Precious: Based on the novel Push by Sapphire - "Precious Few Things To Love"

Screenplay by Geoffry Fletcher
Directed by Lee Daniels

Precious is heartbreaking. Not only because the subject matter it deals with is a girl who is abused mentally and physically throughout the picture, but because it misses the mark as a film as well. ‘Based on the novel Push by Sapphire’ is based on the novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire and tells the story of an obese 16 year old girl living in Harlem in the 1980’s who goes by the name “Precious”. Precious (newcomer Gabourey Sidibe) lives alone with her mother Mary (Mo’Nique), though she has a child with Down syndrome affectionately called “mongo” (short for mongoloid) that her Grandmother brings over whenever the social worker makes a stop by the dingy apartment. Precious is also now pregnant with her second child, both of which were the product of being raped by her faceless, never seen father. Oh, and her father gave her HIV-AIDS. In short, it’s the feel good movie of the year.

Dealing with such serious and heavy subject matter, the film has to find a balance so it doesn’t end up like a Paul Schrader film. This balance is provided by the opportunity Precious is given by being kicked out of her public school for being pregnant again (don’t worry, it gets better). Her former principal thinks she would benefit from a “leg up” program called Each One Teach One to work toward her GED, and after some hesitation and some stolen fried chicken, she decides to attend. There, the film becomes a cookie cutter inspirational teacher film as she eventually makes pals with the other students and under the tutelage of her teacher Ms. Rain (Paula Patton) learns to write about her life. Through this personal journal, she goes on a personal journey to redemption.

It is in voice over of what these diaries contain that we learn the most about who Precious is and what her innermost thoughts are. What strikes me as inconsistent is that while the scrawling we see in her book onscreen is simple, the narration expounds exponentially. It seems that the voice over is supposed to be the audience’s guide to the wonderful things she is writing, but we never get an indication that it is actually in her book. The opening credit sequence is done so that the audience sees how Precious would write it in her illiterate penmanship with the actual information spelled and written correctly in parenthesis. Perhaps we are supposed to be hearing cleaned up narration, like what she would be saying if she knew how? But then, the monologues are still so rough and dialectically correct for her character, so I don’t think that’s the case.

There are a number of continuity and time period errors in the film that I won’t get into nitpicking, but one has be mentioned because it plays a huge role in the film. When Precious steals fried chicken from a restaurant on her way to her first day of the new school, she grabs the bucket of chicken from the counter and makes a mad dash out of the restaurant leaving behind her journal notebook and pen. The following scene has Ms. Rain explaining the importance of the writing assignment at length, and the students begin to take out their books to begin writing. My first instinct was “Oh no! Precious left hers behind!” But right after, Precious magically takes out her assignment book and begins to write. No mention is made of the error. It really bothered me to my core and I couldn’t stop thinking about it. Especially because when I noticed the book being left behind, we know her name is on that book and someone at the restaurant or better yet, the police, could have tracked her pilfering ass down. This is yet another thing about that scene that is completely ignored.

Throughout the film, the screen goes black momentarily for seemingly no reason. This is independent low-budget filmmaking so maybe it was an editing choice to cover a lack of footage. Or maybe it was an artistic choice. Regardless, I found it distracting as there was no cohesive reason to do this. We already have a series of fantasy sequences that Precious indulges in when trying to escape her life into her mind’s eye, usually of herself as a famous movie star or glamorous model. These scenes work to solidify her character’s need for escape and a creative mind that doesn’t know how to unleash itself onto the outside world (or that such a thing is even possible) as well as address her own insecurities with self image. They’re used to good effect but at a certain point they stop telling us more about her and just become monotonous.

