Help

Connected Parent

Review: 'Where the Wild Things Are'

By Common Sense Media - Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:02pm PDT
28 Comments
Post a comment

Sometimes-dark adaptation focuses on friendship, loneliness.

See the trailer for "Where The Wild Things Are."

Director Spike Jonze and co-writer Dave Eggers' adaptation of Where the Wild Things Are fleshes out Maurice Sendak's protagonist Max (Max Records) to provide a reason behind his wolf suit-wearing mischief. He's an imaginative kid with boundless energy. But when his mom (Catherine Keener) doesn't seem to have time for him, he snaps, tries to bite her, and runs away. Suburban woods lead him to a sailboat that heads straight to a mysterious island inhabited by Wild Things.

Unlike in the book, each movie Wild Thing has a distinct name and personality: There's insecure Carol (James Gandolfini), sarcastic Judith (Catherine O'Hara), sweet Ira (Forest Whitaker), misunderstood Alexander (Paul Dano), wise Douglas (Chris Cooper), and loving KW (Lauren Ambrose). Max persuades the Wild Things not to eat him by claiming he's a king with special powers.

At first ruling the island is a joy -- "let the wild rumpus start!" -- but as time passes, Max begins to disappoint the dysfunctional monsters, and he eventually grows fearful that they'll realize he's just a boy pretending to be a wolf pretending to be a king.

Usually, beloved children's books are adapted with a kiddie audience in mind, but "Where the Wild Things Are" isn't for the Happy Meal set. It's a leisurely paced, literary film that makes you reflect on the exuberance and sadness of being a child. The Wild Things are indeed a wild bunch -- they smash things and claim to have eaten all of their other kings -- but they're also a broody, sarcastic, touchy clan wrestling with jealousy (Carol hates that KW is friends with two owls, Terry and Bob), isolation (Alex feels ignored), and misunderstandings (KW wants everyone to get along). It's not all rumpus-making, sleeping in a pile, and dirt-clot fights for King Max.

Visually, the film is beautifully simple, whether it's a heartbreaking close-up of a teary-eyed Max or an expansive shot of the Wild Things' island. It's amazing how perfectly Sendak's monsters come to life and how perfectly newcomer Records plays the spirited and vulnerable Max. He truly shines, especially acting opposite Keener, Gandolfini, and Ambrose.

And the excellent voice cast, who actually rehearsed together, makes you forget you're watching CGI-enhanced 9-foot puppets. The movie's evocative soundtrack, composed by Carter Burrell and Karen O. (frontwoman of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs) switches from playful to eerie to jubilant to frightening, and it's a spot-on accompaniment to Max's journey.

This isn't a movie you cuddle with the kids over, the way you do with the book. It is, however, an artful, touching text on the magical but at times lonely nature of childhood.

Parents Need to Know

Parents need to know that director Spike Jonze's adaptation of Maurice Sendak's Where the Wild Things Are isn't appropriate for younger kids, even those who adore the book (there's a big difference between looking at a beautifully illustrated children's story and watching a live-action movie full of sights and sounds that will probably scare the average 4-year-old).

The movie explores mature themes of loneliness, insecurity, and fear of change, both within Max's human family and the one he finds on his adventure. The island that Max lands on can be a scary and dark place, and the Wild Things themselves aren't above threatening (repeatedly) to eat Max, as well as becoming hot-headed and destructive (and when a Wild Thing gets destructive, it can be quite intense).

The movie also has a slower, dreamier feel than many other kids' movies, and relationships and storylines aren't always neatly resolved. There's some mild language ("damn," "stupid") and a quick glimpse of Max's mom and her boyfriend drinking wine and kissing, but otherwise the PG rating is due mostly to Max's occasionally frightful time with the mysterious Wild Things.

Families Can Talk About

Families can talk about what makes Max scared and angry. Why does he get mad at his sister and his mom? What does he want from them? What does he learn about families from his time among the Wild Things?

Each of the Wild Things has a personality, opinions, and concerns. Are the Wild Things symbolic of different character traits? Kids: Which Wild Thing was the most relatable?

How does the movie compare to the book? How did the filmmakers change the story? Does an adaptation have to to translate exactly what's in a book to be faithful? How do you think the movie might be different if it were meant for younger kids?

Studio: Warner Bros. Director: Spike Jonze Cast: James Gandolfini, Catherine Keener, Max Records Genre: Fantasy Run time: 100 minutes Theatrical release: 10/16/2009 MPAA rating: PG MPAA explanation: mild thematic elements, some adventure action and brief language

Reviewed by Sandie Angulo Chen.

See more about "Where the Wild Things Are" at Common Sense Media.

