Why I Disliked “Where The Wild Things Are”

By: AnaKasparian
Posted: Oct 19, 2009 at 12:34
Category: Entertainment
Votes: 7
Viewed: 3288
Comments: 6


I was surprised at the number of people who weren’t tolerant enough to accept my personal opinion on “Where the Wild Things Are.” I did a review of the movie on The Young Turks Show, and I got the most negative response. Opinions on a child film shouldn’t lead to a backlash of foul comments. My personal preferences led me to hate the film.

Now let me explain in detail why the movie was not my favorite.

In my review, I said the film was boring, and the main child actor annoyed the living daylights out of me. I understand Spike Jonze’s attempt in making the movie deep, dark, and meaningful for people who were raised by a single parent and grew up feeling isolated. I understand that the movie also attempted to make evident the incredible imagination of a child. But for me, the movie failed at both attempts because it was slow, unclear, and dragged on without a climax. In fact, if you’re interested in an anti-climactic film, this one is for you. The long pauses where the characters just sit there and stare at one another makes me reminiscent of the MTV reality show “The Hills.”

The movie begins with Max being a complete brat. He gets into so much trouble that his mother, played by the fabulous Catherine Keener, tries to discipline him. After she yells at him, he responds by running away. As he runs through what seems like the woods, he begins to imagine that he is sailing off to some remote island inhabited by monsters.

The monsters in the movie were all part of this dysfunctional family. But the writers decided not to make the cause of the dysfunction clear. For instance, why did KW, one of the female monsters, run away from her family? Why did she decide to come back? Why did she particularly have a hard time getting along with Carol? Is it because Carol is an obnoxious monster who randomly breaks things? Did Carol do something terrible to her personally? All of this was unclear and unexplained.

KW had an easy time getting along with Max, who is the child character in the movie. But Max closely resembles Carol, the out-of-control, over-emotional, and extremely irritating member of the monster clan. So how can KW hate Carol, but be so fond of Max? It might be because Max is imagining all this craziness and children tend to imagine things that make no sense. I get it. I’m supposed to be amused by that.

I wasn’t.

Max deceived the monsters into thinking that he is really this powerful king. The monsters promised not to eat him as long as he would solve their family’s unexplained dysfunction. But we never know what the family problems really are, and Max leaves their island without solving anything. In fact, he leaves the island while the monster family is in turmoil.

In the end, Max leaves his imaginary world and goes back home. He never apologizes to his mom for being an undisciplined pest, and she serves him a nice warm dinner. Then they sit at the kitchen table staring at one another for what feels like 20 minutes.

For some viewers, the point of the movie was that even though all families have problems, there is nothing more comforting than being part of one. I know that was the point of the movie, but it was not portrayed clearly. All the unanswered questions were distracting for me, and the director’s attempt to be vague and mysterious only worked against him. In addition, Max was not a character that I could relate to. In fact, rather than feeling sympathetic for his sense of isolation, I found myself disliking him for being such an unpleasant child. The only character that I loved was Max’s mother. Catherine Keener never disappoints me in a movie.

Regardless of the plot, the film was unexciting for me. I thought it might have to do with the fact that this was a child’s movie. However, I would make the argument that Disney’s “Monsters vs. Aliens” or “Up” were only about ten times more entertaining and amusing.

I’m surprised that this movie was such a hit in its opening weekend. But to each its own.

\"Where the Wild Things Are\", Did you like it?

  •    
  •    
  •    
  •    

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Report this article


  1. Hey, Ana. Thanks for the add on facebook, but as for this movie, I saw it myself and I don’t know if it’s your negative review that swayed me before I saw it, but I didn’t like it too much myself. Toward the end it gets a little interesting when Carol starts to feel betrayed by Max, other than that it’s straight trash. But to me, much of the meaning was so blatent and in your face that it made the whole thing corny. Each monster obviously seemed to represent some aspect of Max or some aspect of his life that it felt like you were being hit over the head with it. but there’s no doubt this movie dragged and though what Jonze was trying to say made sense, much of what happened in the movie di NOT. My personal their is that Spike Jonze fans had their heads so far up Spike Jonze’s ass that they were unable to see the real movie and instead a saw this naive fanboy interpretation. I give it a D-

    Reply to this comment

  2. trey says:

    every try to make a whole movie based on a book with around ten sentences? yeah, thats what i thought

    Reply to this comment

  3. Bob says:

    Yeah if its not a superhero movie Im not watching it. “In this country full of neanderthals, I wear it as a fucking badge of honor.”

    Reply to this comment

  4. m.geer says:

    I understand that childhood is a fleeting, easily forgotten whirl of experiences and miseducations, and not everyone has the overwhelming emotional confusion that seems typical of young boys (which could explain your initial failure to relate to the film), nor their tendency to compensate by escaping into their own imagination. Yet, to approach this film with the subjectivity of an adult, and to seek a definitive moral at the end of the story is to forget what the experience of childhood was like for some of us. Further more, to base your enjoyment of a film solely upon your own limited personal experience is an unfortunate shortcoming. A shortcoming which could be easily resolved through a broader exploration into the reactions of those with broader experiences. Maurice Sendak for example, would be a formidable resource if you truly wanted to understand this film. His response was both positive, and insightful. Your review on the other hand, while claiming to be from personal opinion, was heavy with poorly framed conjecture and narrow minded hostility. It is possible to share an opinion without sounding opinionated. I am encouraged that so many “weren’t tolerant enough to accept” you condemnatory review.

    Reply to this comment

  5. spurnthemuse says:

    Ana, Maurice Sendak is not one of us. You think like one of us, but maybe you are, and maybe you’rent.

    For instance, in the movin picture, that is under discussion, the dishonor, in unfulfillment of the child’s duty, which you, so astutely, brought to the forefront, of the attention, of your audience, would be as nothin, to Sendak, I am sure, in comparison, to the sale of his books.

    That is not how we think, and Ana, that is not how you think, apparently.

    The reason, why so many meritless productions have been sold so well, as they have been, is the recent, and temporary, lessenin, of our numbers, and the, also recent, and also temporary, increasin, of the numbers, of the wicked. That trend is just about over.

    The ancient prophecy states, that we will not become extinct, before the wicked will be annihilated, so there is no cause for dread, on that account.

    Monsters and big reptiles resemble the beins, in the spiritual realms, known as demons, genii, jinn, mothmen, and so on. The top filmmakers, and their lords, have been members of cults, for generations, who have invited demonic possession, so that what we have seen, on the screens, is the creativity of the possessors, not of their host-humans.

    If a devil can possess a human filmmaker, and cause him to desensitize a child away from the fear of monsters, shreks, and whatnot, then they have gotten a “foot in the door” for themselves to possess that child’s mind, at some time, or another. However, the trend is bein reversed, and the perps, those families, whose tradition it has been, to invite demonic possession, are becomin extinct, even as you read this.

    “To each its own!” SPURN THE MUSE!!

    Reply to this comment

  6. spurnthemuse says:

    On second viewin, I realize, your diction is quite thorough, is it not?

    Reply to this comment

Leave a Comment