Where the Wild Things Are

[Jim3k]

I'm not entirely sure what to say about this movie. One thing is for sure -- it is not for children younger that 12 or 13. It's certainly not the children's book which is fairly gentle and and tells the story of a misbehaving child who gets sent to bed without his supper and retreats into an imaginary adventure, later being called downstairs by forgiving parents to his still warm dinner.

The movie, instead, is a child psychology event. It is disjointed, loud and has no pedantic point, other than to teach that a temper out of control leads to destruction. oooh!

I must say I liked the boy, Max Records, and the wild thing characters were very endearing in their anthropomorphic presentations. The voices were great and their emotionalizing was very human -- they provided mirrors to every one of Max's own emotions, supposedly allowing him insight to his own feelings.

On the whole, though, I didn't find the movie all that entertaining -- even though it was the IMAX version.

[tecumseh]

The book was also one of the most brilliantly illustrated books I have ever seen

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

I thought the book was terrible and so i havent seen the movie. But based on your review that's a good thing.

[darthur]

I haven't read the book, but I enjoyed the movie a great deal. It's a straight drama with only touches of humor and only touches of adventure, which actually makes it not really that suited for children. As I see it, the movie is about Max seeing himself and his family (personified in the wild things) from the outside, and getting a new perspective in the process. I thought it was an original, interesting and moving look at childhood and growing up.

But yeah, I agree it's something of a niche film that won't appeal to everyone.

[juise]

I thought the book was terrible

Why? It is universally recognized as one of the greatest children's books of all time. What makes it a terrible children's book?

[camion]

I never read the book, but it a companion viewer quoted it to me on the ride home from the movie, all ten or so sentences.

I liked the movie. It's non-linear and non-literal so if you're looking for a neatly packaged story you will probably be disappointed. I thought it was visually engrossing and identifying the wild things was, and still is, an interesting exercise. I see it as a fascinating look inside the head of a young boy. My main quibble with the movie is I could have done with a bit less shaky-cam work.

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

Why? It is universally recognized as one of the greatest children's books of all time. What makes it a terrible children's book?

I know it was a children's book but i just found it very stupid. Bad storyline, never connected with the characters. It's just my opinion, and by the way i love " The Chronicles Of Narnia" all seven of them.

[Jim3k]

I know it was a children's book but i just found it very stupid. Bad storyline, never connected with the characters. It's just my opinion, and by the way i love " The Chronicles Of Narnia" all seven of them.

Maybe, just maybe, those books are for different aged children...hmmm.

The 'Wild Things' book is for younger children, those who throw tantrums, but who can't yet read and only have short attention spans, maybe less-than-2 to 4. Maybe a step or two past 'Pat the Bunny' or 'Goodnight Moon.' The Narnia series can certainly be read out loud for those children who like listening to stories, but it is also for children who can read well and who have decent attention spans. Big difference.

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

Maybe, just maybe, those books are for different aged children...hmmm.

The 'Wild Things' book is for younger children, those who throw tantrums, but who can't yet read and only have short attention spans, maybe less-than-2 to 4. Maybe a step or two past 'Pat the Bunny' or 'Goodnight Moon.' The Narnia series can certainly be read out loud for those children who like listening to stories, but it is also for children who can read well and who have decent attention spans. Big difference.

Which is the reason i stated JUST MY OPINION.

[JasonEvans]

Are people actually talking about READING the book? You do not read this book for the quality of the prose-- you immerse yourself in the remarkable imagery, you soak up the wonder in your child's eyes as they stare at the pages, you come back to it again and again until the pictures are so familiar that you can see the next page before you even turn it.

I understand that folks are entitled to their opinion of the book, but this is one of the most treasured and universally loved books of all time. I read it -- over and over again -- as a youth and my children have read it over and over again. It spans generations and inspires happiness.

It is not a full story like Chronicles of Narnia or Harry Potter -- comparing it to those books shows a gross misunderstanding of the book's audience. Where The Wild Things Are is to be read in one sitting, with a child under the age of 5. And it should be read by someone who desperately wants to recapture the joy of the first time they read it... when they were under 5.

--Jason "" Evans

[DukieInKansas]

Another sign of my deprived childhood - I don't remember reading it.

I also don't remember reading it to any of the many children I have read to over the years. I do remember seeing the pictures occasionally.

[aimo]

for Halloween I was Max. Thank goodness there are no photos. I think. I made the costume myself out of a cheap white sweatsuit. Still have most of it.

I also have a framed print of the cover picture that a friend gave me years ago. And my senior year roommate's parents gave me a stuffed Max and a tiny set of Sendak's books for my birthday that year. And I have a t-shirt. So, yeah, I kind of like the book, though my collection randomly came about. I never intended to become a Wild Things collector. I had actually forgotten about a lot of it until the movie came out.