the material). LOTR and HP did this well, the other two I guess not as much.

Re: Where the Wild Things Are-Review Thread
 

Saw this today despite some foot dragging. I've never read the source book and the trailer didn't excite me. In fact, I thought this was going to be a slow, drab, very brown film. And while it doesn't have much of a color palette, I was wrong to not want to see it. It is one of the best American live-action "children's" movies I have ever seen, in no small part due to Eggers' and Jonze's command of the material (and of Max, perhaps the best child actor I've ever seen in a major role). I turned a few times to my friend and asked him if these were scenes from the book: each time he said no and each time it was a scene I really liked. Carol's final breakdown and his revelation of his anger and fear of loss was incredible.

Re: Where the Wild Things Are-Review Thread
 

Saw this film last night, what an emotionally and psychologically rich and layered film. It really pummels you with idea after idea, shade after shade of the psyche of an angry ten-year old kid, but does it in such a wonderful way that it'll speak to 10-year olds as well as it does adults. Credit must go to Jonze and Eggers, I'd heard that the production was a little troubled and shaky for this film but the screenwriting was brilliant -- funny and probing. The animation, Karen O's music and the overall feel of the film captured the book, which I had only read days before seeing the film. Max Records and James Gandolfini give great performances.

Well recommended.

Re: Where the Wild Things Are-Review Thread
 

well...Gandolfini didn't really do much except voice act. There was somebody else in that suit. I'll agree on Max Records.

Re: Where the Wild Things Are-Review Thread
 

Credit to the animation, of course, but the characterisation Gandolfini brought through his voicework was what drew me in to Carol, and Carol's relationship to Max.