Life in the Mind of a Modest Genius

Stan Helsing

I can't even lie about why I chose this one.  Of course it was the name.  I didn't have to read the description before already having a pretty good idea of what it was going to be about.  The play on the "Van Helsing" name was conspicuously obvious.  However, I was interested to see how my name was going to be incorporated into it.  I intended to originally watch this as one of the Halloween movies when it came up as a Netflix recommendation.  It worked out okay though because it clearly wasn't meant to be scary.

Stan Helsing (Steve Howey) is a video store clerk who never got any closer to fending off monsters than dealing with the occasional disgruntled customer.  That changes when Halloween rolls around and he's asked to drop off some dvds at the strange Stormy Night Estates.  He and three of his best friends get stranded there where buffoonish versions of famous horror movie villains are out to get him and his friends.

Apparently, Stan shares the same bloodline as the legendary Dr. Van Helsing who was the very man who once defeated Count Dracula.  His family must have dropped the "Van" somewhere along the line.  Naturally, Stan wasn't bright enough to draw the comparison between his name and his famous ancestor.  Yet another movie where a "Stan" gets stereotyped as being somewhat of a loser.

Under normal circumstances, this would have been one of those movies that I turned off after just 15 minutes or so into it.  I kept holding on because I just knew that it would somehow get a little better.  I don't know why because there were very few signs that it would be the case.  I'm pretty sure it was the name of the movie alone that kept me paying attention.  I just felt obligated to at least finish it no matter how painful it was.

You can tell immediately where they're trying to go with this Howey guy.  He's the spitting image of a younger version of Ashton Kutcher.  It's weird to preface that by "younger" since Ashton isn't even that old yet, but you get the idea.  They were clearly trying to cash in on the similarity, but the problem is Howey isn't anywhere near as funny as any incarnation of Kutcher.  If I never see him in another movie again, I wouldn't be surprised.

I thought for certain that "Stan Helsing" would turn out to be one of those movies that was so bad that it's good.  One where the jokes were so awful that you would laugh from the corniness of them.  It never got to that level though.  It's as though they were trying to combine a parody movie with a comedy film all its own and they were failing on both fronts.  If it wasn't for a few hilarious moments from Keenan Thompson, this flick would have been entirely unwatchable.  Oh, who am I kidding?  Even his sparse humorous efforts couldn't save it.  All he did was keeping it from failing miserably.


My rating:  D -

Law Abiding Citizen

I was just wondering the other day what F. Gary Gray had been up to lately.  This would have been before the release of "Law Abiding Citizen".  We hadn't seen anything new from him since 2005 so he was due for a new project.  It was about time too.  If you didn't know any better, you would think the only Black filmmaker out there these days was Tyler Perry.  It was good to see Gray come back on the scene to add a little more diversity.

The story of "Law Abiding Citizen" focuses on Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler) who witnesses his wife and daughter brutally murdered.  The system that should be bringing the killers to justice instead fails him by allowing one of the criminals to only serve a minimal amount of time in prison.  Ten years later, Clyde returns to extract justice from Assistant District Attorney Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx) who prosecuted the case.  His vengeance threatens not only the man who made the light sentencing possible, but also the system and the city that made it so.

Let's address the most obvious issues I had with the film.  It just so happened to be the very thing the premise of the film relied on:  the crime that kicked off Clyde's revenge in the first place.  These guys that killed his family did so by invading their home.  AFTER Clyde opened the door and let them in.  He didn't check to see who was at the door, didn't ask who it was or nothing.  Who does that??  That's just common sense.  Not that I'm saying they deserved what they got, but come on. 

Having said that, I do like how they don't show you the full extent of the crime that was committed.  It wasn't like they were trying to preserve a rating either because it was "R" and some later scenes justify why.  However, by not seeing the totality of what was done, it gives the story some leeway regarding the case against the criminals.  You don't get hung up on whether or not the perpetrators case really would hold water because you don't see the actual crime to use as a gauge.

