Where the Wild Things Are

His (Jonze) obvious affection for, and veneration of, Maurice Sendak's 1963 Caldecott Medal-winning children's book is palpable in his near-perfect live-action adaptation, a dreamy -- and, like Sendak's book, faintly nightmarish -- exploration of one child's tantrum-y side.

What he’s (Jonze) ended up with strikes me as one of the most empathic and psychologically acute of all movies about childhood -- a "Wizard of Oz" for the dysfunctional-family era.

There are some great, rapturous moments in Where the Wild Things Are. Jonze is humbled before the wonders of a child's imagination, and so are we.

The result is an involving experience for all but the most fidgety children and an opportunity for parents to enjoy (rather than endure) a motion picture with their offspring.

Where the film falters is Jonze and novelist Dave Eggers' adaptation, which fails to invest this world with strong emotions.

Warmly and gently handled, though the central story, detailing the personal politics between him and the six childlike monsters, steadily loses steam.

The true soulfulness of Sendak’s parable never emerges.

Childhood redeemed! I've never thought i see this book in the big screens considering how little content the original had. The author must of had alot of imagination to turn such few words into such a fantasy driven movie.

Although it had potential, it squandered it by making it too adult; as someone who read the books as a child, I was expecting a bit of escapism. Instead, I got a sullen coming-of-age story that doesn't quite hit the mark in any category. The voice acting from James Gandolfini was great, but other than that, I wouldn't give this movie much in the way of praise.

I'm not sure what exactly to make of the meaning behind all those beautiful images. The center to me seems to be the portrait of childhood imagination, the boundless energy and freedom of play. But the magic is marred by a conservative guitar-soundtrack that reminds us of the mundane, uncreative rituals of adults. In passages, the film plays like a commercial because of the overly pleasing music. It just destroyed the atmosphere and magic for me. The child acted like a child acting like a child, as if his subconsciousness was constantly aware that it was all theater. Real kids are supposed to be more fully 'into it', a state of mind nailed pretty well in some other films. The monsters had voices of standard human bodies, although being much bigger than humans. In a movie that plays all-in on atmosphere, those mistakes are deal-breakers. If you have a special interest in childhood psychology, I guess its a relevant movie, but I doubt you'll come away from it much wiser. I had high expectations for some movie magic and the movie didn't deliver. Only partly, in the sometimes grand scale of the images. I want to give extra points for originality, but it was based on a book, so in fact its a very conservative vision based on an original book.

If Spike Jonze was hoping to capture the power of imagination to a stressed child, he succeeded. He was much less successful in conveying how imagination transcends childhood, which is dissapointing as the books resonance is quite universal.

It is rubbish, I'm sorry to people that liked it but I really didn't enjoy the film. I was looking forward to going to see the film at the cinema but I was really dissapointed, I am a fan of the book but it isn't based on the book at all. I really disliked it.