Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Almost A Half Dozen Incredibly Premature looks at WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE - which was directed by Spike Jonze!

Hey folks, Harry here... Today - Moriarty attempted to get into this screening... we'll see if he was able to pull it off - however, whether he did or not - these two spies did. We've known about this screening for a while now - and this isn't a case of a nearly finished film that's sitting in a can awaiting release next Holiday season because of this season being overcrowded. No, this is a film at its most exposed, raw and vulnerable state. The way Spike shot this film was with puppeted suits with... TO BE CG'd heads. So imagine watching the story of WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE without any face movement or emotions. No connection, other than in voice, between Max and the creatures - which is what the entire film will hinge on. Why did the studio force Spike to screen this? They didn't. Spike - as an artist - needed to have an audience to watch the film to help him with difficult editing decisions. To find what is working at this early stage and what he needs to work on. And the studio is going to allow him the time to find and craft this film. SO - here is an incredibly early look... where the film was before the big budget slickery of the effects company has come in. There are things that, even now seem to be working really well... and ultimately - as you'd expect by a film of this type... they have a long and hard road to go, but they have Spike Jonze leading the way. Let's hope for the best!

So I saw a screening of Where the Wild Things Are the other night. I was sworn to secrecy with a specific statement saying NOT to write into aintitcool. But what follows is what happens when you make your audience wait outside in the cold for far too long. Let me say that the movie I saw is in a very unfinished stage. Wires can be seen, animations are absent, etc. I'll keep this review short because of this. WTWTA is a child's tale involving a rambunctious boy named Max who goes on a magical journey to a far off land. I never have read the book but I was always enthralled with the illustrations and was very interested in seeing them brought to the big screen. What Spike Jonze has done/will do will look incredible. He's combined puppets/costumes and animation and while I got to see a few snippets (most likely in infant stages) what will be the final product will definitely be cause enough to see this in a big theater. That being said, the film does have some slow parts. Max's relationships to the Wild Things have some cute moments and some thoughtful ones as well. But sometimes things drag and some repetition occurs. After the initial meeting between Max and the Wild Things, the "magic" tends to stagnate. Whether this is a length (running time) issue or material issue I cannot decide. I would like to say that the blend of effects will make this movie worth a look. I implore Mr. Jonze to spend extra time and care with the animation of the facial expressions and emotions of the Wild Things. The relationship of Max to the Wild Things, and ultimately the movie, will hinge on it. The snippets of facial animation that I saw tonight (and I understand that they were in an unfinished stage) were not good enough. Not for what Jonze is close to pulling off. I don't want to mention the voice work done. Familiar names are used but, due to ongoing changes (some of the character's voices changed midway through the film), what I heard might not make it to the final product. This movie might not be the homerun that us older listen-to-me-bitch-and-moan-about-another-part-of-my-childhood-"ruined" -wah-cry-me-a-river geeks are hoping for, but it will be fun, mostly for kids, real ones. And that's who it's for, isn't it? Criticize at will, fellow talkbackers. Yours, Culan Dephi

Ok - and then we have the following review from a reviewer who just seemed to be unable to see past a film in this incredibly rough state. You have to understand that this is a film... that has basically finished shooting - is in a rough edit mode, doesn't have the score - or any truly finished CG... and at this point Spike was just testing to see how it is paced, where he needs to cut - before going into the costly CG stage. It's rare on a film that will end up this effects heavy to screen at this early of a stage - mainly because random audiences have just never seen a film this barebones. SO - if you choose to read the following review - remember - he saw a film where all the magic is yet to be implemented. And for WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE - magic is what its all about...