As much as I like Jamie Foxx, I wasn't really feeling him in this role.  He didn't come across as an attorney to me at all.  Especially an Assistant District Attorney.  He just didn't have that air about him.  It was actually a little surprising coming from an Oscar Award winner.  One would think that he could pull off any role, but this one just didn't seem to suit him.

Butler, on the other hand, was a little more convincing.  There was one scene where he was trying to show emotion that was a little questionable, but outside of that, he was on point.  He always an uphill battle with me trying to shake the iconic Leonidas role from "300".  This is the first movie I've seen him in since then where he pulls of a character just as good.  Maybe he just needs the right script to bring it out.

Speaking of script, "Law Abiding Citizen" had me hooked right up until the very end.  I enjoy watching a movie where I'm sitting there trying to figure out the entire time how the bad guy is pulling off crimes and getting away with them.  I had a sneaky suspicion this one was getting too big for its own britches though.  They raised the stakes so high that you were left with only two options: either the finale would throw you entirely for a loop or it would be absolutely ridiculous.  Well it wasn't absolutely ridiculous, but it was clearly disappointing.

One thing I learned after watching this film is NEVER to trust the advice of  The Tom Joyner Morning Show when it comes to movies.  They were talking about this one like it was one of Foxx's best flicks ever and probably one of the best films of the year.  Clearly it was a gross exaggeration on both parts.  I would definitely call this one an improvement over F. Gary's Gray's last feature, "Be Cool", but all of the major parties involved have done and can do better.


My rating:  C

Michael Jackson's This Is It

There are some movies that I go into having already given them a grade.  It's really up to the movie from that point as to how that grade can be altered.  If I've already pre-determined it's going to get a high mark, that movie holds its own fate.  If I've already determined I probably won't like it, it has some work to do.  It may not be fair, but it is what it is.  Real talk.  "This is It" was one of those where an "A" was already in its future.  I mean, come on...it's Michael Jackson.

"Michael Jackson's This Is It" offers fans worldwide a rare, behind-the scenes look at the performer as he developed, created and rehearsed for his sold-out concerts that would have taken place this summer in London's O2 Arena.  It features Jackson rehearsing a number of his songs for the show complete with the dancers, musicians, singers and in some cases even the costumes and corresponding special effects.

I had heard some knocks early on that it wasn't a true documentary and folks were disappointed that it didn't provide any interviews with Mike.  I look at it differently.  It wasn't intended to be a documentary.  Mike had already done a concert movie back in the day.  The one that came on HBO.  So now we get the chance to see what goes into the making of such a production.  Some of it very polished and some still rough, but that's what makes it all the better to watch.

It would have been nice to see Mike update his dance repertoire just a little bit.  There were moments where he looked like he was going to integrate a more recent move or two, but it was fleeting.  That leads me to believe that maybe he was saving more of the flash for the actual show.  You get that feeling throughout much of the film.  Having said that, it was still pleasingly surreal to watch him perform his classic moves. 

What really stood out in this movie is how Mike STILL had the pipes.  There a couple of times when he sings a capella and you can't help but be amazed that he sounds just as vocally sound as he ever did in his prime.  Probably even better.  Most notably at the end of "I Just Can't Stop Loving You" where he and back-up singer Judith Hill playfully exchange riffs.  It will give you chills listening to how effective Mike was.  He wanted to hold back to conserve his voice for the concert, but he got caught up in the moment.  We ended up reaping the benefit.

The best part of the film was the new intros they had filmed for "Smooth Criminal" and "Thriller".  Especially the "Smooth Criminal" one.  That one was FONKY!  You can tell it was going to be amazing how they would have seamlessly integrated the mini-movie with the live concert.  Furthermore, it leads me to believe that the bigger vision was to eventually have footage from the live concert and even rehearsals be turned into a theatrical release concert movie.  That would have been the one thing missing from MJ's resume.  It's really too bad that would never happen.

It's really difficult to criticize any of the moments of the film that may have been lacking.  Can you really talk about the fact that MJ didn't sing all of the lyrics to some of the songs as he did the dance moves?  Or how there were moments where the pace of the music didn't follow the vocals?  No, because that was the intent of the rehearsals in the first place: to flesh out those details and get it right for the final performance. 

