Comments on: WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE

By: Pamela

Pamela — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 17:39:42 +0000

“Thank God I never read this book to my son.”

Nothing like smug ignorance.

By: Paisley Thermond

Paisley Thermond — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:27:39 +0000

No one pointed out that the movie and the book are two very different things. The movie, very simply, is not the book. It is based on the book and shares the title. For me that really is the end of the similarity. I loved this book when I was a child and I relished sharing it with my children who adored it as well. I attended the movie with my now twenty-one year old daughter. The movie was not what we expected and we were both disappointed. I hated the fabricated construct of the broken, dysfunctional family and the angry, lonely child who seems emotionally disturbed to me. These are not part of the book. Max in the book is a normal rambunctious little boy who runs around terrorizing and when he gets out of hand, as children sometimes do, is told to go to his room. He obeys. He does not bite his mother as in the movie. For me the magic of the story lies in the imagination of Max and how when he was sent to his room it transformed into a ” forest all around.” And yes I did sit through the movie quoting passages from the book. Max ventures to a far away land where he is in charge. At one point in the book he “sends the wild things off to bed”. I know it almost by heart and now read it to my newly acquired stepson. I couldn’t wait to share it with him. The movie was so boring I could hardly bare it. In the book Max gets tired of being the king of the wild things and does miss home. At the end of the book Max is glad to be home back in his room where his supper was waiting for him “and it was still warm”.

By: Sam

Sam — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:09:40 +0000

Oh, man, this is hilarious.
I love how she puts special emphasis on how horrible it is that they “destroy trees” and “start forest fires”.
I bet this woman has no idea what the word “metaphor” means.

By: Bill

Bill — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 07:42:56 +0000

This reviewer is either a brilliant satirist, or those short (declarative!) sentences with their rambling personal asides and opines about James Gandolfini are all for real. And if for real, is obviously Ann Coulter.

Nobody else could wing out gems like, “Since Max is not a leader but a destructive kid without a soul, he leaves muppetville and returns home. His mother is so grateful, she feeds him chocolate cake.” — uh…

And then this great line, from the aforementioned rambling personal asides, “Gandolfini created an iconic character who was fat, powerful, and an amazing sex machine.”

*wipes tears* – WOW. I’ve never read anything more sloppy, badly written or uncomprehending of a reviewed film than this.

I have been reading reviews from this film and it seems that the positive ones tend to be thoughtful analysis of the heartfelt portrayal of childhood’s treacherous anxieties and the complexities of family and the negative reviews tend to be short, uncomprehending and badly written. What does this say? – Go see the film.

By: Robert Paulson

Robert Paulson — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 04:22:42 +0000

The point is Max runs away angry and then realizes the grass isn’t greener and that he does love his Mom and miss her and she loves him it’s just not always easy to see because people are busy, people get angry, people get jealous, and people have a hard time showing they care about one another. The creatures exemplify all of these feelings in a manner an 8 year old understands, but apparently our reviewer doesn’t.

By: knot

knot — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 04:14:59 +0000

Yeah, setting the woods on fire is not nice. Oh, also… its a metaphor… pretty much like everything else that has been trashed here.

By: bc

bc — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 07:39:11 +0000

The book is *all* about missing home and your mother. And I would argue that the movie is, too, in an even more explicit way given that his mom is actually waiting for his return with chocolate cake a hug. It’s a story about the concept of safety, about the need for unconditional love and a guiding hand. If there’s one key lesson to be learned from this movie, it’s that Max can’t do it on his own. He can’t control the Wild Things; he’s not old enough or strong enough to be the guiding figure they need. He’s not a king. He’s just Max, who needs some one to take care of him and love him and tell him things will be all right. And he goes home to his mother, who understands.

By: estevan

estevan — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:00:57 +0000

Satire is only funny when it’s smart. Also, bratty little boys do have souls and they do love their moms.

By: MMorse

MMorse — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:16:46 +0000

There are so many sentences in this review to love:

1) “Sendak, I theorize, is a bitter, unhappy man who was adopted.”

2) “Gandolfini left the brilliant “The Sopranos” for this?” (Victoria, The Sopranos ended of its own accord – Gandolfini didn’t leave)

3) “Gandolfini created an iconic character who was fat, powerful, and an amazing sex machine.” (Err….what?)

But my favorite line, bar none, has to be this one:

4) “Since Max is not a leader but a destructive kid without a soul, he leaves muppetville and returns home.”

That’s glorious. Please continue to review films, Victoria. I’ll continue to enjoy your thoughts on them.

By: Brian Pendreigh

Brian Pendreigh — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:57:35 +0000

I was directed to this by the suggestion that it was the most inept review in the history of film reviewing. I am a professional reviewer and author, and the reviewer has to be having a laugh. This is a brilliant, subversive piece of writing that challenges our preconceptions of reviewing and indeed of common sense. What a mind… And for the record I am a parent and I loved this book.