#36-Where The Wild Things Are (2009)

Where The Wild Things Are

It is truly saying something, when I believe that what is quite possible one of the most important films of 2009 is based on a children’s book that has merely ten sentences in it’s entire construct. Based on the 1963 book of the same name by Maurice Sendak, Where The Wild Things are is recreated for film by also famous novelist Dave Eggers, and acclaimed director Spike Jonze.

Jonze is most notable for directing the Charlie Kaufman films, Adaptation and Being John Malkovich, (which I really need to re-watch) both of which are excellent films. Here he takes a slightly different approach adapting a children’s novel rather than some very original adult material. However, simply because it is based on a book for kids does not make Where The Wild Things are any less dramatic, adult, or important than his previous works.

Where The Wild Things Are is about a young boy named Max who is the young child of a single Mom. Max faces some of the normal calamities that strike childhood in these times, such as the single parent, a new step-parent, an older sibling and simple loneliness. All these conflicting emotions come together one night, and after a fight with his Mother, Max finally does what most children only dream of and run away. He escapes onto a boat and sails across the ocean to an island full of ‘Wild Things’ where they make Max their king, and he begins his rule.


Jonze is one of the bright young talents in Hollywood. He has made great film after great film again and again, without hitting a wrong note thus far. Jason Reitman is a director of similar talent, along with Edgar Wright, and possibly Marc Webb, depending on what his next move is. Jonze’s talent is still on display here, with Wild Things having an exceptionally cool look and feel to it. The film moves a long at a decent pace, even if there are moments when it drags, and not much is going on. The hardships of being young are captured here perfectly, and you can still feel the sting of the one painful snowball that seemed to end every fight. The emotion is incredibly rich and flowing here, with each Wild Thing representing an emotion that Max would have experienced in the real world. It is a great way of communicating ideas and themes throughout the film, without beating the audience over the head with them.

"I'm an explorer mostly"

Max Records, the young boy who plays Max does an amazing job as the films leading man. He is the only real person on screen for ninety percent of the film and carries emotion very well. He is surrounded by imaginary creatures and manages to keep himself in the correct place mentally. His performance has few of the memorable scenes in which people scream and yell, but has a more subdued feeling about that makes it even more unbelievable. The voices of the Wild Things are cool as well, coming from some extraordinary talent, including the likes of: James Gandolfini, Lauren Ambrose, Chris Cooper, Forest Whitaker, Catharine O’Hara, and Paul Dano. It also includes some small performances from Catharine Keener, as Max’s Mother, and Mark Ruffalo as her boyfriend.

The creatures look great. They are a combination of computer animation, puppetry and real life actors inside real suits. The three forms mesh together really well and create a really nice looking effect. The CGI gives them facially movement that allows them to express great emotion as each has their own personality, while the suits and puppetry make them look real, and give them a natural element.

Where The Wild Things are is simply astonishing. Jonze and Eggers manage to make their own creature from this classic story, while holding true to Sendak’s work. Jonze is a fantastic director, and knocks this one out of the park, and continues to play his career perfectly. The young boy Max Records is the most astonishing child actor I have ever seen in a film, and I think his performance deserves some recognition. He carries the entire movie on his back for over an hour and a half, and never once does his performance flinch. He is at times, angry, happy, sad, engaged, lonely and often all of them at the same time. The film captures the image of childhood in all of it’s inglorious beauty, and is often real to the point of heart break. The film is slow sometimes, but never is it boring. This is less of a children’s movie as it is a film for adults to remember what it’s like to be a child. Karen O creates some fun, if at times annoying hipster tunes that do fit the film, and the cinematography captures the wild rumpus that we have in all of us.

I Give Where The Wild Things Are A:

4.5/5

#30-The Lovely Bones (2009)

The Lovely Bones

It is interesting to go from one of Peter Jackson’s more enjoyable films, Dead Alive, to what is possibly his worst, with The Lovely Bones (Mike called it on his comment below Dead Alive) . Once again he is in the business of adapting a novel to the big screen, this time one about a murder instead of a ring, a girl instead of a hobbit, and the 70’s instead of middle earth. And while I think that The Lovely Bones is a hard project to do, simply because you have both strong dealings with fantasy and reality, and must communicate both to the audience in a sense that makes them accessible, I just can’t help but feel like Jackson dropped the ball a little on this one.

Our story follows a young girl by the name of Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) who is living a typical teenage life in the seventies with her Mother (Rachel Weisz), Father (Mark Wahlberg), Brother and Sister. Susie is a typical young girl, loves taking pictures, is in film club, has a crush on the boy, and goes to school. Unfortunately while walking home from club one day she finds out that her neighbor (Stanley Tucci) is building a club house next to the school, ’Just a little something for the kids’ with only one rule: ’no adults allowed’. He invites Susie to be the first one inside the club house, but she never does make it out.

