Where the Wild Things Are

[Leisher]

Let me start by saying that despite what this film is based on, this is not a kid's film. Not that it's really scary, as I had heard before going into the theater with my 4 year old daughter, but because this film will leave a lot of adults scratching their heads.

The majority of the acting is done through facials, and the themes are all adult concepts that most children would have a hard time grasping if there was a ton of dialogue. I suppose one could sit down with the child and explain what was going on after seeing the film, but that simply proves the film has failed what should have been its target audience.

There is a lot of subtle things in the film that is going to go right over a lot of people's heads. For example, the monsters themselves. There's a moment later when Spike literally hits the audience over the head with it, and I still think people didn't get it. (What is it? See the film.)

In terms of story, there is obviously departure from the book. It's mostly faithful, but obviously they had to fill the storyline with something. The book isn't very long or in depth. However, you won't see any "right out of the book" shots...Spike Jonze is not Zack Snyder.

For those taking children, there are three scenes that I think could be frightening to your children, and a few more that could teach them some bad things (if you weren't being a parent and talking to them about what they saw). -The first scene opens the movie with Max chasing his dog. It isn't scary, but the way it's shot and Max's screaming could scare your kid. I actually heard an adult in the theater remark negatively about the opening scene's attack on the audience.
-A scene when Max first meets the monsters and they talk about eating him.
-A scene where one of the monsters goes mad with anger.

I will say that my daughter was more affected by boredom than fear. She thought the movie dragged, and for her age, she was right. It should also be noted that she hasn't talked about the movie since, and slept just fine last night.

Results with your child may very, but I can't see taking a kid to this film. Not because it's so scary, but because it's so boring for kids.

I cannot express enough how far off they missed the mark on this film's target audience.

As for adults who see it...I think it will truly depend on your memories of the book, if you need a story explained to you, and your knowledge of child psychiatry.

I enjoyed it, but I could absolutely see where someone else would find it to be boring as hell and pointless. Of course, anyone who has ever read the book knows the whole point of it. Whether or not that message translates to an entire movie is up to the viewer.

So how to rate it...

As a kid's movie: 1 out of 10. I think it's too complex and maybe too scary for little kids, and I don't think older kids will get it without discussing the film with a parent (although, maybe that's where the film is a triumph?).

As a film for adults: 8 out of 10...with stipulations. You really have to know what you're getting into here. (And I'll be honest, just debating the score in my own head, I could go as low as 5 or up to a 9...)

I don't know, it's a very tough film to judge. This will absolutely be a love it or hate it film.

[TPRJones]

I find this interesting:

The movie's release generated conflicting views over whether it is harmful to expose children to frightening scenes. In an interview with Newsweek, Sendak felt that parents who deemed the film's content to be too disturbing for children should "go to hell. That's a question I will not tolerate" and he further noted "I saw the most horrendous movies that were unfit for child's eyes. So what? I managed to survive."

[TheCatt]

I find this interesting:

The movie's release generated conflicting views over whether it is harmful to expose children to frightening scenes. In an interview with Newsweek, Sendak felt that parents who deemed the film's content to be too disturbing for children should "go to hell. That's a question I will not tolerate" and he further noted "I saw the most horrendous movies that were unfit for child's eyes. So what? I managed to survive."

That seems... familiar

[TPRJones]

Whoa, deja vu.

[GORDON]

In an interview with Newsweek, Sendak felt that parents who deemed the film's content to be too disturbing for children should "go to hell. That's a question I will not tolerate" and he further noted "I saw the most horrendous movies that were unfit for child's eyes. So what? I managed to survive."

This seems like a bit of a violent overreaction. Perhaps he was exposed to too many violent movies as a child.

[TheCatt]

In an interview with Newsweek, Sendak felt that parents who deemed the film's content to be too disturbing for children should "go to hell. That's a question I will not tolerate" and he further noted "I saw the most horrendous movies that were unfit for child's eyes. So what? I managed to survive."

This seems like a bit of a violent overreaction. Perhaps he was exposed to too many violent movies as a child.

You're on to something, he even admitted as much in the interview. Clearly this is a self-perpetuating cycle.

[Leisher]

It's funny, but when the wife and I talked about it, we weren't worried about my daughter being "scarred for life". That never even entered our thought process.

We were worried about her staying in bed all night and not wanting to sleep with us because she was scared.