MovieChat Forums > Where the Wild Things Are (2009) Discussion > Is this why some people don't like WTWTA...

Is this why some people don't like WTWTA?

posted 12 years ago by streakyfuzzer
29 replies | jump to latest

It's like going to a party and finding yourself surrounded by too many jerks that spoil the fun.

WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE doesn't provide the comforting escapism from their personal problems people enjoy with most fantasy movies. It antagonizes some viewers because it is so unexpectedly realistic in it's savvy depiction of immature, selfish, violent, paranoid, angry, psychotic, self-pitying, predatory, hypocritical, unconsciously jackassy human beings (of any age) with all of their dysfunctional behavior and whatnot that it is simply off-putting for the masses.

I picture people getting psyched up for a flick about weird-yet-funny monsters and end up feeling almost lectured about their personal flaws and crying. Being a self-confrontational masochist, I embraced it and loved it.

[–] benohmart 12 years ago

For me, it was all about the shaky camera. I saw the preview and since it couldn't keep still, I didn't go see it.

Ben

[–] streakyfuzzer 12 years ago

Do you often comment on movies you haven't seen? Why on earth? Wouldn't you rather spend the time trying something new, like a movie you aren't sure you will like or not? To each their own.

I hate the shaky-cam method, too. But I wouldn't describe WTWTA as a shaky-cam movie. Handheld, yes, Shaky-cam, no. If it had shake to it, I wouldn't call it overdone. I never noticed it. If that's the reason you avoided this movie, maybe reconsider.

[–] freeriderayward 12 years ago

You hit that pretty spot on man. People dont seem to ever go into a movie
without prior expectations and hopes about how its exactly going to be. This
leaves them with little room for the emotional impact they get from such a
different film as WTWTA. It was a funny film to be shown as a 'cool flick' in
cinemas around the world, because it appeals to only a very small percentage
of those who watch it. The vast majority, though, realism is not what they
wanted to see, as you said, so they hate it. Especially ones, who would rather
not remember the part of childhood that is so raw in the movie.

Not sure what masochist is though haha. I loved it too!

[–] streakyfuzzer 12 years ago

You described it perfectly: The rawness of childhood. I remember what it's like being a kid, growing up among such dysfunction. It was painful. Max represents everyone, and most of them hate him for it.

Until people recognize that hypocritical disconnection within themselves, they will only become more and more messed up, while considering themselves "normal" and everyone else "messed up", even though they are the same. Hilarious.

Masochism: finding pleasure in pain. (Describing myself as masochistic was an attempt at sarcasm. I don't find pain pleasurable. I believe people that DON'T recognize themselves as dysfunctional are the real masochists. Believing their unconscious behavior "normal", they prefer to remain that way because they find pleasure in it.)

Peace.

[–] strawberrymilkandgin 12 years ago

I find that many of the movies I like are the ones that polarize the entire moviegoing community so that half of them absolutely love it and the other half detest it. Am I the only one?

???

[–] brochant 12 years ago

Haha, I think this is a delightful and accurate description. I love this movie too, but you make a good point--I love the depressing, psychological, realistic-yet-fantastical aspects of the film: that's just my cup of tea--awe-inspiring and thought-provoking and depressing, but still with a satisfying ending. It strangely lifts and lowers my spirits at the same time.

Stories about growing up are always the most beautiful and distressing, in my opinion, because it takes so much courage to grow up. After seeing this film, I've decided Spike Jonze would be the perfect director for a new Peter Pan film adaptation.

[–] Larry-115 11 years ago

I think people dislike it because the moviemaker forgot to have things happen in the movie.

[–] Fluffis 11 years ago

I don't like using this phrase but it is supremely apt here:

"You didn't get it."

Seriously: if you, honestly, don't think things happened in the movie, then you really didn't get it.

Quidquid Latinae dictum sit, altum viditur.

[–] kelly-wilson 11 years ago

streakyfuzzer,

I think the picture was fantastic. You've painted well here, I think, some of the dynamics of the film.

Here's a brief reaction, I wrote recently:

http://mymusingsonfilm.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/where-the-wild-things- are/

[–] cludinsk 10 years ago

One Fish, Two Fish was a far superior film then this overblown steaming heap of tripe

[–] manchof1 10 years ago

Its the adult arthouse version of Where the Wild Things Are which added a lot of depth and symbolism to a story that had very little of both.