In a film where technical aspects are lacking, something must be a saving grace. For this film, it is the acting by its stars, Mo’Nique and Gabourey Sidibe. Gabourey walks through the film in a zombie-like haze most of the time, either from depression or not understanding what is going on around her, fitting Precious to a T. Mo’Nique is even better, the shining star of the whole film. Her portrayal of Mary is real, raw, and ultimately understandable. You hate her for being what she is, but you know and sympathize because it’s so true to life’s real villains. When she breaks down in the end trying to explain how she just wants to be loved, you can’t help but feel heartbreaking anger for this pathetic, weak individual. The film’s ending is somewhat abrupt; some issues, like the mother/daughter dynamic, are dealt with but others linger in the air left for us to only wonder where it will go. Still, while there was little else to be enthused about in the film, Mo’Nique delivers a powerhouse performance that is all too rare even in good films.


*** Three Stars – Take it or leave it

Precious: Based on the novel Push by Sapphire is in theaters now and the Golden Globe awards announced it today as one of their nominees for Best Picture - Drama.

Food, Inc. - “Tastes Like Success”

Directed by Robert Kenner


There’s an old children’s taunt that goes “you are what you eat”. Well if Robert Kenner held you to that, he’d say he wants you to stop being such a pile of disgusting chemicals and waste. Based in part on the books ‘The Omnivore’s Dilemma’ and ‘Fast Food Nation’ respectively by Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser, Kenner’s brilliant documentary ‘Food Inc.’ delves into the scary notion of what actually goes on in the making of regularly consumed food in the United States, who is responsible, and how it got that way. The truth may surprise you.

The film shows us how the McDonald brothers introduced the factory system to food service, creating the world’s first “fast food” restaurants that could hire cheap, easy to replace laborers. This was a cheap system that also demanded sameness in the food that would be served, and so over time the factory system spread to the butchers and farmers themselves. The vast majority of all meat in America is now provided by one of four or five conglomerate companies including Tyson, Swift and Cargill. At one time working in a slaughterhouse was actually considered one of the best and most reliable jobs. Now, it is considered one of the most dangerous, and is responsible for employing countless illegal immigrants. While the vast majority of the issues raised are ones I was relieved to not deal with as an Orthodox Jew who exclusively eats kosher food, the issue of immigrant workers is still one that affects even kosher slaughterhouses as evidenced by the legal troubles that Agriprocessors faced last year. Still, your meat is gross and the widely used slaughtering methods are inhumane.

But this isn’t simply and attack on the fast food and meat producing industries. Corn, soybeans, and other natural resources that have gone from once being farm fresh to now being ruled by big business are also dissected with the same deft hand. A number of conglomerate food service companies declined to participate in the film, but their lack of participation just seems to assure their guilt. The one large company that is in the film, surprisingly, is Wal-Mart who come off as the type that will do whatever their public demands. In this case, it is a good thing because of the movement toward stocking more organic products like Stonyfield Farms dairy. This widespread move back to organic and local food is a sign of hope though the barrier of cost still remains. As illustrated in the film, it is simply cheaper and easier to order from a dollar menu at the burger joint than it is to buy fresh fruits and vegetables from a supermarket.

The film does a great job of showing that this isn’t some liberal anti-conservative movement, knowing that there could be people who would accuse them of this and write off the film completely. What’s discussed here is a problem that everyone in the country (and beyond) is faced with three times a day. Most of the people shown who are fighting the system are from middle-America or in the case of Barabara Kowalcyk, who is fighting on Capitol Hill for a bill that puts extra stringencies on companies that have E. Coli outbreaks like the one that killed her young son, Republican. Some of the interviewees who appear on screen are incredibly brilliant and thoughtful, especially Joel Salatin, who not only comes off as a great rancher but a real philosopher who has practical solutions to the issues the industry faces at this time.

Real solutions exist; we just need to implement them. Ultimately, I believe that our government, like Wal-Mart, will follow whatever is popular and demanded by their public. While the conglomerates may have seemingly unlimited funds to take down their opposition individually, they are still at the whim of the same masses who bought their services and products in the first place. The film ends on a series of text screens that encourage us as the consumers to demand changes and do what we can on a variety of scales. Once in a while a documentary comes along that actually feels like it can change the way people live. This is that film.


