"Fleeting Whimsy"

email this story
read comments (21)
post a comment

The biggest problem with strong>Spike Jonze's Where The Wild Things Are, in the view of Variety's Todd McCarthy, "is not the look of the costumed creatures but the manner in which they speak.

There are fine creative inventions in the film, he adds, "but nothing much is ever at stake, causing a story that begins in dynamic fashion to slowly devolve to the level of fleeting whimsy."
'
Things is "fleet of foot, emotionally attuned to its subject and instinctively faithful to its celebrated source, and it earns a lot of points for its hand-crafted look and unhomogenized, dare-one-say organic rendering of unrestrained youthful imagination. But Jonze's sharp instincts and vibrant visual style can't quite compensate for the lack of narrative eventfulness that increasingly bogs down this bright-minded picture."

Fantastic Talking Fox<< previous | next >>Handoff

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on October 12, 2009 at 6:30 AM

comment #1

Mighty Kornholio says ...

Seeing a lot of positive buzz for this thing.

Posted by Mighty Kornholio at October 12, 2009 6:52 AM

comment #2

actionman says ...

Scott and Phillips flipped for it during At the Movies. Haven't heard one bad thing about it. And I'm not surprised...it looks like a masterpiece.

Posted by actionman at October 12, 2009 6:58 AM

comment #3

Eloi Manning says ...

Max Records is such an awesome name. Sounds like a shop.

Posted by Eloi Manning at October 12, 2009 7:09 AM

comment #4

NotImpressed1Yet says ...

Yes, Scott and Phillips went nuts and made a compelling case.

Off topic, this was the first episode of the new regime at At The Movies that I'd seen - had they run a single commercial promoting the new lineup? - and it gave me the warm and fuzzies seeing two REAL movie critics talk passionately and more or less intelligently about film on network television. It wasn't particularly amazing but in comparison to what came before it, a revelation.

Posted by NotImpressed1Yet at October 12, 2009 7:17 AM

comment #5

Phreaker says ...

It seems like the trades are often in disagreement with the rest of the critics lately. Yet Jeff only posts the negative, being how he feels about the WB.

Posted by Phreaker at October 12, 2009 7:50 AM

comment #6

Eloi Manning says ...

It seems to be therapeutic for the blubbery fanboys. McWeeny, Knowles and Faraci all welled up and talked about their childhoods in their reviews. McWeeny even said he's in therapy for anger issues. Man alive.

Posted by Eloi Manning at October 12, 2009 8:17 AM

comment #7

drbob says ...

I've heard the phrase "damning with faint praise." This review sounds like "raving with faint condemnation." He's grasping at straws trying to find ways to criticize the movie. Fleeting whimsy seems like a good thing to me.

Posted by drbob at October 12, 2009 8:21 AM

comment #8

Chase Kahn says ...

Yes, Michael Phillips and A.O. Scott loved it, and I'm also seeing this TV spot that says that Peter Travers gave it 4 Stars, yet obviously Rolling Stone hasn't run it yet - has anyone seen that?

Posted by Chase Kahn at October 12, 2009 8:25 AM

comment #9

Josh Massey says ...

"McWeeny, Knowles and Faraci all welled up and talked about their childhoods in their reviews."

Yeah, but they did the same things in their reviews for Max Payne and Fast and Furious, so that's not saying much. (At least, I assume they did).

Posted by Josh Massey at October 12, 2009 8:29 AM

comment #10

Eloi Manning says ...

McWeeny's "Adaptation" review is a masterpiece. In it, he recounts how he had to be helped into his house as he was so overcome with tears. It's hilarious.

Posted by Eloi Manning at October 12, 2009 8:35 AM

comment #11

Chase Kahn says ...

By the way, I was watching "The Brothers Bloom" on Blu-ray the other day and I noticed that the actor playing Mark Ruffalo's character in the prologue is none other than Max Records...

Posted by Chase Kahn at October 12, 2009 8:41 AM

comment #12

Rich S. says ...

The trailers have certainly looked impressive, but in the one extended clip I saw, Gandolfini's voice work took me right out of the film. It's not his fault, but his voice is so identifiable as Tony Soprano, I immediately locked onto it. Hopefully, during the course of the film, I'll forget about that and just go with the flow. But for the two minutes I saw, it was jarring.

Posted by Rich S. at October 12, 2009 9:00 AM

comment #13

Krillian says ...

I'm sure when the book came out in 1963, some critic somewhere called it pendantic, simplistic, flat and good heavens, people, it's only ten sentences. Try challenging your children.

It and Saving Private Ryan are the only trailers I've ever seen that made me tear, and I really hope I feel the way Phillips & Scott did.

Posted by Krillian at October 12, 2009 9:31 AM

comment #14

whereisthysting says ...

The book may be a masterpiece of kid's lit, but this film looks like an art-film "HR Puff n' Stuff" to me.

No thank you

Posted by whereisthysting at October 12, 2009 9:59 AM

comment #15

Ponderer says ...

"I'm sure when the book came out in 1963, some critic somewhere called it pendantic, simplistic, flat and good heavens, people, it's only ten sentences. Try challenging your children."

Sendak recently recounted that the critics HATED the book, but over the first year, librarians made it a huge hit as kids kept checking it out over and over.

It's annoying that the Variety review complains about the lack of narrative when that's a deliberate choice. I hate reviews that don't review the film as it is, but how they would've made it. ("The lack of the color green in this portrait undermines what is otherwise a sterling interpretation of London's post-war landscape.")

Posted by Ponderer at October 12, 2009 11:37 AM

comment #16

Ponderer says ...

"The book may be a masterpiece of kid's lit, but this film looks like an art-film "HR Puff n' Stuff" to me.

No thank you"

The best response to this is Sendak's own:

"I love this movie and I hope people like it, because if they don't, they can go straight to hell."

Posted by Ponderer at October 12, 2009 11:41 AM

comment #17

bluefugue says ...

>It's annoying that the Variety review complains about the lack of narrative when that's a deliberate choice.

Something's being a deliberate choice doesn't make it immune from criticism.

Posted by bluefugue at October 12, 2009 12:45 PM

comment #18

Ponderer says ...

"Something's being a deliberate choice doesn't make it immune from criticism."

No, but it does sometimes mean that they missed the point. This happened a lot with 2001 as well. Admittedly, I haven't seen Wild Things yet, but I generally assume when I read criticisms like this that it's the reviewer's failing, not the film's.

Posted by Ponderer at October 12, 2009 12:49 PM

comment #19

The Playlist says ...

Re: geek reviewers. Man, you guys are cracking me the fuck up. LOL, thanks for the laugh.

Posted by The Playlist at October 12, 2009 1:59 PM

comment #20

Baron Munchausen-by-Proxy says ...

"Off topic, this was the first episode of the new regime at At The Movies that I'd seen...and it gave me the warm and fuzzies seeing two REAL movie critics talk passionately and more or less intelligently about film on network television. It wasn't particularly amazing but in comparison to what came before it, a revelation."
Are you positive that they weren't drunk?
Be careful, that may imply that a wide knowledge of films is a more important trait for hosting duties than being instantly telegenic.

Posted by Baron Munchausen-by-Proxy at October 12, 2009 2:51 PM

comment #21