MovieChat Forums > Where the Wild Things Are (2009) Discussion > Whose idea was this?

Whose idea was this?

posted 13 years ago by drnossal
21 replies | jump to latest

OK, I understand this film has its fans, but I found it nigh unwatchable. It truly was a struggle to finish this thing. I mean, really, take a pack of fearsome wild monsters and make them a bunch of whiny, and hopelessly irritating 20-somethings with a world-class case of insecurity? Five minutes in and I wanted to slap the lot of them silly. And yes, I know Sendak had a hand in the writing.

I'm guessing this movie could only appeal to the same demographic of college dropouts, stoned and complaining about how unfair and cruel the world has been to them. Pop this dvd in, knock back a few bong hits and muse on how the wild things are soooo like the sad, mean and lonely people they know, which they probably are.

Me, I just feel ripped off for having sat down and watched 110 minutes and $75 million worth of non-stop bellyaching (so I hope you can forgive me my 2 minutes). I was curious to see what the response was on the imdb boards, however, and while some seem to feel as I do, there were quite a few positive comments even if most seem to come from the aforementioned demographic.

I did give those comments some thought, but I still can't see this film much differently than I did on first reflection. It is filled with trite and cliched "lessons", there doesn't seem to be any real character development. The wild things leave the story pretty much as they were when Max found them, Max doesn't seem to be any different for his adventure. Neither the wild things nor Max seem to be endowed with any particular wisdom and none of them seem to gain any as the story progresses either. The score was relentlessly depressing and the script feels stretched rather thin, not a surprise given the source material is a 48-page picture book with a word count under 500. The visuals are pretty good, but that's about the only nice thing I can say about this movie.

So, anyway, I guess I just needed to vent. I'm not here looking for validation or to engage in an argument with someone who really liked it. If you want to tell me I just don't "get" the movie, fine, you'd be correct, I don't. On the other hand, if you haven't seen this movie, but are thinking about it, my advice would be not to bother.

OK, I feel a little better now.

[–] Hiverhythm 12 years ago

You really should not be poo'ing on stoners because you don't like a movie. Most of them are probably smarter than you. Not saying you're wrong about this film, just that your ideology shouldn't be clogging your critique. It makes you sound stupid and whiny. It also makes you sound like a dick; considering this it goes to follow:

>"On the other hand, if you haven't seen this movie, but are thinking about it, my advice would be not to bother."

this would be a useful "warning" if you didn't already oust yourself as being closed minded. I will take your 2 cents but I also take you as the kind of person that won't 'get' a movie because he doesn't want to, or possibly can't due to cultural upbringing.

[–] drnossal 11 years ago

I poo on stoners for their own sake, not because of a movie.

Seems to me the definition of closed minded is refusing to honestly examine the other guy's argument. Given that you couldn't bother to discuss any of my points and instead chose to engage in an ad hominem attack, you might want to think on that a bit. Between bong hits, perhaps.

Just saying.

"You didn't come into this life just to sit around on a dugout bench, did ya?" - Morris Buttermaker

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Rizzyay 8 years ago

Oh you really, extremely did not get it.

The monsters weren't 20-something. They were Max's age. It was his imagination. It was about the child processing what he went through. How would you expect there to be character developement? It's a journey through a child's mind, not an adult psychological story of something that does never happen in real life. (What I mean is, I have never seen any character developement with real life people ever. Not once. If people are jerks in high school, they are jerks in their 40s. If people are good and kind in high school, they are equally good and kind in their 40s.)

I find it funny how people demand character developement to happen in movies even though nobody seems to realize that developement doesn't automatically just happen like it happens in movies. If one would develope one's character, it would require PROCESSING what you experience. Whether you like it or not, this is one of the few movies where processing is shown to the viewer. For me, it makes this movie spectacular.

And no, I am not a college dropout. Why would a movie about a child's imagination give kicks to college dropouts anyway? It couldn't have been further away from the life of young adults IMO.