***** Five Stars – Definitely see this film

Food, Inc. is available now on DVD and Blu-ray disc as well as streaming from Netflix.

Modern Romance - "Still up to dating"

Written by Albert Brooks and Monica McGowan Johnson
Directed by Albert Brooks

Modern Romance is now almost thirty years old. And yet, with all the ways the title implies speaking about romance of the early eighties, we are still living in relatively the same world. Robert Cole (Albert Brooks) is a film editor in Hollywood. He is neurotic and jealous when it comes to love. As the film opens, he is sitting down to dinner with his girlfriend Mary (Kathryn Harrold) and just has to get something off his chest. He tells her that he just can’t be with her anymore, despite how much they like each other. Her reply is to the effect of “you’re breaking up with me again?”

So begins the cycle of Robert dealing with being single once more. He goes through every stage imaginable of trying to move on, from drug use to taking up running to making plans with another woman. And at every step he buckles, just wanting to be back with Mary. It is in this way that we are given a picture of the cycle that these two lovers must have gone through before our story begins (and how they will probably continue forever). In a sense, it’s “love means having to no longer be together”.

If there is a main fault, it’s that it spends so much time dwelling on Robert’s job as an editor. While these scenes are often hilarious and as true to life as any other part of the film, they seem to be off topic from the main crux of his relationship with Mary (though the two do intertwine at times). What this adds up to is inside jokes that those of us who care about what goes on behind the scenes of a crappy movie can appreciate, but not much else. This is a recurring problem for Brooks, who seems to always put his characters in some kind of filmmaker job. While it’s nice that he writes what he knows, as the old adage goes, I can’t help but think that Robert Cole could have benefited from a more “Middle America” type of occupation.

The film is very funny. Every moment has a grounded reality to it, and yet we are laughing. Sure it’s still a movie and there are “sweetened” instances that go beyond what a person may truly do, but on the whole I think everyone has gone through or seen someone who has gone through similar trials. One of the best moments is when Robert picks up his date for the evening, trying to get over Mary. He apologizes for the fact he is just getting over a long relationship and reassures her that he is still looking forward to having a great time as they get into his car. The camera is mounted to the hood of the car so we are watching their faces as he drives off down the street away from her apartment, the rest of the world an out of focus blur behind them. Silently, Robert goes through a subtle transition on his face, one that doesn’t even reveal whether he’s happy to be going out or sad to be without Mary. Then, after an extended period of time, he stops the car and we cut to reveal the car is back in front of his date’s apartment building. It is such a great gag and it is delivered so well in the language of cinema. There is a constant flow of these jokes that deliver on their setup. The finale of the film is one, and even though I saw it coming a mile away, I still laughed audibly.

Albert Brooks seems to have been overlooked as a “west coast Woody Allen” and this movie in particular is considered his ‘Annie Hall’. But while there are similarities in themes of struggling relationships and humor, I think it is a mistake to simply undercut what Brooks brings to the table. This is a film about decided indecisiveness more than anything else, and is something that has remained timeless for those of us who feel it. Legendary director Stanley Kubrick (The Shining, Full Metal Jacket) famously called Brooks after seeing the film asking him how he was able to pull off such a great movie on the theme of jealously (something he would try to explore with his last film, Eyes Wide Shut). Brooks’ response was that “The guy who did '2001' is asking me how I did something?”


***1/2 Three and a half stars - Worth watching

The film is available on DVD in rollercoaster-themed packaging that seems like false advertising, as there is no physical rollercoaster in the film. The trailer for this movie is not available on youtube, so enjoy this clip where Robert is trying to buy running shoes.