Hey Harry and crew, I just got back from one of the inital test screenings for "Where the Wild Things Are" directed by Spike Jonze out in Pasadena. I am sure you will be getting quite a few of these reviews since there must have been over 400 in attendance with at least 50 fans of your website, most of them better writers than what I can give but what the hell, here goes. I have to say that I, being in my early thirties, remember my parents reading the book "Where the Wild Things Are" by Maurice Sendak too many times to remember. The book itself is only 48 pages long and like most children books the total text written could fit on 5-6 pages of a Hollywood script. With such a small amount of written material to draw on Dave Eggers and Jonze had to write a little out of the box to fill a 2 hour movie (may have been an hour and thirty, I forget). Before the movie started I was wondering if it was the norm to screen movies that rely so heavy on CGI this early in the game considering Warner Brothers are about 11 or so months away from releasing the thing. We were told the usual about it being a rough cut with temporary music and most of the effects not finished. This turned out to be an understatement since they haven't even started removing the stunt wires from any of the actors for the entire movie. The movie starts with relative newcomer Max Records who plays the future king of the Wild Things, Max. Without going into specifics Max and his sister don't get along anymore, they come from a single parent home (Dad is either dead or dead-beat), and Mom (Catherine Keener) is having a hell of a time trying to raise the Max, who without friends, is your basic over-imaginative hellraiser. The reason I treat you to the cliff note version of the beginning is because just like other movies that mine our adolescence, Max is not the star of the show here. Where are the effing Wild Things? After a blowout with Mom and new boyfriend (Mark Ruffalo) Max has enough and runs out of the house in his distinctive wolf suit that we have come to recognize him. After a "Lord of the Flies" temper tantrum in the woods Max finds a little sail boat near the bay and decideds to head off. After awhile he finally reaches the island of the Wild Things and we finally get the payoff.............sort of. Spike Jonze decided against using complete CGI to make the Wild Things and instead went for the people in a goofy suite angle. The Wild Things look damn near just like they did in Sendak's book. There were no animatronic deals in the face to show emotion of movement of the mouth in the creatures. They just had little triangle points of reference all over there face to be CGI'd later on down the line. This meant that instead of a slick CGI head character I spent the last 2 hours watching a kid talk to a bunch of "Costumed Man Puppets." I'm not going to spoil anything else for the readers since there really isn't much to spoil. This is a visually based movie that is operating on an EXTREME thread bare story and without the slick CGI to back it up, it really was half a movie. Here are some interesting points though. James Gandolfini plays the creature Carol which last time I check was Moishe in the book. He does a decent job of acting like an overgrown man-child considering the narrative he was given. Billy Bob Thorton voiced the character of Emil (God knows what they changed it to in the movie, I didn't pay attention) for 2/3 of the movie in his usual Southern drawl. Who they replaced him with I have no idea. The rest of the cast did a decent job I guess but the whole thing was odd since I was listening to great actors voices coming out of emotionless big puppet heads. The whole experience reminded me of watching "Meet the Feebles" without any of the cool sex, drugs, S&M, or violence. About once every 30 minutes you saw a couple of beats of some completed CGI and it looked damn good. The atmosphere really didn't feel right but with those same little CGI points of reference on every God damn tree and rock in every scene I am guessing this is going to look completely different. I used my imagination to think how I would feel about this movie in all of its slick finished glory...............I still didn't like it. When this thing is cleaned and polished it might be a really decent kids flick. I enjoy alot of smart kids movies that entertain the adults while keeping the kids into the story, I just didn't enjoy this one. Is my decision pre-mature? I don't know. Had I had the chance to do it over again I would have rather watched a semi-finished movie and made an opinion. There was just too much to finish for me to call this one. Call me ScrewNonDisclosureAgreements

Then we got this review which really and truly feels the film is going to be incredibly special... THANK GOD!

Hi Harry, I read the two reviews you posted previous and, although I wasn't planning to, I feel obligated to throw my two cents in. I had originally planned to write you about this one, but once I saw it I decided that it just wouldn't be right (or fair to Spike) to do so. I think spoilers might ruin the magic. However, I just wanted to heartily disagree with the "meh" reports you've recieved thus far. This movie is going to be something special. Sans effects and score I was still captivated. The temp score (mostly music from The Arcade Fire) fit amazingly well and I even got used to the static monster faces (probably because I can use my imagination and don't need everything generated by a computer and spoon fed to me). I'd love for them to license the same music from the final score, but I seriously doubt that'll happen. But please Spike, if you're reading this, use similar music-- don't go for the big blown out symphony or anything. It went a long way toward making the movie for me, especially that scene that used Rebellion. I don't want to ruin the story, so I won't. However, I would like to applaud Jonez and Eggars for making a children's movie that has actual characters and character development. But the most refreshing aspect of this one is the fact that it is totally devoid of all of the pop culture references, hip slang and all the other elements that will make this generation of children's movies dated and lame in the very near future. Bravo to all those involved. Bravo. Call me cinemaniac1979.

