jerf
Babby
Posts: 246
|
Post by jerf on Oct 25, 2009 5:01:14 GMT -5
Sorry I don't like obnoxious children in my movies. Max was not a likable character at all.
|
|
|
Post by tara on Oct 25, 2009 5:29:46 GMT -5
Why would you even go and see this, then?
|
|
|
Post by Lickitung on Oct 25, 2009 5:54:56 GMT -5
The movie has a set guideline for how long you have to get the story across; books are not held to that limitation. In the case of Where the Wild Things Are: I believe that the book was meant for children. I do not believe so that the movie was. That's fine, however, as an adult I expect my movies to be held to a standard higher than that of a children's book. I'm sure a child has no contextual comparisons for how plot should be structured and how elements of drama are used properly, but I do. And I feel that this movie had a lot of potential to be really epic, and almost got there, but that almost made it worse than if it hadn't tried at all. is the implication then that there is one 'set' way of structuring a narrative for film? (eg introduction, conflict, climax, resolution) i take it that this movie doesn't follow this structure, but i don't think that necessarily guarantees its a poor film or anything, does it? (bearing in mind i haven't seen it)
|
|
|
Post by Nick Taxidermy on Oct 25, 2009 8:45:17 GMT -5
And I feel that this movie had a lot of potential to be really epic, and almost got there, but that almost made it worse than if it hadn't tried at all. see, and here's your problem. this film was definitely not supposed to be "epic." it was supposed to be personal.
|
|
|
Post by noah on Oct 25, 2009 15:29:38 GMT -5
The movie has a set guideline for how long you have to get the story across; books are not held to that limitation. In the case of Where the Wild Things Are: I believe that the book was meant for children. I do not believe so that the movie was. That's fine, however, as an adult I expect my movies to be held to a standard higher than that of a children's book. I'm sure a child has no contextual comparisons for how plot should be structured and how elements of drama are used properly, but I do. And I feel that this movie had a lot of potential to be really epic, and almost got there, but that almost made it worse than if it hadn't tried at all. is the implication then that there is one 'set' way of structuring a narrative for film? (eg introduction, conflict, climax, resolution) i take it that this movie doesn't follow this structure, but i don't think that necessarily guarantees its a poor film or anything, does it? (bearing in mind i haven't seen it) It's hard to explain without being able to give you solid examples, but the movie does follow this structure, but very poorly. There is an introduction, conflict, climax and resolution and by what I mean by poorly is that these elements work in tandem with each other, and they were under-utilized in that regard. And no, not all movies have to follow traditional Aristotle styled drama, but you'd be surprised just how many do, even if you can't tell. And I don't see why a movie can't be epic and personal?
|
|
jerf
Babby
Posts: 246
|
Post by jerf on Oct 25, 2009 18:16:56 GMT -5
Why would you even go and see this, then? Because the Max in the book I've read was not obnoxious. This kid was a little shit. The movie would have been watchable if he weren't a little shit. There's a difference between being a little bit mischievous and a total psychotic lunatic of a child in need of serious therapy.
|
|
|
Post by Lickitung on Oct 26, 2009 9:26:53 GMT -5
It's hard to explain without being able to give you solid examples, but the movie does follow this structure, but very poorly. There is an introduction, conflict, climax and resolution and by what I mean by poorly is that these elements work in tandem with each other, and they were under-utilized in that regard. And no, not all movies have to follow traditional Aristotle styled drama, but you'd be surprised just how many do, even if you can't tell. ohhhh kekeke i get you. alright i will reserve judgement for after i see it (which is after december 3rd here...stupidly)
|
|
|
Post by Nick Taxidermy on Oct 26, 2009 10:25:19 GMT -5
Why would you even go and see this, then? Because the Max in the book I've read was not obnoxious. This kid was a little shit. The movie would have been watchable if he weren't a little shit. There's a difference between being a little bit mischievous and a total psychotic lunatic of a child in need of serious therapy. but that was the whole fuckinhg point! he was getting over what made him this little antichrist. it was his encounter with what made him who he was. that kid's performance was electric. incredible beyond his years.
