Where the Wild Things Are (Theatrical)

Connect to Facebook/Twitter, recommend via email and much more.

---

I´ll admit when walking into "Where the Wild Things Are" I had already heard all the buzz of how many considered Maurice Sendak´s children´s book to be one of the most adored of its time. Granted, I remember having the book as a child, but over forty years later, I can´t say I remember much about it. I´m not quite sure if my mother read it to me or I read it on my own, let alone the length of the book or how many pictures it had. Apparently, there was also an animated version directed by Gene Dietch back in 1973, but I don´t recall much about it, either. No, for me, childhood was more about building tree forts, riding bikes, and playing with Hot-Wheels. To be honest, the childhood friends I do still keep in contact with certainly never talk about what books were great in those times. We were kids and we could have cared less about reading. Television and Saturday morning cartoons were more important in those days.

Nevertheless, I´ll admit I had "Where the Wild Things Are," and I do remember the artwork, which, by the way, in the Spike Jonze 2009 adaptation of it is done quite well, but I can´t say I was ever partial to it. I was more of a Dr. Seuss kid, but, even with his material, I barely remember how "Green Eggs and Ham" turned out. I seem to remember one of Dr. Seuss´s books where a bunch of dogs end up partying in a big tree and yet another where a bird is trying to find its mother. I guess what I´m getting at is I´m walking into this movie expecting to know so much about it because all the previews tell me I should, or in some assuming way it is likely that I do. Well, Warner Brothers, sorry, but I don´t remember a thing about the story, yet they assume after forty-years there´s no possible way I could ever forget the book.

Therefore, here I am, walking into a film a little reluctant to see and a bit perplexed that if the book was so great, then why didn´t they make this film twenty-years ago? And don´t give me that "they didn´t have the technology" thing; I´m not buying it. You might say I was a little disgruntled to see it and I can´t say the previews excited me too much, but there you have it. However, and after the two hours of sitting through it, I´d have to say it´s worth every penny. No, it´s not the greatest children´s film of all time, but it packs enough heart to make you feel like a kid again. Was I surprised? Absolutely.

Directed by Spike Jonze, with production kickbacks from Tom Hanks, 2009´s "Where the Wild Things Are" ends up holding its own as a film. It tells the story of a young boy named Max (Max Records, who is from my home town of Portland, Oregon.) who in the course of an evening gets into a fight with his mother (Catherine Keener), flees the home, and hides in the neighborhood woods. From there we are transported into Max´s imagination as we take a boat ride to Monster Island. There Max meets with several fury, monster-like characters that come close to eating him, but instead accept him as King of the island.

Through Max´s imaginary adventure he bonds with all his newfound friends and develops an even closer bond to Carol (James Gandolfini). Together, they play through one pointless adventure to the next, but uniquely tackle those questions of truth and acceptance all children have at a young age. In other words, the entire story feels a bit spontaneous, but it is a great representation of what possibly goes through the mind of a child. And where it takes us is straight to the heart, leaving us with a warm smile upon our face. Thus, this is probably the way a kid´s movie should feel, especially in an era where children´s films have become too mechanical and spoon-fed. It´s actually nice to see a film from a kid´s perspective that punches its messages with kid gloves, yet succeeds in driving the point home.