Stanley Tucci received an Oscar nomination for his work on the film, and I got to say, he deserves it. He plays a really creepy man thoroughly and mercilessly. He is simply terrifying to watch onscreen, as with Christoph Waltz in Inglorious Basterds (not quite there, but close) The rest of the cast does a decent job, virtual new-comer Saoirse Ronan does an okay job of playing our lead girl, and Wahlberg and Weisz perform middle ground as well, but unfortunately, their characters get pushed to the wayside by Stanley Tucci, who simply steals the spotlight whenever he appears. Rachel Weisz’s character could have been left out altogether, as could so many others, who seem to be put there for just more dialogue.

Now, what The Lovely Bones does differently from other murder mystery’s, is it puts Susie in ’the in-between’ which is a world of completely fantasy, untouched by reality, as she is able to look down and see her family, and she must remain here until her killer is caught. This is where Jackson excels, he is a great fantasy director, and he can capture leaves on a tree turning into birds and flying off well enough, but where he struggles is with the real world, which is half of the film as well. Part of the film is the family falling apart after the murder of their daughter, but I didn’t care about the family falling apart because I didn’t care about the family. They are not given enough time to tell us their story, nor are we given enough reason to care about them. All we want, or really need to see is the Tucci character interacting with them and the police. I could care less about the grandmother moving in with them, and I could care less about their marital issues, and the screenplay was not written to make you care, which unfortunately is a major flaw of the movie because it is a good chuck of its running time.

"My name is Salmon, like the fish."

Another problem that comes with the movie is the way the Tucci character is created. He is set up as the nicest guy in the world before we meet him, so we have a little tiny spec of sympathy for him, even though we know he is going to be the killer. He then proceeds to what killers do, and progressively get more and more creepy by the end of the film. What is wrong with this, is we never actually see the murder. We see a little bit of struggle and that’s it, the camera cuts away before she is actually killed, and in fact, because of the whole ‘in-between’ business, we think that she’s escaped for some time, which is a fatal mistake. Though we already dislike the Tucci character, and hate him as it is, had we actually seen the murder, had the tones been darker, had the camera been rougher, we could have really, really hated this man. I think, by the way a few of the scenes go, this movie was originally intended to be an R rated film. To be a hard-hitting make you cry kinda movie, and was later changed into a PG-13 teeny-bopper thing, which was not a good move for the film itself.

Another gigantic problem I had with it was the ending. When it happen I just stared open-mouthed at the screen and went “Really?”. I mean I won’t spoil it here, but we knew that the real world could effect the ‘in-between’, but that just took it way to far. Not only that but the way the scene was shot, it happen all to quickly, without much context, and couldn’t really effect our opinion. It was one of those rousing scenes where everyone screams in joy because of it, it was just this tacked-on little ‘oh, by the way, this happens’ which nearly killed the movie for me. Because this part was happening in the real world. In reality this never would have happened. The film needed to separate the reality and in-between to make it effective, but they just don’t pull them far enough apart, and this scene is the perfect example of this.

One thing however that I did enjoy about the film, was it had some cool camera-work at times. Such as extreme rough close-ups of his hands, and a few nice Snorri-cam shots that made the whole thing feel a lot darker for a few moments, which you know I would have appreciated. But these hardly last long enough, or are enough in general to bring the film up from the slump it had already created for itself, and it pretty much just sits for a long time, doing nothing for the audience, just sitting.

Overall, The Lovely Bones just doesn’t work. I think that the project could have been done well as an adult Fairy Tale, a sort of Pan’s Labyrinth kind of thing, but it just doesn’t. The film is too easy on the eyes in the real world, has too many characters we just don’t care about, and just sits about trying to be something that its not. Peter Jackson can be good, but his great fantasy sequences can’t overpower what should be happening in reality, which is nothing. Stanley Tucci is the saving grace here, with an excellently dark performance as the killer that we don’t see enough of, and a few shots that seemed to be from the original cut of the film also make it a tad better. I almost want to give it in the 1-ish out of five zone, but damn if Tucci didn’t give me the creeps every time.

I Give The Lovely Bones A:
2/5

#27-Tideland (2005)

Tideland

Monty Pyton animator turned director Terry Gilliam makes his way onto the blog again! It’s his second time, and it hopefully it won’t be the last. He was previously on for Brazil, a film that I absoloutly loved. Tideland, one of his most recent attempts is one of his worst. I don’t think he has made a specifically bad film yet, but Tideland gets pretty close.

