REVIEW: Where the Wild Things Are

Plot summary from worstpreviews.com:

"Where the Wild Things Are" follows the adventures of Max, a head-strong young boy who leaves home after having a fight with his mother -- only to find himself in a mysterious forest bordering a vast sea. Misunderstood and rebellious, Max sets sail to the land of the Wild Things, where mischief reigns. The adventure film will use a unique process to bring the story to life, incorporating the most dynamic elements of voice performance, live-action puppetry and computer animation.

I sometimes suffer from overexposure when it comes to movies I want to see. I read a lot of blogs about movies and movie reviews and I watch a lot of trailers online. So when a movie gets a lot of positive buzz and a great trailer like Where the Wild Things Are, I get pretty excited. I mean, this film had one of the greatest trailers I've ever seen. I was pumped to see it.

The film wasn't what I expected. That's not a bad thing. It's still a good movie . . . just different. I've heard the responses that the film is boring, meandering, plot-less. I don't buy it. I think the film does a great job of examining the complex psyche of a child, which to be honest, can be pretty meandering and probably won't fit into the typical dramatic arc of a Hollywood picture. Truthfulness to the subject matter might explain those negative reactions. The co-writer and director Spike Jonze transplants the complicated emotions of typical child Max into a multitude of "wild things." There's selfishness, loneliness, rage, fear, whininess, anger, lots of pretty deep stuff. The most intriguing thing about the film is how Max interacts with these embodied emotions that he himself has experienced. Does he come out a better person? That's hard to say. Max definitely learns that being in charge isn't all that it's cracked up to be. Max declares himself king when he first arrives and makes a lot of "pie in the sky" promises of happiness and of wishes granted and whatnot. Well, that, of course, doesn't really work out as planned (shades of political commentary perhaps?). But even with that lesson learned, Max isn't a changed person when he leaves the island. He's definitely not grown-up, he's still a kid and is likely to go on acting out in the way that kids do. Yet maybe he has a better awareness of the benefit of having someone else in charge, of having someone else to take care of him. This seems evident by the change in attitude towards his mother when he returns home; its obvious he enjoys his mother's comforting presence as she watches over him as he eats his soup.

One thing that is definitely an A+ is the art design, especially in relation to the original book. The wild things look just as they should and the process of using actors in costumes and computer animation for the facial features works great. And I don't know where they shot this film, but its perfect. Very grey and barren, overcast skies, just a really rough landscape. And Max Records, who plays Max, is quite good. The success of this movie hinged on the ability of the actor playing Max being a believable child. All the voice acting was also well done, and despite many well known actors taking a role of a wild thing, as a viewer their celebrity never stole attention from their character.

While based on a children's book, this is not a kids movie. I've heard it described as a family film, but I would disagree with that term as well. It has a very somber feel, and while there are some funny moments, its a pretty serious film.

Wade: 4.5/5 stars

Kinsey: 4/5 stars

REVIEW: A Serious Man

A Serious Man plot summary from Wikipedia:

“A Serious Man” is the story of an ordinary man’s search for clarity in a universe where Jefferson Airplane is on the radio and “F-Troop” is on TV. It is 1967, and Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg), a physics professor at a quiet Midwestern university, has just been informed by his wife Judith (Sari Lennick) that she is leaving him. She has fallen in love with one of his more pompous colleagues, Sy Ableman (Fred Melamed), who seems to her a more substantial person than the feckless Larry. Larry’s unemployable brother Arthur (Richard Kind) is sleeping on the couch, his son Danny (Aaron Wolf) is a discipline problem and a shirker at Hebrew school, and his daughter Sarah (Jessica McManus) is filching money from his wallet in order to save up for a nose job. While his wife and Sy Ableman blithely make new domestic arrangements, and his brother becomes more and more of a burden, an anonymous hostile letter-writer is trying to sabotage Larry’s chances for tenure at the university. Also, a graduate student seems to be trying to bribe him for a passing grade while at the same time threatening to sue him for defamation. Plus, the beautiful woman next door torments him by sunbathing nude. Struggling for equilibrium, Larry seeks advice from three different rabbis. Can anyone help him cope with his afflictions and become a righteous person – a mensch – a serious man?