Special – “Use Your Delusion”

Written and Directed by Hal Haberman and Jeremy Passmore

Comic book movies have reached well beyond their saturation point. Advances in digital technology have enabled characters like Spiderman and Superman to come across today with their full breadth of powers on screen, wowing audiences worldwide. But there was a time in cinema when simple trickery had to be employed to make us believe that Batman could even turn his head in ‘Batman’ (1989). After the success of that film, a serious of “street level” superhero and comic-based movies were made, varying in success from Dick Tracy to The Crow to The Phantom. Hal Haberman and Jeremy Passmore’s ‘Special’ is a movie that harkens back to that low-fi 90’s era of comics on screen.

Les (Michael Rapaport) is a parking attendant who lives alone and enjoys reading comic books. He participates in a clinical study for a new medication called “Special” which is an undisclosed new form of anti-depressant. Naturally, things go awry. The tightrope that the film walks is that it’s not that Les gains superpowers; it’s that he thinks he has. Les’ own transformation as he tries to make the most of his newly found powers (aka, his decline into insanity) is well played by Rapaport, who finally shows something more than the New York thug character type casting he has mostly been relegated to. The film is make-or-break on his performance and he gives it his all, reminding me of Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler at times for some reason. Perhaps the grainy urban cinematography has something to do with it.

The upside is that the film plays with the archetypes of the hero’s journey as if Les really was going through them all to be a better savior in the end. There is the mentor figure/ doctor who is responsible for his powers (The Big Lebowski’s Jack Kehler), the supportive friends/ owners of Les’ local comic shop, the love interest/a checkout girl at the supermarket, and of course the diabolical villains who are entwined with our hero/ businessmen who engineered the drug. Unfortunately, these same archetypes make for easy stereotypes. The businessmen, despite trying to convince Les that he is imagining everything, really do act like Lex Luthor-style scumbags. They drive around in a limo and the main one is named Jonas Exiler (Paul Blackthorne), who looks and acts like a low rent Hugo Weaving. It always feels like he one step away from suddenly strapping Les to a table with a slow moving laser pointed at him. The comic book store-owning brothers Everett (Robert Baker) and Joey (Josh Peck) are such poorly written clichés that they could very well have been Walt and Steve-Dave from an early Kevin Smith film. They treat their customers like crap and spend their time debating meaningless topics or getting high. Only the doctor is given anything to work with, caught in the middle of a company who wants to make money and his allegiance to the health of his patient.

The idea of a person with no powers thinking they can save the world is nothing new. This story takes it one step forward, as psychoanalysis of someone like Batman in the real world would always lead to the conclusion he must be delusional. Here we see how a person who just goes around tackling those that he thinks are criminals would just end up going down an extremely destructive path. But in the end it all feels like something we’ve seen before with a slight twist that isn’t enough to save it. If the film stuck to its guns and allowed Les to die or “lose” in the end, we would feel the weight of a moral lesson. Instead, the film just errs on the side of super-fiction, giving us a hero triumphantly walking away and a villain clenching his fist and saying “Bah! Next time!”


** Two Stars – See it if you must

After existing in limbo for several years, Special is now on DVD.

The Fantastic Mr. Fox - "Living Up To Its Name"

Screenplay by Wes Anderson and Noah Baumbach
Directed by Wes Anderson


Dressed in an orange corduroy suit that both mimics Wes Anderson’s own trademark look and acts as representative of Fox’s fur, Mr. Fox (voiced by George Clooney) is a sly and overly confident character that fits well in the overarching canon of Anderson films. Fox doesn’t apologize for his shortcomings; he merely has to come up with a better plan to overcome it all so everyone loves him. And as usual, there is an ensemble cast of various outsiders and confidants who follow our protagonist through thick and thin. Anderson has beautifully adapted the book by ‘Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’ author Roald Dahl into a unique stop-motion animated film making it his own while paying homage to the author’s original work. Though it differs in some respects, the story has been expanded in a way that is not obtrusive and feels like the organic child of the two creators. Much had been said of the distance with which Anderson directed the film (he reportedly would send his comments and wishes via the internet from his home in France) but you would never know from the final film. Every frame has the fingerprints of this auteur all over it.