The story follows a young girl named Juliza Rose (Jodelle Ferland), who is the child of two very neglectful parents. Both into hard drugs, her father (Jeff Bridges) and her mother (Jennifer Tilly) are very bad for, and to her health. Having no friends being on the move constantly because of her father being a musician, she has no friends, except for her dolls. After her mother dies, and her father overdoeses, she continually escapes into a fantasy world, filled with many creepy characters and strange elements.

The film was universally panned by fans and critics alike upon intial realese. And I have to say, I don’t really disagree with them. The film is very weak for most of it’s course, having no real centerfold story, except for the life of this young girl, which we learn realativly nothing about. Her escapades into a fantasyland becomes boring after a few visits, as the movie plods along at a pretty slow rate.

The side characters are interesting and fun, more so than our main girl, which also leads to another problem, similair to the one I had with Everything Is Illuminated, where we want to see more, and are more interested in the dilemmas of the supporting cast than our leaders. Also to note, the film boasts having stars such as Bridges and Tilly, but they are hardly in the film.

Speaking of which, Jodelle Ferland gives quite possibly one of the best perfomances I’ve seen in awhile. And this is coming from someone who absoloutly hates children in film. She carries the film on her shoulders, completely on her own. But she has a very boring and plain character to play, which makes her performance something less. Nonethless, it is quite amazing.

I also applaud the films style and art direction. Its very unique in its use of special effects, and ideas. The dolls are particularly creepy, and the day/night transitions are very cool. Another thing the film has on it’s side was cinematography, which kept an otherwise slow and boring film interesting and fresh.

Overall, Tideland was a very mixed bag. The film had cool style, and an excellent lead actress. However, style cannot overcome substance, and a lackluster plot, slow story, poor character development, and pretty uninteresting people make the movie somewhat hard, and annoying to watch, it isn’t necissarily the bad, but that doesn’t make it good either.


I Give Tideland A:
2/5

#21-Brazil (1985)

Brazil

To even begin with the film of Brazil, you need to know what happened behind the scenes. Much of which is still reported on as one of Hollywood's biggest calamities. The film was written and directed by former Monty Python animator Terry Gilliam. Gilliam's fantasy was bleak, dystopian, and very distant from what modern American's had recently seen in fantasy, with films like Alien. In Europe, Brazil had a running length of 142 minutes, where it was met with critical and commericial success. A major battle between the films creators, and the American distributor cut out major portions of the film, cutting it down significantly to 94 minutes. Gilliam feriously protested this, and without the consent of the studio showed the film to the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, where it won Best Picture, which then prompted the distributor to meet with Gilliam halfway, realesing a 131 minute version, which still performed poorly at the US box-office.

Much like the controversy behind the film, what happens in front of the camera is hard to follow, and understand. In a fictionalized version of Britain, Johnathan Pryce plays a man by the name of Sam Lowry, a low-ranking government official. Strangley enough, Sam constantly has fantasy daydreams of rescuing a damsal in distress. Sam is sent to to rectify a mistake, the governement accidently captured, and killed a man by the name of Harry Buttle, instead of suspected terrorist Harry Tuttle. When arriving at their home, Sam finds that a woman in the second floor, is an exact replica of the woman he has been dreaming about. Through a series of incidents, Sam meets up with both the mysterious woman, and the real Harry Tuttle, and soon becomes a wanted terrorist himself, and has to deal with this, his love life, and his plastic surgery addicted mother, all while trying to fix his air conditioning.

While it may sound like a comedy of errors, Brazil has got to be the best social, and political satire film, since Dr. Stranglove. Terry Gilliam has woven a very intense story here, and it certainly shows. While the film is largly a visual fantasy, and even some story elements are taken from classic fantasy story, the film is actually largly grounded in reality. Nothing seems to be going right for this character, even though he is just a low-ranking official. The film also delves into political satire, on both sides of the pond, with the film being based out of England, and largly poking fun at parliment. But also noting the failures of America's current political system. The film has a strangly modern feeling to it, even watching it now, with major sub-plots dealing with terrorist bombings, drug addiction, and plastic surgery.

"Here's your recepit for your husband, and my recepit for your recepit."

Now, the verison of the film that I saw, was the original 142 minute directors cut. Now, I am not saying that this film is just dark and bleak for fantasy, it truly is dark, and bleak, and even somewhat depressing by the end, especially what it has to say about the current human. Terry Gilliam is excellent at fantasy but what he does even better is reality. And that is where Brazil succeeds for the most part. This is one of the best films I have seen this year. The top three from my first twenty-one reviews definatly include Brazil. And while I did like it a lot, the film does come with a few minor problems, but first with the positives. Johnathan Pryce gives a stellar performance as Sam, and was very good at what the role was. A man, with too much to handle, and tons of stress, slowly unwraveling is a lot harder to do than most would think. Roberto De Niro does a great job in a realtivly small role, not really that small, but for a movie of this length. It is a bit of a switch from the regular De Niro, and a nice switch indeed. One of the best performances though comes from Kathrine Helmond, who plays Sam's insane mother, addicted to plastic surgery and fashion, she provides much of the humor of the film, and much of the satire, which goes hand-in-hand all to well.

