There's only one film you need to catch this weekend At the Movies, and it's the cinematic adaptation of Maurice Sendak's Where the Wild Things Are. The film is a must-see for everyone of every age, and Rolling Stone's movie critic Peter Travers awarded it four stars in the new issue of RS.
It takes a director like Spike Jonze, who Travers calls "one of the most imaginative filmmakers out there," to create such an incredible tale out of a children's story that only had 10 sentences. All the performances are incredible, from newcomer Max Records — "Best performance by a child this century," says Travers — to the voice work from James Gandolfini and Lauren Ambrose. And no, the PG film is not "too scary" for younger audiences. "This is a movie for everybody, and Spike Jonze has done something special," Travers says of this visual and emotional tour de force.
Now it's time for Travers to tell us Where the Scum Bucket Films Are.
To begin, there's the suspense thriller Law Abiding Citizen, starring Jamie Foxx and Gerald Butler. By now you've seen the commercials, but here's a brief synopsis: The film is about Clyde (Butler) whose wife and child were killed, only to see the murderers let go because of a deal with prosecution, then Clyde seeks revenge on everyone involved in the case, even from behind bars. This is what we call a "paycheck movie," one that steals heavily from Charles Bronson's Death Wish series. There's gore galore if you can't wait until Saw VI, but the ending is so confounding and stupid that you'd wish you just waited for the film to go to Netflix.
Finally, there's The Stepfather, starring that guy from Gossip Girl and that plastic surgeon from Nip/Tuck. Critics aren't being allowed to see this movie prior to its release, which in 99 out of 100 cases means the film is no doubt headed on a one-way path to Scum Bucket. How many of these movies do we get a year? In 2009 alone, we've already had the child-turns-on-family film (Orphan) and the stepmom-turns-on-family film (The Uninvited), so this week we get the stepdad-turns-on-family film. This movie is a remake of a 1987 film of the same name featuring Lost's Terry O'Quinn in the titular role. That movie was just released on DVD, so go rent that and save yourself the time and energy of going to see the new Stepfather in theaters.
Get more from your favorite RS writers — follow Peter Travers on Twitter.
This Week's Reviews:
• Where the Wild Things Are
• Law Abiding Citizen
• Antichrist
Share
Email
Stumble
AIM
Del.icio.us
DiggThis
Fark It!
- Portions of Album Content Provided by All Music Guide © 2009 All Media Guide, LLC.
Get RS Mobile
RSS
kenneth anger | October 26, 2009 12:53 PM
Some good comments posted. Part of the problem with reveiwing ANYTHING is the whole subjective vs objective issue (as already mentioned). Travers views are filtered, like anyone, by context. So Travers watches tons of movies---that's his context. He can hardly relate to the average movie go-er. In that regard, i find "travers take" pretty much worhtless. I'll read the review becuase he usually includes somoe type synopsis that is a little revealing. Other than that, I really can't say Travers take is any more valid than anyone elses!
John | October 20, 2009 12:54 AM
Instead of being a cheerleader for WTWTA because HE liked it he could have said, "most kids under 10 will be bored and many tweens will get a bad idea of what is acceptable behavior. Most older teens and adults who are aware of the book will love this film, with it's stunning visuals, it's lack of pandering to a very young audience....etc.
John | October 20, 2009 12:32 AM
I forgot about the unprofessionalism. Movie critcs must see many, many, many, films. Their natural desire will be to put a premium on originality. However, many of their customers see far fewer films and their objections to seeing themes repeated in different movies in different ways will be much less. It is unprofessional to allow your ennui to become part of your reviews instead of putting yourself in the shoes of a more average moviegoer. This is particularly important when reviewing for young audiences as younger people will not be put off by repetiveness as much as the reviewer. If a young person sees "Ran", a chinese remake of King Lear, he is more apt to congratulate himself for making the connection then think the movie is less worthwhile.