The tone struck by the film is familiar territory. It is a fairly simple problem stands in the way- our hero uses his own wits- we cheer- formula, but as usual for Anderson the focus is more on the obstacle within the family rather than overcoming the external threat of the three farmers who want to destroy Mr. Fox and his home. Mr. Fox has a wife, Mrs. Fox (naturally) who is voiced by virtually the only newcomer in the cast for a Wes Anderson film, Meryl Streep. She is excellent as always and is given the biting strength that makes her the true leader of the family much like Etheline Tenenbaum or Eleanor Zissou. Perhaps this is meaningless, but I actually wonder why Angelica Huston, having played both previous roles, didn’t voice Mrs. Fox. Rounding out the family is their son Ash (Jason Schwarzman) and cousin Kristofferson (Eric Anderson) who play rivals for Mr. Fox’s attention. Kristofferson has a mellow tone and is a natural athlete following in the chicken-snatching limber footsteps of Mr. Fox while Ash holds a grudge and is forced to find his own ways to gain his parents’ attention. One scene of their competition is truly remarkable; in one long shot we see Ash refusing to share his bedroom with Kristofferson, delegating him to sleep on a matt under an elaborate tabletop train set in the room. Their entire conversation, Kris trying to get comfortable while Ash is sitting in bed reading silently and turning out the light only to then come down and start playing with the train set has no cuts and goes on for an inordinately long time for a stop-motion film. I can’t recall ever seeing such a scene accomplished like this before.


The animation is done in a style that harkens back to Rankin-Bass films of the 1960’s and 70’s (apparently shot at 12 frames-per-second rather than the usual 24 for motion pictures). The fur of the puppets flows with a charm that can only be seen in this type of film. On the other hand, camera zooms can feel awkward at this speed, but they’re used sparingly. This isn’t the technical leap forward that Coraline represented this year nor the 80’s style of Mary and Max, which I faulted for feeling like too much of a throwback. Mary and Max bothered me with how un-animated it was at times, not necessarily that it harkened back to an older style. Fox is full of plenty of vigor and punch and at times characters literally leap around the screen. Similarly, I was struck with how subtle the movements could be at times, little ticks of the face especially. This is potentially the best visual acting I’ve seen in stop-motion. I’m still not sure whether separate, larger puppets were used for facial close-ups (of which there were lots- sometimes used for a hilarious running gag) to get those really detailed delicacies, but regardless it was wonderful. The only nitpick I would have is the inconsistent sense of scale between the animals and humans which seems to fluctuate at times (or the fact that some animals are upright and sentient while others are mindless creatures), but this hardly detracted from the overall experience.

This is Wes Anderson’s most kid-friendly film to date even though it deals with similarly dark themes in a pop manner as in his other work. Here you always know who the heroes and villains are and boundaries aren’t overstepped (the song "Heroes and Villians" by The Beach Boys is actually featured in the film). This is about family survival against those that are clearly cruel men (even though they are trying to protect that which is theirs from being stolen, but that doesn’t matter since they’re bad men). The violence never gets darker than a Disney film of old like Bambi, similarly about animals trying to survive in a world of human villains. Cleverly, the issue of curse words is glossed over by the great recurring gag of saying “cuss” when a real cuss word would otherwise be used (whether this comes from Anderson himself or screenwriting collaborator Noah Baumbach doesn’t matter as it seems to be consistent with either of their styles and sense of humor). This allows an appreciation of what is being said by adults while children can similarly be entertained. In fact, one of my favorite little touches is in the town where the climactic battle takes place that there is graphitti splashed on the side of a building that simply says “cuss” in a colorful manner.

Indeed, the whole thing comes off as the work of an experienced auteur who is playing in a sandbox of his own design. It feels like watching a child who is walking you through the story he has concocted for his action figures (an expert child, much like Max Fischer and his high school plays in Rushmore). The film is entertaining and comical, with a bit of heart. It is neither a Wes Anderson film that just happens to be done with animals nor an animal film that happens to be made by Wes Anderson. The two are designed for each other and meet in the middle to make one of the funniest films of the year.