"This Is It" is without question a must-see for any and all Michael Jackson fans.  It gives you a glimpse into the dedication, perseverance and determination that goes into one of his amazing shows.  We get a chance to see a perfectionist and a visionary construct yet another concert that would have given his fans their money's worth and then some.  At 50, MJ had more drive and passion than most of these fly-by-night MTV generation artists possess.  There was no exploitation here at all.  It was a fitting tribute worthy of its lofty rating.



My rating:  A

 

 

 

 

Something Wicked This Way Comes

This is the last holdover from my 31 Days of Horror Marathon that I attempted last month.  I won't be taking another hiatus from scary movies, but I will definitely be cutting down on the infrequency.  This one had come in the mail along with "The Funhouse" as the last two holdouts from last month's horror genre barrage.  I had to hurry up and watch it so I could get to the next two in my Netflix queue.

In "Something Wicked This Way Comes", two boys (Vidal Peterson and Shawn Carson) anxiously await the prospect of a carnival making an appearance in their small town.  However, their excitement quickly transforms into fear when they discover that the mysterious carnival owner, Mr. Dark (Jonathan Pryce) has a devilish ability to grant wishes and uses it to his advantage.  When he realizes that the boys have discovered his secret, he sets about tracking them down, along with the creepy Dust Witch (Pam Grier).

I will admit that I almost returned this one before even opening it.  I had been discouraged as of late with my recent viewings of 80s fare that I had previously overlooked.  I feared this one would fall into that same category.  However, I was pleasantly surprised when I popped it in and discovered "Something Wicked This Way Comes" was a period piece.  It was made in the 80s, but it was set in the 1930s.  That was something I probably would have known beforehand had I been more familiar with Ray Bradbury's work since it was based on his story.

This movie hooks you right from the beginning.  It has some amazing cinematography that captures the gorgeous fall colors of a rural countryside as they take you into the small town setting.  There is whimsical music playing along while corresponding narration clearly give indications that this was inspired by a novel.  You wouldn't even think this was intended to be a scary flick from the way they opened those first several minutes.  I had to keep checking because I thought for certain I had received the wrong dvd.

As I'm sitting there watching Pryce play this subdued evil manipulator, I was trying to determine where I remembered him from.  At first I thought it was Robin Colcord(Roger Rees) from "Cheers" fame.  Then I surmised just because he had an English accent and a thin face didn't mean it was him.  It turns out it was actually Jack from "Jumpin' Jack Flash".  Good thing he had this movie to his credit so you can't hold the awfulness that was "Jumpin' Jack Flash" against him.

The special effects they attempted were pretty awful whenever they tried to display some type of magic spell, powers or whatnot.  Then again, most of the 80s movies had that problem.  They just didn't have the technology to do what they were truly envisioning.  I won't hold that against "Something Wicked" because the aftermath of what the special effects were supposed to be providing still made for a good story.

This one ended up being the perfect film to wind down a horror marathon.  "Something Wicked This Way Comes" plays like more of one of those campfire stories that's told just to give a creepy feeling.  Something to entertain while still trying to serve as an admonition to young kids that you need to be careful what you wish for.  They didn't need the typical mass-murdering and/or gore to relay that type of story.  Definitely not scary by today's standards, or even for its era, but a decently put together film nonetheless.


My rating:  B

The Funhouse

Yes, I know Halloween month is over so my scary movie reviews should cease and desist.  Or at least not be as frequent.  Well I still had two more Netflix carryovers to get out of the way and this was one of them.  There are actually still quite a few more from the genre in the queue.  However, I can now stagger them with regular movies to add more variety again.  I still had to go ahead and watch these two though so I can get them returned and get back in that normal flow.

 "The Funhouse" tells the story of four teenagers Amy (Elizabeth Berridge), Buzz (Cooper Huckabee), Richie (Miles Chapin) and Liz (Largo Woodruff) who travel to a carnival that has come to town to have some fun.  As the night begins to end, Liz comes up with the brilliant idea to spend the night in the funhouse.  They all agree and end up witnessing a deformed carnival worker (Wayne Doba) murder another carnie.  The four are discovered and are stalked one by one as they are locked inside the house of terror.

