"Where the Wild Things Are" is being said by many critics a great film. USA Today writes that it is a, "fiercely innovative film with surprising texture and nuance," and Rolling Stone calls it, "completely real." Well, I'm here to write that, after all of the incredible hype, I strongly disagree with these reviews.
Most audiences know that the story is about a little boy named Max who, after being disobedient, is sent to bed. He soon creates his own world which is a forest inhabited by ferocious creatures that crown max as their ruler. The premise here, written by Maurice Sendak, is good. But it's what the film produces from that which makes it an entirely different story.
We are able to notice that there was artistic talent put into the look and style of the "wild things." The special effects consist of computer generated faces put on life size models and turn out to be breathtakingly crafted. If I would ever meet one of the creatures, I always thought they would look like they did in the movie if it were real life.
I have rarely walked out of a movie feeling as depressed as I did walking out of this film. This is not just because the atmosphere was depressing but the long, artsy shots of Max and his pals playing games were so boring that i felt sorry for the production. I understood the dramatic symbols throughout the movie but they still didn't make the movie any better. The film is much darker than it is advertised to be. A kid seriously has mental issues if he decides to destroy the creatures houses, rip off one of the their arms, and bite his mother when she simply punishes him! The acting throughout this thing is terrible too. The cast plays their character in a way that makes the audience feel more glum than Taylor Swift did when she got her award stolen from her by Kanye. Every actor in "Where the Wild Things Are" says their lines like they're reading a poem. Another reason the movie was depressing and almost frightening was the random howling in the the musical score. It was too bizarre to even slightly work its way into Sendak's atmosphere. When the film does try to be funny and not dramatic the humor falls flat and ends up being embarrassing for the writers.
I don't think the book should've been turned into a film at all. Sendak's story would've remained a great children's book if this film hadn't been released. Now, children of future generations may see the film version of the story first and not want to read the classic book because they'll think it's just as bad as the movie. Unless you're in the mood for a dark, depressing, and sad film that will leave you confused, then I strongly suggest that you skip "Where the Wild Things Are." Who knew that one of the most anticipated movies of 2009 could be one of the worst.
Ever since Steven Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" came out in 1998, Matt Damon's nickname has been Matt "Da Man" Damon. His character in "The Informant!" may not be "Da Man" but I can tell you right now that, after seeing the film, Matt Damon is still "Da Man" as an actor.
The film revolves around a man named Mark Whitcare who was born in Warren County, Ohio. The true story tells the audience that he and his family have moved to Decatur, Illinois and he has been working for lysine developing company called ADM and he has even found his way into upper management. Whitcare is unwillingly pressured by the FBI into working as an informant against the illegal price-fixing activities of his own company. He then gradually gets the idea that he's a true secret agent. But as his constant lies keep piling up, his world begins to crash down on him.
The main goal of a film is to be interesting. Because of this, some movies try to be different. In fact, some movies try to be too different and they don't make any sense like "A Clockwork Orange." But some films try to be strange and end up being quite good like "Donnie Darko" or "Edward Scissorhands." "The Informant!" was random and bizarre and I liked it because it looks at itself as a comedic satire and doesn't take itself too seriously. The wide range of instruments in its score, the narration of random topics at certain points, and the weird dissection of Whitcare's bipolar disorder were all great elements a different movie. Matt Damon gives a stellar performance along with the movie's supporting cast who help the audience understand the story better because of their comedic timing and the way they develop their own characters. The writing is sharp and the story does a good job a stretching out a boring story into an interesting and funny film.
Even though there isn't much to dislike about the movie, the film is simply good, not great. I honestly think there were no faults to "The Informant!" yet there was nothing ground-breaking about it and it just needed more great elements than mentioned here to make it a four star movie.
But if I were to get strongly specific then I would ask, "Why does there need to be an exclamation mark at the end of the title?" After watching the film, I still don't understand why it's there and I found no secret meaning or anything of the sort. Anyway, I like the film and I think you should see it the theater or buy it on DVD.