**** Definitely see this film

The Fantastic Mr. Fox is in theaters everywhere.

An Education – “I Get It”

Screenplay by Nick Hornby
Directed by Lone Scherfig

Based on the memoir by Lynn Barber but distinctly Nick Hornby-like in execution, ‘An Education’ is a coming of age story as seen a thousand times with a little extra charm. Hornby’s script has his usual touches; a character learning about love, communicating passions through music, and outrageous characters that still feel grounded in reality. As usual, the voice is distinctly English. A young girl living in the London suburb of Twickenham, Jenny (Carey Mulligan) is a bright sixteen year-old who is being pushed by her overbearing father to make the grade for Oxford College. She is obsessed with French culture and music. One day while waiting for a bus she meets a charming older man named David (Peter Sarsgaard), who seems to hold the key to getting the way of life she always wanted potentially at the risk of losing Oxford in the process.

The film’s setting is a pre-Beatles explosion 1964 England (surprisingly there is virtually no rock n’ roll in the film). Jenny is the type of girl who only a few years later would be exploring her options as a young woman looking to rebel in different ways. Carey Mulligan handles Jenny with wit and just the right amount of adorability. We understand why David pursues her, and why she in turn would contemplate giving up everything she has worked for to be with him. It is rare to see a “teen film” where the main character seems to have such a head on her shoulders. Yet, as soon as she sees a shortcut for what she ultimately wants, she takes it, showing how young and naïve she really is. She’s not above showing off to those around her, giving her the superiority that only good grades had afforded her up until now. But now with love and culture in her life she feels she is even greater than her headmistress or teachers, who all seem to be single intellectuals breeding Jenny to become another of their own ilk. Miss Stubbs (Olivia Williams) especially is a reflection of where Jenny sees herself heading if she takes the path written for her by the adults in her life.

Jenny’s father Jack, played by Alfred Molina, gives one of his best performances in a career of great work. Like his unforgettable cameo in Boogie Nights, Jack is a scene stealer, who cares more about Jenny and Oxford than seemingly anything else in the world. He’s the type of father who complains of not hearing enough reading coming from Jenny’s room. He dominates every scene he is in until David comes along and works his magic, turning the pit-bull into more of a retriever. Special mention must also be made of Rosamund Pike as David’s friend Helen. She is the antithesis of Jenny in almost every conceivable way but has a good natured charm. Pike’s blank stare when Helen just doesn’t understand the culture and art that David is exposing Jenny to and, along with Jack, is one of the comedic highlights of the film.

David is a bit of a mystery. He drives a great sports car, enjoys going out to clubs with friends, and generally has money to spend. He is charming and can talk himself in or out of virtually any situation. We never see him outside the context of either his friends or his car. A sly observer could see from the beginning that it all doesn’t quite add up and it should come as a surprise to no one that he ends up being a bit of a con man. Sarsgaard plays him with a combination of slyness and subtle desperation. He isn’t played like some stunted man-child going for a girl half his age but comes across as a mature person genuinely enamored by Jenny, herself mature for her age, from the start.

Unfortunately, the film virtually falls to pieces in the final twenty minutes or so. The relationship between Jenny and David had been on such an upward spike that you know it has to come down somehow, but the film just dashes everything. Without spoiling too much let’s just say that David is out of the picture at a certain point, and we never get a real resolution with him after the fact. What’s worse is that the film decides at this point to launch into a very stereotypical “working hard” montage that is dull and predictable. They could have just as easily ended it with Jenny triumphantly jogging to the top of the steps at Oxford raising her fists in the air and it wouldn’t have been any more ridiculous. The con that resolves Jenny and David’s relationship ends up duping us as an audience as well as it did the ultimately naïve sixteen year-old.


*** Three Stars – Take it or leave it

An Education is still playing in select theaters.

