Where the Wild Things Are

Drew's Thoughts:
I've been waiting to see Spike Jonze's third film for quite some time. Jonze's work on Wild Things apparently began some ten years ago, and while initially set to direct what became last year's Synecdoche, NY, he handed the directorial duties over to Charlie Kaufman when the opportunity to finally get Wild Things into production came up. The production was obviously a complicated one that would take some time, experimenting with the technology to get the wild things right and so on, and this already lengthy production dragged on even longer due to a number of high profile battles with the studio.
Jonze is revered for his resourceful, inventive visual style and pitch-perfect comic timing. He makes all the crazy things in Charlie Kaufman's mind come to life better than anyone else. Something else Jonze does masterfully that often gets overlooked, is the way he works with actors to develop characters. He's directed Nicolas Cage, John Malkovich, Chris Cooper, Cameron Diaz and arguably John Cusack, Catherine Keener and Brian Cox to career best performances. Those performances all created characters who are fully formed and emotionally resonant. Jonze works his magic again with the wild things, which are essentially big furry suits with computer animated faces. Yet, they feel so real and I definitely got a little misty-eyed watching them. Their expressions are so nuanced and affecting it's a wonder they are products of a computer program. This is, of course, due in part to the phenomenal voice acting by Catherine O'Hara, Forest Whitaker, Chris Cooper, Paul Dano, Lauren Ambrose and especially James Gandolfini as the lead wild thing, Carol. The fact that Jonze pulled together those voices, guys in giant hairy suits and CGI to make these incredibly life-like beings is nothing short of a cinematic miracle.
Max Records performance as Max which the story centers on was pretty good I thought. Not up there with Macaulay Culkin in Home Alone, Dillon Freasier in There Will Be Blood, or the girls in In America but still impressive in that he didn't seem like he was acting, often the downfall of child actors. Something that could bother some viewers is that Jonze and co. have no problem making Max a bratty little bastard. Carol, the head wild thing, acts as Max's wilder double, mercurial, pouty and impulsively violent. Max initially identifies himself in Carol upon their first meeting but grows to find Carol's brattiness difficult and tiresome. There isn't a strong driving plot in the film which has it's pros and cons. I'm happy they didn't make it into standard children's fare by making a bad guy that they have to fight against because that would seem really inauthentic in light the material but at the same time the screenplay could have been stronger and delved more deeply into the character's minds and the conflicts of their relationships. That said though, there are some great lines and it's fun to watch to the wild things banter back and forth.
I think in my anticipation for the film I lost sight that it still is a children's movie. It's a phenomenal children's movie and certainly one adults can enjoy and be impressed by, but there isn't the depth there you expect from "adult" masterpieces. The wild things are all touching and expressive but they weren't given quite enough to express to completely satisfy an adult viewer. This can't be blamed entirely on the film itself though because after all this is based on a 10 sentence long children's book so the depth wasn't there in the first place. Visual mastery is top notch and a strange, bizarre vision is made into reality just like the book, but the film doesn't fill in that lack of depth absent in the book. It's not necessarily expected that it fill it in, but I feel that was the key element needed to elevate the film to full blown masterpiece status.
After the first viewing, I feel Where the Wild Things Are is a staggering directorial achievement worthy of much well-earned praise but the film as a whole, while good, doesn’t quite command that same level of awe.

