Discussion Forums > The Lounge

Film: Where the wild things are.

(1/4) > >>

molbjerg:
Wow. I walked out of the cinema after about 30 minutes, it seemed like the most retarded, sickly piece of emo shit in the world.

I have no idea how it ended and I don't care, just thought I'd post to save some of you the time/money should you have mistakenly come to the conclusion that it was worth seeing.

And it had good reviews, too.

suhaib:
why is it that bad ?!

i mean if it has good reviews and good rating
why shouldn't we see it ?

molbjerg:
To save myself digging into it (I don't feel the film justifies my time), I'll paste in a review or two which actually get it right:


--- Quote ---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!

(Warning! Minor spoilers follow—as if anything could spoil the viewing of this movie more than the movie itself.)

The film's main message seems to be that just because your parents get divorced, or your monstrous girlfriend moves out, or your older sister starts hanging out with other friends instead of you, or your mom starts dating again, or, worst of all, she decides to cook frozen corn instead of "real" corn ... does not mean that it is acceptable behavior for you to trash someone's bedroom, bite someone's shoulder, destroy someone's house, or tear someone's arm off. If only you would finally pull back that wolf hood and realize that your demented actions have exhausted your poor mother (and an entire audience).

The filmmakers somehow manage to deliver their message in a simultaneously heavy-handed and vague way. Most viewers will not grasp it, and those few who do will probably not have need of it. If you dare watch this cinematic abomination—which life-sucking action I would never recommend—please understand that you will be subjected to displays of emotional instability the likes of which have not been witnessed since Anakin Skywalker graced the screen. At least Anakin had a cool lightsaber to vent his frustrations; besides using a fork and his teeth, our dear friend Max can do nothing but track snow into the house, defiantly stand on the kitchen counter, and conjure up a pile of dysfunctional overgrown tater tots (and a goat) to help him explore every ugly facet of his consciousness.

You should also be prepared for some ambiguity: I believed for an overlong period that Max's older sister was actually some across-the-street neighbor that Max had a crush on, so imagine my surprise when Max's mother suddenly asked the girl to clear her things off the table for dinner! Another confusing bit is the fact that the main tater tot-creature is named Carol even though he is male, and this character is first seen when he is destroying houses for a reason which will remain unclear unless you can decipher his shouts amidst all the bangs, booms, and gnashing of teeth.

The movie has an air of being steeped in symbolism or in child psychology, but really all that comes across is alarming juvenile psychopathy with a shallow, incomplete, and one-sided resolution.

Several inconsistencies appear in the film, the most upsetting of which has to do with physical injury. When one character is sharply struck with a dirt clod, his resulting wound and suffering are clearly evident; yet when another character loses his arm in a scene which is not graphic but still gruesome, the filmmakers conveniently gloss over any expected pain and replace it with a cheesy joke. How inappropriate and insulting!

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!"
--- End quote ---


--- Quote ---Incredible that so many people have well received this film -- it is long, dark both in visual terms -- but even worse, it is dark in emotional terms. "Where the wild things are" turns out to be a place where the animals/monsters are all passive/aggressive depressives. How do you take one of the best visualized children's stories that has only a couple of hundred words of text into a feature length movie? Answer: you don't. For whatever whimsy the book contains, it is distorted into a singular, overlong and morose personal version. I found the angst of the characters to be completely unengaging and most of all boring -- as did my four year old. Fantastic Mr. Fox is an incredible contrast -- wonderfully visualized with sufficient intellectual content to carry a feature length film -- and most importantly, upbeat and positive in outlook. The monsters in "Where the wild things are" really are analogues for unhappy, bitter adults with deep emotional problems -- YUCK!
--- End quote ---


--- Quote ---I feel like I sat through an entirely different movie than 95% of everyone who has rated this abomination. I suppose I need to mention upfront that I grew up with the book and cherished it and blah blah blah...That said this movie is absolutely worthless.

There is no plot!!! My first criteria for a good film. And the "wild things" could not be less wild. They mope and cry through most of the film (apart from their unexplainable love for knocking down trees...?). It's like a mystical CGI Breakfast Club. Too depressing to be a children's movie and too childlike to be geared for adults. Painfully bad dialogue and no real message at the end. He comes home, exchanges a listless hug with his mother (who apparently is not really that upset by his disappearance), is rewarded with cake, is still a little brat, and cue credits.

Worthless. Absolutely worthless. Wish I would have taken my eleven dollars and bought some Valium, it would have had a similar and more enjoyable effect. Do not waste your money.

I wanted to like this movie so bad but would rather spend a night preserving my own toe jam than sit through that poor excuse for a film ever again.
--- End quote ---


--- Quote ---First & foremost, I walked out of the movie half way through. I thought it was done horribly.

here is where I am confused...

is this for kids or adults? Because if it's for kids, wayyyyy too long based around the same plot. Will lose the kids attention after the first five minutes where Max meets the creatures... after that, it's just too much.

and if its for adults... and the movie is trying to tap into some symbolism and so on, it was dragged too long and too much boy vs. creatures !

I didn't see the whole movie, it was so bad, I walked out... so I don't know how it ends... but this is the second movie i ever walked out on, and first was some horrible independent Japanese film, named Hayuandea or something like that...
--- End quote ---

harpy:

--- Quote ---"Where the wild things are" turns out to be a place where the animals/monsters are all passive/aggressive depressives
--- End quote ---

Sound funny :D sound like my a movie I would like to skip through and afterwards get drunk because it was so bad. You know one needs a reason to get drunk.

But, yeah, won't go to cinema, no point watching this kind of movies at cinema anyway....

Most of the time I don't get why one should go to cinema at all. Well I did watch 2012 in cinema - damn laughed all through that long boring movie.... A pure parody on apocalyptic movies. I guess I kind of liked it(it was hellishly funny) because it was one of the few rate apocalyptic movies where Earth actually suffered mass destruction and most of humans actually died and I do like apocalyptic movies :D and the special effects and the situations...dman

*me hides under the table to laugh her head off thinking about this movie*

AntiPaladin:


Wow. Just... wow. So basically, most of these people either a) didn't actually sit through the movie, or b) didn't grow up on the book. They apparently don't know, or conveniently forgot, that it's SUPPOSED to be a little depressing and scary all at the same time. That's why it's an incredible story. It's one of those stories that looks nice and kid friendly on the surface, but as you get older and start to read a little deeper into it, you realize it's pretty fucked up. Same with the original Through the Looking Glass that became "Alice in Wonderland." Lewis Carol was a depressed pedophile, yet somehow his stories have become thought of as children's stories (well, i suppose they are, but not in the way people think...)

I don't have the time or effort to explain why the reviews you posted are by obvious idiots ("You should also be prepared for some ambiguity" No shit, really? Have you ever even OPENED the book?) but I for one still think it's awesome.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page