Where the Wild Things Are - "They're Inside Us All"

Screenplay by Spike Jonze and Dave Eggers
Directed by Spike Jonze

The first film from Spike Jonze since 2002’s masterpiece ‘Adaptation’, Where the Wild Things Are is the perfect cap to his “bizarro reality trilogy”. Like in his previous films, ‘Wild Things’ takes the simple beauty of life as we know it and augments it with a little magic that puts us just beyond the real into the surreal. Adapted from the classic book by Maurice Sendak, the film tells the story of Max, an uncontrollable boy who ventures off into the far off land of the wild things. While the book is fairly short, the film expands greatly on its themes of imagination and struggling to find an outlet for that energy.

It is precisely in this way that the film feels both grounded and wondrous. While the plot itself is fairly simple (Max struggles for the attention of his single mother, he goes off to a fictional land of wild creatures, they smash things and fight then he comes home), the layers of psychology on display are something to behold. Max is both a completely feral brat and yet sympathetic- we quickly understand his relationship with school, other kids, and his entire family, all by giving only one scene to each. He is a child that we either knew growing up or may have been ourselves. The actor Max Records gives one of the best performances I have ever seen from a young actor as he truly carries the entire film on his shoulders.

Running through the whole film is a sense of beauty and adventure. Whole portions of the film seem to exist in glowing natural light; we follow Max to a wonderful land of forests, deserts and beaches that feel both alien and right around the corner. The film has a prominent dark side as well, and there are a number of moments of true fear and uncertainty. The threat of being crushed or eaten by the mammoth wild things lies at every turn. The mood of the film is also set by the music by Karen O of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs and Carter Burwell, which alternates between accentuating and setting a mood for particular sequences. If there was one drawback, it would be that the music stands out a little too much. Like editing, music is something that should work for the story and not necessarily bring attention to itself.

Once Max has gone off to the land of the wild things, we are introduced to the seven hulking creatures with simple names. The design and implementation of them is magnificent and never veers far from the suspension of disbelief. Designed by the Jim Henson Company, the suits are several steps beyond the ‘Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles’ or ‘Dinosaurs’ of old. The actors inside the suits contribute body movements, while the faces are animated digitally. On top of that is the voice, given to each by a prominent actor (James Gandolfini, Catherine O’Hara, Paul Dano, Lauren Ambrose, Chris Cooper, Forest Whitaker) who drives the realism of the monster to a new level. Each character coalesces from these multiple performances into a fully realized person.

Additionally, the wild things themselves act out in ways that can only be described as reflective of Max’s own thoughts, memories and insecurities. To classify each as its own specific symptom is too simple, as many take on multiple levels at their own time. Bubbling to the surface are issues of abandonment, loneliness, and anger. Sometimes the wild things are his parents (the one outstanding oedipal moment is when Max escapes the wrath of James Gandolfini’s “Carol” by climbing into the mouth of Lauren Ambrose’s “KW”. Here, Max sits in a womb-like state while the two wild things have a verbal fight echoing divorcing parents). Sometimes they are fellow kids at school. Sometimes they are just Max. Each is handled in a way that is never too obvious; it is left up to the audience to understand. Kids and adults will likely each experience it on their own level.

Subtle reference is made in the film to the 1980’s animated Disney version that almost came to be both in the mention of a “Mr. Lasseter” and the opening sequence of Max chasing a dog around the house. John Lasseter, now head of Disney Animation and one of the founders of Pixar, had tried to make a ‘Wild Things’ movie using hand drawn animation against then-revolutionary CGI backgrounds (this was a technique that eventually made its way into Beauty and the Beast). The short test sequence is embedded below for those interested. On the whole, Jonze’s film is a very good expansion on the source material. In a way I can’t picture an adaptation working in any other way. He, like Lasseter before him is a man who seems to have never forgotten the mischievous and imaginative child within himself, something that is necessary for a film like this and that comes across on the screen like gangbusters.


**** Four Stars – Definitely See This Film

‘Where the Wild Things Are’ is still in select theaters if you can catch it.