Colleen's Thoughts:
In my opinion, Drew was far too generous with his review. I agree that the visuals in this movie are fantastic and the wild things really couldn't look any better. Also the cinematography surrounding the wild things is magical, breathtaking and definitely worth looking at again.
However, Max is an asshole. While I agree that it is alright for Max to be bratty he was way too much of a jerk too me and where the film was asking me to sympathize with him (his igloo being broken, having to lie on the floor and entertain his poor mother)I almost laughed. What a BRAT! It brought me back to babysitting days when I thought "If I was your parent I would be MORTIFIED!" Yes, it is ok for Max to be somewhat of a brat, especially if he is to undergo a transformation (which again was laughable) but the character was a liar and devoid of sympathy even when he was with the wild things. I also disagree with Drew in Max's acting, while it was great at some points at other points it really did feel "acty."
Alright enough with the rant, like Drew said it was a children's movie. Going in expecting to be totally impressed the way I was after seeing Adaptation was asking far too much. I also think that since Jonze usually teams up with screenplay mastermind Kauffman that I was expecting the screenplay to be somewhat on par with that work, which again, was asking far too much. (The visuals and not the screenplay are clearly the strength of this film).
The major positive besides the visuals is the voice actors. I totally agree with Drew that their performances were PERFECT for their characters. They were fun to watch and entertaining to the children. I especially liked Lauren Ambrose, Catherine O'Hara and Chris Cooper. Cooper was especially fun to watch and listen to in my opinion.
In closing, Where the Wild Things Are is a fairly typical children's movie with visuals that are anything but typical. If you are looking to be impressed by visual creations and mind-blowing backdrops (as well as some great voice acting) this is the film for you, but don't go in expecting much more.

Joe's Thoughts:
I read an interview not to long ago in which spike jonze (director of Wild Things) was discussing his approach to his most recent film. Though based on a worlds famous “children’s” picture book, Jonze stated that his plan was to make a film for adults. This led to many problems as the studio pictured his picture to be the stereotypical “children’s” film. And while the film may contain elements and ideas taken from childhood, and the protagonist is a child, the film contains thematic themes and great one liners in which children cannot understand, thus leading to a film which caters to adults. Where The Wild Things Are is not a “children’s” film, or if it is, it certainly didn’t feel like one to me. No child can fully understand the theme between gandalfini and Max (even though they may live it, they don’t fully realize what it means or they wouldn’t act that way). No child can understand the comedic greatness that comes from such characters as the chicken. Maybe this film will go down in history as a “children’s” movie but in my mind no child can fully take what is offered by the complexion of many elements of the film.
That being said what holds this movie back in a way is the simplistic story, but one cant expect much as the book contains only a handful of sentences. But this is the only major flaw I see in this film. I thought it was a fucking great movie. I was cracking up nearly the entire time, Chris Coopers chicken was splendid, and I think it was dano playing the goat, but who didn’t have a friend like that goat. I mean every time I had dirt clad war some little pisser was crying off in the distance that he was hurt. Catharine O hara and Forest Whittaker were a great couple leading to many laughs as she contemplated eating max the entire film. The movie was a riot. And even beyond the comedy some complex scenes with deeper meanings arose. My favorite scene in the entire film was when gandalfini was destroying the houses; I felt the characters pain as his lover KW had just walked out on him. And while his character proved to be somewhat of a “brat” throughout the film and in the scene mentioned above, that was something for the audience to understand and dislike. As my fellow dolphin member Colleen did. We were supposed to view those two characters as “brats” why do you think they were the only characters who couldn’t understand bob and terry. They were too uptight and unable to take a joke and relax, and that’s why people in their lives were walking out on them, because they were just being “brats”. Which both characters realized to some degree near the end of the film, in which Gandalfini howls and Max runs home to his mom.
Another element which leads to many laughs is how Jonze uses his Wild Thing characters, utilizing them in every aspect, they can knock down trees, build amazing tunnels, they sleep in giant dog piles, all fun ideas from Jonze and company, which lead to many laughs. And the voices were played to perfection, Forest Whittaker creates a great character with his loomy low voice, and Catharine O’Hara creates a witchy character with her high pitched crackling voice. Dano’s poor and helpless goat is amazing and perfect for the character and Chris Cooper, wow!
In closing I agree 100 percent with my other dolphin members in the sense that the CGI/Puppets were a miracle, and obviously the movie would not have been quite what it was without being able to see the emotion in the characters faces, but that’s not what makes the characters so great, its starts with there individual personalities and the lines written for them and in that sense Jonze creates amazing creatures, aside from the great cinematic CGI/Puppets. The cinematography is pretty great, especially during the scenes which take place at night or day for that matter. Oh, and I would have to side with Drew on Max’s acting.
A very great movie, and I cannot wait for more from Spike.