John | October 19, 2009 10:42 PM
I'll try to explain. Subjective views of a movie are worthless because they are no guide to help you decide whether to go see a movie. One thing you could try would be comparing the movie in question to other titles, with the expectation that if you liked the other titles, you will probably like this film. Also, I find critics don't tell you what you want to know about a film. Many people have pet peeves about movies. Mine is showing illegal drug use in a favorable light. I have known too many peoples who's lives have been screwed up OR WORSE because of them. And yet when I saw Transformers ROTF, an illegal drug was presented in a funny way. When I saw Zombieland, ditto. Other things that some people might not like in their film which they will get no heads up on: excessive violence, religion, sex, politics, nudity, negativity, not having a hero, etc. The movie Surrogates was ruined for me by the Hero, in the end, being little different than the "bad" guy morally. Critics should find a way to tell you this without spoiling the movie for people who don't care. Basically, we get more information about a film from it's rating, and from it's trailer than we do from the vast majority of critics.
Theo | October 19, 2009 8:44 PM
Yet again Peter Travers glorifies the art film while trashing the popcorn flick. Just because "Where The Wild Thing Are" is a Spike Jonze film doesn't make it great; it was average at best. There was very little to the plot and while some of the shots where very beautiful the movie fell flat. I, and judging from the conversations others in the theater where having while leaving, walked away with no real feeling about the movie. "Law Abiding Citizen" might be full on death and gore but on the other hand was an decent pop corn flick. There where some cool death scenes, some cheesy scenes, but for the whole there was a good deal more entertainment value. I would probably give "Where The Wild Things Are" 2 1/2 stars, and Law Abiding Citizen" 2 stars. You could easily skip them both.
BC | October 19, 2009 1:50 PM
Where the Wild Things Are has me smiling in my seat for most of the movie (obviously not the heartbreaking moments). Visually stunning, emotionally beautiful, great performances, and even the soundtrack mixes well.
I think I need to see it again at imax.
movie critics... | October 19, 2009 1:43 PM
report their subjective view of movies. Where did you get this idea of objectivity, John?
Evan | October 18, 2009 9:18 PM
I don't understand why people think this movie was so great. It was boring and dull. There were only a few parts I enjoyed, but for the most part it was not a film that I enjoyed.
Lyn | October 17, 2009 9:01 PM
John, I must admit I have a bit of a problem with a certain part of your comment where you say: "I keep looking in vain for professionalism and objectivity in movie reviewers."
As a student journalist, one of the first things I was taught was that movie reviews, by their very nature, are NOT objective, and can never correlate to the feelings of one hundred percent of their readers. They are based primarily on the opinion of their writers, which separates them from something like news, where bias is heavily frowned upon. I hope you can stop looking now for something that doesn't exist, and whining about it in your comments; you will save us both headaches.
As to the review, I saw Where the Wild Things Are yesterday -- truly an amazing film.
John | October 17, 2009 6:52 PM
I heard preteens should NOT go to WTWTA. If "kid's can handle the truth" was really some kind of standard, we would show our kid's video of African kids bruataly killing others. This is true; it's going on now. Also, we should tell them about Santa. Mr. Travers has a crummy job that requires him to see WAY too many movies. So any originality he sees AT ALL, makes him actually sit up and smile, no matter what else is wrong with the movie. Did you notice his reviews of both Law Abiding Citizen, and The Stepfather were thumbs down because he's seen it all before? I keep looking in vain for professionalism and objectivity in movie reviewers. I'm not saying his reviews are right or wrong, I'm just saying they are not based on ideas, but on feelings. I can hire a five year old and ask THEM how they FEEL about a movie.
Anonymous | October 15, 2009 7:37 PM
Yo Pete,
Just so you know, in you're review of Where the Wild Things are you say that in the book Max's room turns into the island and he does not sail in a tiny boat. That is incorrect. Reread the book. It will take you 3 minutes.
Kevin the Robot | October 15, 2009 5:38 PM
You screwed up Peter. Now the commercials for Stepfather will have you quoted as saying, "...Really a Great Movie" Peter Travers, Rolling Stone.
John Debono | October 15, 2009 5:14 PM
Well Peter good news, I don't know anyone who does not want to see Where The Wild Things. This is the most anticipated film of the year and your review made me that much more excited.