This should have been an ideal premise for a horror movie.  The funhouse (more commonly known as hte haunted house) in every carnival is always one of the creepiest places to be.  First of all, the carnies themselves look like they came straight from the place.  Then there is the interior itself with its janky looking creatures and devices that provide generic scares.  It seemed like the setting alone should have been a slam dunk for this to be a good horror film.

I've seen some movies get off to slow starts but this one was ridiculous.  It was nearly 45 minutes into the movie before there was any real action.  That was when the aforementioned murder took place.  Before then, we had to sit thru different useless interactions of the teenagers going to different parts of the carnival.  Were we really that patient with our horror films in the 80s?  Not that I can recall.  Had I seen this then, I would have been ticked that it took that long.  They're lucky I didn't turn it off altogether but I was in a generous mood.

That was just one of the problems that plagued this flick.  The other was the lack of effectiveness of the movie's main monster.  Even by 1981 standards, they did a terrible job of trying to make it look scary. It looked like they found a big monster mask and threw it on some random stunt guy to make to create their bad guy.  It didn't help that his hands were just as fake.  Major fail.

"The Funhouse" is another early 80s product where I should have known not to expect too much.  This was clearly an example where the dvd case of the movie provided much more hope for the flick than the movie could live up to.  You wouldn't think that would be the case though since it was directed by Tobe Hooper, the same man who gave us the classic "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre".  Apparently he couldn't get lightning to strike twice.


My rating:  D+

The Haunting of Molly Hartley

My 31 Days of Horror Marathon ended up being a total bust.  It was bad enough that I didn't get in a horror movie every day.  I didn't even watch 31 of the genre in total for the entire month.  The goal is a lot more difficult to accomplish when one has a full-time job.  I at least tried to finish up strong by squeezing in two last Netflix horror picks and "The Huanting of Molly Hartley" that I saw coming on Starz.  Still haven't gotten to the Netflix ones, but at least I can scratch this one off now.

After surviving a near-fatal stab wound inflicted by her religious-zealot mother, Molly (Haley Bennett) and her father, Robert (Jake Weber) attempt to make a fresh start in a new town. Unfortunately, on top of making new friends and studying calculus, poor Molly also has to contend with horrific nightmares, chronic nosebleeds, and mysterious voices.  It turns out that Molly's parents made a deal with the devil when she was born, and they price that they paid was her immortal soul.

First off, the deal they made was a rather jacked up one.  They thought she was going to die so they make a deal that they would get to have her for 18 years of her life and then she belonged to "them"?  Who would make that type of arrangement?  If the baby was going to die then it was God's will and she was meant to go.  That would still be much better than to live with her 18 years only to know that entire time that she'll belong to Satan after that.  Is that really wanting what's best for your daughter? 

Everytime I see a movie with the Faustian premise like this one, I keep thinking about a scene in "Bedazzled". Elliot is all disheartened because he's lost his soul to the devil.  An angel in disguise explains to Elliot that that isn't possible because it was never his to give.  Meaning it belonged to God all along.  It's a theory that you never see explored in horror films yet holds an extreme amount of truth to it.  It makes for a great theological discussion, but doesn't translate so well into a scary picture.

Ironically enough, "The Haunting of Molly Hartley" didn't accomplish that either.  You would have thought  this movie was made in the 80s with all the triteness it had.  The scares they tried to provide were all predictable thanks to the music that foreshadowed them or the sudden camera change.  If I didn't know any better, I would say they did it on purpose in an effort to be self-parody.  However, it was clear that was not the case.  They were genuinely trying to make a horror film.

It also would have helped if the high school kids looked more like high school kids.  Chace Crawford and Bennett could probably pass, but that's not the case with AnnaLynne McCord.  She looks like she hasn't seen high school in a while.  Almost as obvious as the cast in "Grease".  I was honestly surprised when I looked her up and found she was only 22.  I could have sworn she was in her 30s.  I'm still not entirely convinced.  You know how several actresses like to lie about their age.