Related: movies

« Previous Review: 'Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure'

Next » Review: 'Fantastic Mr. Fox'

Other Parents Say…

Showing 1-10 Comments of 28

Oldest
« Older
Newer »
Newest

Posted by VOGUE-ISH Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:12pm PDT

This review is right on the nose!!! It is not a movie for kids that are 4, 6, or 7. I say bring them if they are a mature 8 or 9 year old. People brought infants and three year olds. They should have looked at the rating PG.......don't blame the filmaker for your own lack of investigation into the movie. PS: It was wonderful, brought a tear to my eye.

Report Abuse
Posted by legoland2007 Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:53pm PDT

Wonderful review, I agree. Although it was kind of funny seeing a lot of College kids there to watch this but I was one of those college kids. It was great for nostalgia puropses and remebering the book.

Report Abuse
Posted by David C Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:34pm PDT

This review is bad because I don't believe these things are enough to scare a young child. Some young chilldren even see R movies.

Report Abuse
Posted by jacob91697 Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:56pm PDT

My 12 year old son and I went to see it this past weekend. Both of us thought the movie was boring. I agree that the movie is not for children under 6 years old, due to the nature of the film. We heard many young children in the theater asking "Why" throughout the entire movie. But, it was a PG movie and there should had been more guideance from the parents. This is a movie that I would not waste the $4 to rent it at home.

Report Abuse
Posted by edithsgirl1 Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:28pm PDT

What's wrong with a movie that gets thinking and wondering why? Parents don't want to be bothered to talk about difficult subjects like pain and sadness and anger and loneliness? Instead of trying to shield kids from every aspect of the world that isn't happy (which doesn't work anyway), why not give them the guidance and tools to understand that life has its ups and downs and to respond appropriately? Even the most sheltered and hovered-over child has felt jealously and loneliness and fear and picked up on negative feelings in others.

Report Abuse
Posted by george & terriy Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:29pm PDT

I loved it! But, it was not for little kids. It made me feel very emotional. I am a mother of one son and two daughters. It really reminded me of my son, and the things children face while growing up, especially boys (change, submitting to authority (female authority), older siblings going out on their own some and leaving you out, etc. It made me smile and cry. It made me want to enjoy and understand every moment of my son's tender years. Good movie!

Report Abuse
Posted by Andre Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:42pm PDT

Obviously most parents will be anxious to get their kids to see a movie adaption of their favorite children's book. However for those who see this movie with their kids and ridicule it as "dull" or "boring", is it the film-makers fault for not adding big explosions and in-your-face action that others use to solicit the younger audiences attention? Or is the parent's fault for leaving their children with a one-dimensional view of their environment? The book itself contains symbolism and has deeper meaning that I see reflected within the film. ""As with most parenting issues, it's probably wiser to inspect what children will be exposed to beforehand, rather than complaining about it afterwards."

Report Abuse
Posted by LAM1207 Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:51pm PDT

edithsgirl1-- You're exactly right! This is why this pitiful society is the way it is. "Oh dear, my little darling can only have happy thoughts." Pain, loneliness and sadness are inevitable in everyone's life. Also, please remember the fact that this is a MOVIE and not the book. Don't expect it to be like the book. Hollywood has a tendency to change everything, which inadvertently ruins it.. Hollywood has to crap everything up. They have taken perfectly good, wonderful stories and completely destroyed them. I was reading an article about this movie earlier today. A man claimed his 20 month year old son was bored. A kid that age doesn't know what boredom is. Why do people have to expect to be on the go, excited, and entertained all the time? I am waiting to see this move. I think i'd really enjoy it. It gets you think. Something some people have the lack of ability to do.

Report Abuse
Posted by Rick Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:39pm PDT

I took my seven year old daughter to see the movie. I noticed in the sold out performance that many other younger children were there also. Within 30 minutes I watched a five year old child literally crawl to the top of her grandmother's head and cry, "Ma Ma Please make it stop - this is scary!" It cost me 50 bucks to have my child sleep with us that night because of her nightmares. 4 stars - give me a break!

Report Abuse
Posted by Rick Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:50pm PDT

Basically this movie is about the disjointed introjects of a disturbed child. It is a treatise on object relations and would be a nice film for a college level psychology course. However, the child remains disturbed at the close of the film with his "seething cauldron of excitations" momentarily closed as his mother serves him a nice bowl of chicken soup. Nevertheless, we are left the image of a little monster who bites his mother, destroys his sister, and dreams of a place that eats the brains of anyone that he does not like. Is this really a "family film" or a thesis on the sadistic introjects of an emotionally distraught male? It certainly is not appropriate for a child of any age.

Report Abuse