One of my minor nit-picks with the film comes from its length, running two hours and twenty-four minutes long does seem to show at some points, and there are many times when I thought: 'oh, I guess that's the end', and it just kept on running. It never seemed to end (though it makes sense now why), but it was sometimes, hard to pay attention. This is not helped by the fact that the story is very, very thick, with lots of characters, and names, and times, and people, and things, and sub-plots all revolving around one person, making the whole thing seem very crowded, this is deeped, again with the Tuttle/Buttle mix-up, that the viewer constantly has to sort out mentally.

Amazingly though, Brazil is still an excellent film. Faults like those usually ruin a movie for me, but Brazil had a strange dreamlike effect on me, and was a thrill to watch. The film has meaning, and passion, and thought, and people we can relate to, all while surrouding itself in an incredible visual package that makes it a pleasure to sit through. Things like convuluted story, and running length seem like small complaints when you look at the picture as a whole. Terry Gilliam has created something special here, and I hope he comes back to dramas, and satires similair to this film. The cast, direction, and writing are all great. Topped off with excellent costumes, sets, cineamatography, lighting, and score. Brazil, is truly, a film to behold.

I Give Brazil A:

4.5/5

#11-Being John Malkovich (1999)

Being John Malkovich

Remember awhile back when I was reviewing the film Synechdoche, New York? I absouloutly loved that movie, and I gave most of the credit to writer/director Charlie Kaufman. Remember how I said that I hope to be reviewing more of his films as the time goes on? Well here is another! His first big picture was Being John Malkovich. It was originally quite a small film, with a very impressive cast, which includes: John Cusack, Cameron Diaz, Cathrine Keener, and of course, John Malkovich. The film is very fun, very quick, and sure to make you question your own sanity. Unlike Synechdoche, this film is not also directed by Kaufman, this one is directed by Spike Jonze, who would go on to direct another Kaufman film, and Where The Wild Things Are.

What did I tell you? Charlie Kaufman is one of the most original minds in Hollywood today. Being John Malkovich is about a struggling puppeteer, who, in lack of a demand for pupetts, gets a job on the 7th and a half floor of a large office building. While here, he finds a small door in his office, which, once crawled through, leads you inside John Malkovich. Seeing in great detail what this could mean for him, and his stuggling family, him and a co-worker hatch an plan to sell trips into John Malkovich for $200 a pop.

First off, let me tell you that this film is led by an allstar cast. All of whom perform marvelously here. I am usually not a very big John Cusack fan, or haven't been lately, but he does excellenty here. He pulls off his role quite well, and even does an interesting job with some wacky hair, and outfits. Neither am I a fan of Cameron Diaz, (with some exceptions), but she does excellently here as well, as a pet obsessed young woman. Cathrine Keener was even nominated for an Oscar for her performance here, and it is certainly deserved. And then of course there is John Malkovich, who I always love, and her sure does an excellent job playing himself, granted a very fictionalized version, but himself nonetheless.

"What happens when a man goes into his own head?"

Though Spike Jonze also got nominated for an Academy Award for his directing on the film, I still feel that at this point, he hadn't fully developed his craft quite yet, which he is now, nearly flawless at. The film seemed very strange in length. I still cannot tell whether this film was too long, or too short, because it has very odd pacing. It just seemed to end rather ubruptly. Granted, I still think this is one of the few films that ends nearly perfectly, it just wraps up, too quickly, I suppose it is.

Charlie Kaufman is always excellent at what he does, as I have praised before. And this is no different. Though Being John Malkovich is not my favorite film he has done, it is still an amazing piece of cinema. While most of Kaufman's works are fantasy grounded in reality, this one seems mostly fantasy. Don't get me wrong the film is still deeply rooted in human nature and existence, but you won't realize that until after the fact. As Synechdoche, was one of his darker films, Malkovich, is one of his lighter.

As you can tell, I really like this movie, Being John Malkovich is a great whimsical adventure to be enjoyed by all who care to enjoy it. Watch it as a fantasy, watch it as a drama, however you watch it, just be sure to watch it. Let the message, the acting, the story, the lighting, the editing (which is excellent), the music, the direction, and all the other factors seep into you, so you can truly enjoy this amazing piece in movie history. It breaks the fourth wall, it acts as if there are multiple dimensions to a single one, it is just a lot of fun.


I Give Being John Malkovich A:
4/5