|
|
|
Post by tara on Oct 26, 2009 14:01:38 GMT -5
Because the Max in the book I've read was not obnoxious. This kid was a little shit. The movie would have been watchable if he weren't a little shit. There's a difference between being a little bit mischievous and a total psychotic lunatic of a child in need of serious therapy. Haha, what? Max was a little shit in the book too, that's why he got sent to his room without dinner! Well, okay, let me rephrase. Max isn't necessarily a little shit. He's a 9 year old boy dealing with some heavy issues in the only way he knows how. If you really think that Max in the movie was a total psychotic lunatic, you can't have been exposed to that many kids that age in your life. His behavior is pretty typical.
|
|
|
Post by rc on Oct 26, 2009 15:05:44 GMT -5
Max was played exceptionally well. The tantrums and similiar actions didn't impress me nearly as much as the acting in the latter half of the movie, where his emotional expressions were flawless. That kid's got a long career ahead of him.
Very enjoyable movie, soundtrack worked well with the film. There were a few disagreeable plot points, but they were easily overlooked.
"MAKE ME FOOD, WOMAN!"
|
|
|
Post by twhneal on Oct 26, 2009 18:29:24 GMT -5
I feel as though I cheated myself out of some of the magic of this movie because I was constantly trying to analyze the imaginary characters and world to figure out how Spike was connecting them to Max's subconscious. For instance, every time KW showed up, I would be asking myself, "Now, is this the KW that represents Max's mother, or the KW that represents his sister?" rather than just enjoying it. I think I was the only one walking out of it who immediately asked whether anyone else thought that the bison-headed wild thing represented Max's absent father figure.
|
|
|
Post by noah on Oct 26, 2009 18:41:19 GMT -5
I thought Max's acting was really well done. I thought everyone's acting was pretty good, as was the dialogue and the delivery.
Neal: I interpreted it as either Max's absent father, or his sister's boyfriend with his silent guilt. I wasn't sure because when the Bull guy was jumping on the cliff ledge, I pictured the boyfriend smashing the igloo, and the bull's final words as max left was the unspoken thing that he might have said.
I also always saw KW as his mom, as opposed to his sister. I always saw Judith as the sister. I saw Frank and Terry as being his mom's boyfriends, instead of his sister's boyfriends, especially with the sqwuaking reminded me of Peanuts and how adults sounded. Judith seemed like his sister in how I would see the older sister of a younger brother. That the younger brother is lavished with attention, making the sister jealous and feeling unimportant.
|
|
|
Post by twhneal on Oct 26, 2009 18:55:35 GMT -5
I interpreted the bison-head as the father initially because of the feet. I feel like a father's large feet would be one of the main things a young child would remember about their dad, especially if he became a non-presence later in their young life. Of course, the feet are a part of the original Sendak illustrations, but I think there's a fair chance that I'm right.
|
|
|
Post by noah on Oct 26, 2009 18:59:29 GMT -5
I definitely think theres more than fair chance you are.
I also kept wondering if all of the creatures were somehow attached to his real world relationships, but its impossible and I don't like not knowing.
|
|
|
Post by tara on Oct 26, 2009 19:57:33 GMT -5
Well, goddamnit.
Just when I thought I had the movie figured out, you two come and talk sense.
|
|
|
Post by xbeerdrinkerx on Oct 27, 2009 22:27:26 GMT -5
I liked the movie a lot. I thought script had the most realistic, least condescending kids dialogue I'd ever heard.
To me the wild things were a great representation of the emotions Max had at the beginning of the movie. As we see Carol (the wild side of Max) start to appear more irrational and absurd to the rest of the characters, Max begins to realize how ridiculous he's been acting toward his mother. I also thought the part at the end where the silent, mean Wild thing finally talks to Max represented Max moving forward from his darker side. Feel free to disagree, but there's no denying that this movie has a lot of subtext. The fact that I walked out analyzing it like a Kubrick film really surprised me.
I will say that I didn't like the soundtrack at all though. It felt unnatural to me. The rest of the movie delved so deeply into Max's psychology that putting in music he would probably not listen to was jarring. Spike Jonze digs that music, not Max.
|
|