Do you ever wish that you could just stay in bed all day, watch T.V., and not go to school while someone (or something) that looks like you really is? Well that's what the new Bruce Willis action-packed popcorn flick is about.
The film is set in a futuristic world where humans live in isolation and interact with surrogate robots. A cop (Willis) is forced to leave his home for the first time in years in order to investigate the murders of other's surrogates.
Only Bruce Willis could look young by having the hair cut that he does in this movie. That's one of the elements that makes "Surrogates" interesting. Some might say that the film spends too much time frolicking in the fields of make-up and special-effects, but here, I think these elements certainly make the story more engaging because they actually fit with the plot and aren't there just to look good. The sub-plot may be a bit conventional but the overall turnout of the production was enjoyable with a nice performance by Willis.
One ingredient of the movie that did bother me though was the beginning. Once I compared the second half to the first, I realized there was so much time wasted up to 35 minutes into the film. In some movies, especially this one, it's better to get straight to the point rather than spending so much time on the back story. It seems that most directors think this makes their films more wise and more smart. Hopefully, most people will enjoy the production because the second half is an action packed thrill ride. I know I did.
Sorry for posting this review a little late. The film might not being in theaters much longer. But if you do get a chance to notice that this is playing or see the DVD on the shelf then i mildly recommend "Surrogates" to all you Bruce Willis fans out there.
Age is of the essence here. I feel like if I were older then I would find Mike Judge's new film "Extract" quite a bit funnier than I did. The film is geared more toward adults. It's not that the film has too many sexual themes or anything of the sort but a lot of the film's humor takes place in an office building and has to do with the workers within it. If I had experienced working in an office building then I bet I could've understood more about how the characters felt and why the older people in the theater with me were laughing hysterically.
The film revolves around Joel (Jason Bateman), the owner of an Extract plant who is always trying to attend to a great number of personal and professional problems. These consist of his potentially unfaithful wife (Kristen Wiig) and his employees who want to take advantage of him.
The jokes are hit or miss in the film but the actors hold it together all the way through. The cast is the best element of the movie as they're hilariously boring. I especially love Ben Affleck as the crazy bartender. The character is a sharp turn for him as an actor and I think the performance really worked with the beard and the long hair. He makes one of the more memorable comedic characters of the year. Kristen is once again charmingly funny and she has convinced me that she can do anything with her characters and still make them funny.
Many of the jokes worked for me but, in my opinion, there wasn't enough jokes to make the film good. When the jokes aren't in the script the plot becomes thin and the movie starts to get dull after a while.
If you're a fan of the humor in "Office Space" then this film will entertain you as an audience member. Otherwise, "Extract" is only good enough to rent on DVD.
Earlier this year, "Transformers 2" was released and I thought it was a great example of what the majority of America truly wants these days. It overflowed with ridiculous action scenes but had a few fine looking females and some great humor to support it. "G.I. Joe" is like that minus the funny script and nice babes
The movie focuses on an elite military unit made of special operatives known as G.I. Joe. The unit, operating secretly, takes on an evil organization led by a notorious arms dealer.
The plot sounds simple, right? But the film tries to make itself too smart for its own good. I had no idea what was going on the entire two hours i sat in the theater. Sure, the special-effects are good (especially during an action scene that takes place in Paris) but they were definitely the only things that were intriguing to me.
The film is convoluted from start to finish. The script tries to add humor but it just falls flat and ends up making the film more dumb. There are so many lines that made me want to walk out like "Try this on for a size boys" and "Get out! Get out!...Nice shoes." The movie doesn't know if it's trying to be funny or serious and ended up being a complete waste of my time.
The acting was another reason i was miserable while watching this. It's a complete joke the way the cast reads their lines. They over-act and make "G.I. Joe" seem like a Chinese martial-arts film instead of an American action-adventure movie. I would've easily walked out of the movie 20 minutes into it if it weren't for the good special effects. This piece of junk wins the award for the worst movie of 2009 so far.