You're left feeling cheated by the time "The Haunting of Molly Hartley" reaches its finale.  It was more than just the fact that it was only 82 minutes long.  It also lacks so much originality that you already know what' going to happen with every supposed twist turn.  Now that I think about it, maybe being only 82 minutes was a blessing in disguise. 


My rating:  D+

Deadgirl

It just so happened that I came across a recent news story on CNN that shared a disturbing similarity with this film.  It's ironic because while watching "Deadgirl" one thing that continued to come to mind was if today's high schoolers would truly have the mentality of the individuals involved in this film.  You would hope not, but given the state of some of our youth today, you just never know.  But I'm getting ahead of myself as usual...

Rickie (Shiloh Fernandez) and JT (Noah Segan) are two high school kids from the wrong side of the tracks that decide to skip class to explore a crumbling mental hospital.  While embarking on random mischief and mayhem in the hospital, they break thru a rusted door and discover a naked woman covered in plastic tied to a gurney.  When the body shows signs of life, JT immediately suggests that he and his friend should have a little lewd fun with the helpless captive.  Rickie wants nothing to do with it and when word of the discovery gets out, events begin taking an even darker and disturbing turn.

You can tell these kids were a little detached from decency from very early on.  When they first discover the girl (Jenny Spain), it's obvious that she's alive because she's slightly breathing and she offers some movement.  However, neither of them make any attempt to ask her who she and/or how she got there.  In fact, they continue to talk about her like she's not even there.  Even with as moral as Rickie tries to be, the thought of contacting the proper authorities never crosses his mind.

Then there's the obvious problem of what JT eventually does with deadgirl.  First there is the blatant ethical issue of have intercourse with a woman that is held captive and can't resist.  That in itself is disturbing.  It's a shame that there are teenagers out there that have the mentality to think that type of behavior is okay.  At least "Deadgirl" does a good job of showing that JT is a couple of sammiches short of a picnic basket so you can see how he would have the sick rationale of thinking it's okay.

Secondly, there is the entire health issue about the situation.  These boys discover that deadgirl is not what she seems to be.  It turns out she can't die despite intentional and accidental attempts to kill her.  It's never established what she is (zombie, drugged human, monster?) but whatever the case, how nasty is that?  This lady has been tied to the gurney for who knows how long and could have any assorted number of diseases.  Having intercourse with her should be the very last thing on anyone's mind.

I like the fact that the movie never makes an effort to explain what exactly deadgirl is and/or where she came from.  They end up using a similar tactic with the finale where it's open to interpretation as to a certain's person's demise.  It adds to the mystery of the movie and causes you to formulate your own theories.

"Deadgirl" gets off to a slow start but eventually transcends into a disturbing ride to keep you fixated for the rest of the film.  It contains several of the elements that are essential to a good horror film while managing to mix in a morality issue or two.  I went into this one expecting a pure horror film and ended up getting a movie with a little bit of insinuated social commentary mixed in.  It's a slippery slope, but "Deadgirl" handles it well.

My rating:  B+

Bad Dreams

You would think with a name like that and some decent cover art to match that this one would be a can't miss.  That's probably what inspired me to add it to the Netflix queue in the first place.  I'm thinking this one came up on some list of horror films with the best dvd cover or something along those lines.  "Bad Dreams" was also a descendant of the 80s so I went in fully expecting to see more of the clichés from that.

Cynthia (Jennifer Rubin) is the comatose -- but sole -- survivor of a mass suicide committed by a religious cult she belonged to. Thirteen years later she awakens from the coma and begins group therapy sessions, but soon she is plagued by horrific nightmares about Harris (Richard Lynch), the cult's leader. When members of Cynthia's therapy group start to die in gruesome, mysterious ways, Cynthia cannot help but wonder if Harris is really dead, and if not, will he come after her to finish what he started 13 years ago.

Lynch had the creepiness factor down for the role of Harris.  That's a necessity for any and all cult leaders.  It's the one common trait they all share.  Members of their cult will claim they are also charismatic.  That's always subjective because what it really comes down to is they are manipulative and the ones who fall prey to their guile are the weak-minded who don't know any better.  However, the one thing that remains consistent is they always have that creepy look about them which is something they nailed with the Harris character.

