I love the Sendak book, but I'm already trying to get my excuse perfected to avoid the movie. I just don't see how you can get a full length movie out of the book.
Everyone loves to hate these days. All their films are great and blog reviewers are, at best, wannabe writers. being critical of anything or anyone is easy, writing a review of two of the worlds most talented filmmakers that explores exactly what it is that they do that makes them so appealing, well, that's hard, requires intuition, smarts, and understanding of cinema that you either have, or you don't. I wonder what films you find intelligent and interesting?
@AbbottOrville: Yes, because no one ever trashed a film or a director or a director before 2003. God knows no one ever said a bad thing about the boy genius Orson Welles...
I prefer a hater to someone drinking the kool-aid any day.
Where the Wild Things Are is a favorite in our house. It's probably the only book we read to our kid which has provoked many thoughtful discussions between my husband and I. What DOES it all mean? I love it, and hope my 4 yo doesn't freak out too badly at the theatre, because I don't really want to miss any of the movie. I also really appreciate Sendak's comments about parents who bitch because it's too scary.
What a lazy, snarky peice of writing. Adaptation was "mildly celebrated?" Four Oscar, six golden globe and 4 BAFTA nominations, as well as 91 percent fresh rating make it mildy celebrated? And reviews of Where the Wild Things Are are "very mixed at best?" There are far more good reviews than bad.
Wes Anderson movies come across as overly long, hand chafing jerk fests without a climax played to the best of the Kinks soundtrack. Seems all his movies have potential to be something special but they kind of end up not really paying off. So now that he's getting the opportunity to pleasure himself full time without interruption, the movie is either going to be the best thing he's ever done or the worst.
So far 79% fresh on rottentomatoes, but only 14 reviews counted. I want to hate it, but it looks different and creative, something sorely lacking in films lately.
The smarty-pants new "At the Movies" guys loved Where the Wild Things Are.
And however the Mr. Fox movie turns out, that L.A. Times article was hilarious. Since Anderson was living in Paris while the film was being stop-motion-animated in London, he received dailies by e-mail, and sent back notes as well as "short films of himself enacting certain scenes." The cinematographer calls him "sociopathic," to which he responds, "I would say that kind of crosses the line for what's appropriate for the director of photography to say behind the director's back while he's working on the movie."
I'm on board with Where The Wild Things Are. I know you have to judge it as it's own film, but I think the guy should get SOME credit for making a movie about childhood (arguably a kids movie) that isn't lowest common denominator Jim Carry voiced dreck. At least he gets some vibe out of it... something relatively honest. And as much as I enjoyed Anderson's early flicks, I'll give Jonze credit for making three movies that aren't virtually identical.
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
I prefer a hater to someone drinking the kool-aid any day.
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
You're just going to have to wait another 18 months before watching any more trailers, and that's that.
10/12/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/12/09
And however the Mr. Fox movie turns out, that L.A. Times article was hilarious. Since Anderson was living in Paris while the film was being stop-motion-animated in London, he received dailies by e-mail, and sent back notes as well as "short films of himself enacting certain scenes." The cinematographer calls him "sociopathic," to which he responds, "I would say that kind of crosses the line for what's appropriate for the director of photography to say behind the director's back while he's working on the movie."
That's comedy gold.
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09