I love the films of the Coen brothers. The Big Lebowski, No Country for Old Men, Fargo, Raising Arizona are some of my favorite films. They're latest, A Serious Man, is a little harder to swallow. Ebert had a great quote from Variety's Todd McArthy in his review, "This is the type of film you get to make after you win an Academy Award." Ain't that the truth. I'm sure this is a deeply personal film for the Coen brothers. It's set in the time (the 60s) and place (St. Louis Park, MN) where the Coens grew up, its story hinges on its character's Judaism. In a lot of ways it reminds me of last years Synecdoche, NY, except its not such a twisted mind-screw. This film's inner meaning lies more in the heads of the filmmakers than it does on screen.

I did like the film, but a lot of it I just didn't "get." I think that's exactly what Kinsey and I said to each other after the film was over. I spent about 15 minutes later in the evening looking up stuff online, like what a dybbuk is and other random facts about Judaism. Like I said the film seems very personal to the Coen brothers, who are Jewish.

The film is excellently crafted, of course. The editing and soundtrack choices are wonderful. And Roger Deakins, the helmsman of such beautiful films as No Country for Old Men, The Shawshank Redemption, and The Assassination of Jesse James, is behind the lens for the 11th time with the Coen brothers. And the acting keeps pace. Michael Stuhlberg, who I think is pretty unknown outside of the theatre crowd, does a commendable job as the lead. It would be easy to play Larry Gopnik as either a lovable loser or a common schmuck, but Stuhlberg plays him with enough subtlety and compassion to make him feel human.

OK, now back to what happens in the film and what it means. After doing a bunch of online research and reading a bunch of other reviews, I think I got the gist of it. Now Kinsey doesn't agree with this explanation but I think it makes some sense. According to Ebert and A.O. Scott, A Serious Man is a retelling of the biblical story of Job. Now I don't think it's a straight retelling but there are aspects of it in there, along with some continuation and a bit of a twist. Its more of an artist's interpretation, like if Picasso decided to repaint the Mona Lisa. It probably wouldn't look much like the original, but you would still know the source material. In the Book of Job, Job is tested by God through multiple tragedies yet continues to be faithful. So, to sum up, he's a good and righteous man who has a horrible time. In the film, Larry Gopnik's travails are less severe, but seem to happen for little reason and he seems a decent chap. The continuation and twist come in when Larry gives into temptation and then feels God's wrath. At least I think so.

Its either about that or its about the hopelessness and pointlessness of existence. You pick.

Well, I pick neither. I disagree with Wade, and yes, even Ebert and the great A.O. Scott. Being that the Coen brothers are Jewish, I would expect that they actually know the story of Job. This is not the story of Job, and if the Coen brother were attempting a modern take of the story, they have failed horribly. Job is not tested by God, but by Satan, because he's a righteous man - right from the beginning of this movie it is eluded to that Larry is not especially righteous (his wife gets after him for putting off seeing the rabbi). Also there is no big twist at the end, just more bad things happen and things get worse. It makes sense to tie the increase in disaster into the actions that Larry takes at the time, but once again this is the complete opposite of the story Job. There are many, many other stories out there of temptation (all the trouble in Larry's life leads to this moment of moral collapse), and then the consequences due to them.

So what's my take? Well I'm not completely sure, but the most I can offer is that this is a father/son film. Larry's son is the only other character we get to share experiences with throughout the movie. He, unlike his father, openly commits transgressions, and sometimes he is caught, but the results always seem to work out in his favor (having his radio taken away leads to a connection with the most sought after rabbi;, despite drug use, he still performs his role in the bar mitzvah). So the film gives us two takes for comparison, Larry trying to do his best, yet numerous failures and troubles, and the son, trying to do as little as possible, and getting through. There is also the sheperd/father relationships with the three rabbis. As Larry seeks answers to why his life is falling apart they don't listen/help/or even agree to see him. Thus leaving Larry (and the audience) with what appears to be the main thesis of the film- WHY is life this way???

Kinsey: 3/5 stars

Wade: 3.5/5 stars