Being made in 1988, "Bad Dreams" was released before the infamous news story of the Branch Davidian in Texas yet there was still one uncanny similarity.  The groups met a similar fate in terms of a fiery death.  I will never understand why you would want to commit suidcide anyway.  Worse yet, if you had to go the mass suicide route, hy choose fire?  Burning alive would be one of the most painful ways to go.  If they're supposed to be about peace, couldn't they choose something more painless like popping pills?  If you're in a group and having doubts about whether it may be a cult or not, here's a clue:  when the leader comes up with the idea of setting yourself on e, you're probably in a cult.

That wasn't the only similarity this flick shared with something well known.  There was also several references that were extremely close to the early "Nightmare on Elm Street" films.  The score definitely sounded like it came from the same songwriter.  The concept of the Harris character haunting Cynthia in both sleep and when she's awake was very familiar.  They even had a scene where a couple went to the boiler room to get it on.  They might as well have slapped some claws on the bad guy and called it a day.

"Bad Dreams" may have been heralded for its classic dvd art, but the content of the film certainly wasn't going to instill fear in anyone.  There was nothing about the movie that stood out from anything else that came from the same decade.  The filmmakers didn't come with anything original that would make this flick a memorable horror film.  Even the so-called twist they tried to insert at the end was uninspired.  A decent enough effort considering the era it came from, but nothing to write home to mom about.


My rating:  C

 

Gnaw

My whole 31 Days of Horror Marathon idea hasn't been working out quite the way I planned.  I didn't anticipate the Detroit trip stretching out to four days.  Not only that, I certainly didn't anticipate that the lappy would be out of commission during the time which prevented me from watching movies on it.  Maybe I couldn't pull off 31 Days of Horror, but I could still feasibly watch 31 horror movies during the month of October.  "Gnaw" was my attempt to get back on track.

In "Gnaw", six friends find themselves at the center of a culinary nightmare during a weekend trip to Blackstock Farm in the British countryside. With no responsibilities and home-cooked meals prepared by their matronly host (Carrie Cohen), it seemed like the perfect recipe for relaxation. Tensions start to run high, however, when one member of the group fails to return for dinner and a mysterious cloaked figure is seen wandering through the woods. By the time these clueless vacationers realize that their hosts are cannibals, the oven is preheated and the table has already been set.

Here is another movie that makes the obligatory  "I can't get any signal" scene before things start getting hectic.  I don't think there is any concept more played out in the horror genre.  It seems like every horror film in the modern age is going out of their way to foreshadow why the potential victims won't be able to call for help later.  We get it already.  They're out in the middle of nowhere so we already assume their cell phones aren't going to work.  They never do in those scenarios.  No need to make us look like idiots.

Speaking of being isolated form modern society, who would let some total stranger prepare their meals in that type of setting?  Especially when she looked as creepy as that lady did.  As if that wasn't bad enough, during their first meal there one of the gals finds a clump of hair.  Not just a lone strand, mind you.  A clump.  Shouldn't that be a sign right there that something isn't right?  Or at the very least, a good indication that you may not want to eat ANYTHING in that place.

They try to establish the setting early on (as in during the credits) by showing clippings of how dangerous this area is.  We're supposed to get the idea that people have disappearing around there for quite a while which is why these cannibals continue to thrive.  One small problem though:  if the police are aware of multiple disappearances in the same area, shouldn't they be searching that area a little tougher? 

"Gnaw" was never quite sure what type of film it wanted to be.  It had a lot of "Hostel" overtones with it with the torture that scenes that they tried to draw out.  However, it was as if they were scared to fully commit.  They would show the act about to happen but wouldn't give the full detail in several of the instances.  We would often just see the bloody aftermath.  Great effects with the gore; however, shying away from the act itself was coming up short.

There weren't any genuine scares in this film either.  It certainly wasn't from lack of effort though.  It's just that these type of films (the slasher/torture type) often rely more on their gore rather than genuine scares.  It generally makes for the perfect horror fare although doesn't always translate into a good movie.  Just because a movie doesn't hold back on the blood doesn't mean us horror fanatics will always like it.  Since "Gnaw" was more predictable than most and the acting was severely lacking, it provided rather mediocre entertainment as the latest installment in the marathon.


My rating:  C -

Where the Wild Things Are

G had a laundry list of items he wanted for his birthday.  A brotha is ballin' on a budget though so G wasn't getting all of them.  He ultimately narrowed down his birthday present to two choices:  go see "Where the Wild Things Are" or the video game Ultimate Alliance 2 for PS3.  He chose the movie.  I personally would have gone with the video game.  That's the gift that keeps on giving.  But the movie was the less inexpensive choice so I was perfectly fine with that.  Not to mention that I wanted to see it anyway.

The film tells the story of Max (Max Records), a rambunctious and sensitive boy who feels misunderstood at home.  After a fight with his mother, Max runs away and lands on an island where he meets mysterious and strange creatures whose emotions are as wild and unpredictable as their actions.  The Wild Things desperately long for a leader to guide them, just as Max longs for a kingdom to rule. When Max is crowned king, he promises to create a place where everyone will be happy. Max soon finds, though, that ruling his kingdom is not so easy and his relationships there prove to be more complicated than he originally thought.

I vaguely remember this book from my childhood.  When I say "vaguely", I mean I don't recall the story itself at all, just the images.  That was good news for the movie.  They could have went about any route they wanted to with the adaptation and I wouldn't have known any better.  Just as long as the characters looked the same then I was good.  To be honest, I barely remembered the pictures either so they were good either way.

The story was really about the escapism that we all have as kids.  Max's coping mechanism for getting time way from his real-life issues was to take a trip to where the wild things are.  Director Spike Jonez did a nice job of setting that up for us.  Max has a mom (Catherine Keener) who's work and dating struggles are affecting her parental responsibilities; he has no siblings close to his age that can truly relate to him; even his teacher makes school unbearable with his apocalyptic teaching approach.  Of course Max is going to run away mentally.  Who wouldn't want to when that type of life is your reality?

What was really interesting is the metaphors that were conspicuously present in the film.  Like the island itself representing Max's isolation.  Or how the all of the wild things were essentially different facets of his personality.  Carol (James Gandolfini) in particular.  He and Max turned out to be the best of friends and it was essentially because Max was looking at a mirror personality of himself.  By him dealing with all of the creatures, Max was able to take an introspective look at himself.  However, it was a manner in which a kid can better understand which was interacting with imaginary friends.

Prior to seeing this, I was getting mixed messages about the appropriateness of it.  Some disliked it because it didn't stay entirely true to the book.  I personally didn't have a problem with that whatsoever.  For one, as I've mentioned earlier, I have no recollection of the story anyway.  Secondly, from what I do recall, the book wasn't that long.  If a director is going to adapt a short children's book into a 101-minute movie, you have to expect there are going to be a few liberties that are going to take place. 

The second misgiving that has been conveyed is that "Where the Wild Things Are" had a little bit of a dark tone for children.  Well it was rated PG so that should give you some idea right there what you can expect.  Also, it's based on a book that involved large monsters.  At least the movie tried to muppetize them thanks to some help from Jim Henson.  You have to ultimately consider that Hollywood is always going to hedge its bets when it comes to these type of movies.  The bigger the audience, the bigger their take so you can guarantee they're going to cater to both the children and the adults.  The tone may have been dark, but I'm just glad it wasn't filled with anywhere near the amount of inappropriateness "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" had in it.

I'm going to go ahead and count "Where the Wild Things Are" towards one of the installments of my 31 Days of Horror Marathon.  I understand it will be a very loose interpretation in order to fit and I'm perfectly fine with that.  After a movie like "Paranormal Activity", I have to gradually work my way back into the genuine horror films again.  This flick was a nice transition.  But most importantly, G really liked it.  Since I truly went for him anyway, that was all that really mattered.


My rating:  A-