Then we got this one! Thanks to the Testing Company for giving people my site address - I love free advertising!

Hello this is my 1st time on this site and I must say where I have you been all my life lol. I only heard of this site because I signed a waiver telling me not to post anything on this site telling you of the movie I was about to watch "Where the wild things are" so of course I had to visit the site. Well the movie looks amazing great music and It just looks like whoever has read this book imagined the characters would look like in real life, I can't wait for the cg. The movie kind of leaves you with a confused almost left hanging at the end, but then I was thinking and it makes sense, There was a scene *spoiler* where a monster tells Max to hide in its stomach so the monster pretty much eats him and then the monster kind of hesitates to release him from its stomach and made it seem like if the monster tricked him into eating him and then lets him go looking all slimy and gooey people around me (kids and adults) where a bit disturbed by it since the monster and max talk while he is in the belly. On closing the movie looks like it will rock after they spice it up, it could use some more comedy since its kind of dark. thenewguy

Here's another rave:

Hi Harry, I also saw Where The Wild Things Are in Pasadena earlier this afternoon. I'm appalled by the negative reviews being sent to you about the film. The filmmakers have crafted an intense, merciless drama that deals with hard hitting, sometimes cold, issues that are meant to evoke some real emotion from the audience. The film is shot as a raw, hand-held-cam, indie film. The human cast and human world are portrayed in a very realistic way, letting you know immediately that this is not a kids movie (at least, its not going to flow like Enchanted or be as polished as Bridge to Terebithia). It reminded me of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 1. It's one of those kids movies that slips through the studio cracks and is made as a dark, mature film. The movie is very dialogue heavy, yet has its adventurous, special effects filled moments. As the story becomes more involved and the characters show their many layers, it becomes a very scary film. The complexity of living on the island with the monsters becomes intimidating and dangerous for Max. I can't believe one of the reviewers said this movie will ride on its special effects. That is such a fucking bullshit statement. The actor playing Max, and the voice-actors did such an amazing job of making you forget about the static monster faces and only focus on the character arcs and storyline. The story being told does not need monster facial expressions for an audience to understand every aspect of the film. Though, I can't wait to see this film again when it is complete. The few moments of the finished monsters sent chills down my spine. As for the pacing of the film, I feel I'd need to see it again to really judge it. It's a very mature film with many moments of up and down anger, sadness, happiness, etc. I really couldn't tell you what scenes could be shortened or cut without fucking up the overall vision and message. I'd say everyone involved in the film making are really trying to make this something special and audiences are going to be happily surprised by the finished product. I thought it was funny that there were contracts being signed mentioning to not write specifically to AintItCoolNews.Com about the movie, but damn, those other reviews sucked.
Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Dec. 1, 2007, 10:44 p.m. CST


    by furious1


  • Dec. 1, 2007, 10:45 p.m. CST


    by The Dude Abides

    First posters suck!

  • Dec. 1, 2007, 10:45 p.m. CST


    by SeXX ED

    ... awww yeah.

  • Dec. 1, 2007, 10:49 p.m. CST


    by furious1

    I'm awesome. I dont know about this. spike jonez is kind of hit or miss for me. Loved the book as a kid, scared the shit outta me. little shit max chased the dog down the stairs with a fork.

  • Dec. 1, 2007, 10:51 p.m. CST

    sexx ed

    by furious1

    aww no, yo. and by suck you mean I'm awesome. found the 8 track dude.

  • Dec. 1, 2007, 10:53 p.m. CST


    by deaddonjon

    i got here and noone was commenting. thought id be first. oh well. this movie sounds like its gonna be cool. i kinda see it being like labarynth, dark crystal muppets, where people are with puppets. itl be awesome!

  • Dec. 1, 2007, 10:55 p.m. CST


    by furious1

    screwed up the quote. "found the credence".

  • Dec. 1, 2007, 10:56 p.m. CST


    by furious1

    yeah, I thought I'd be a rock star and/or dead by 27. guess we wuz both wrong cuz!

  • Dec. 1, 2007, 11:10 p.m. CST


    by shmu65

    I too wanted this to be like dark crystal and labyrinth, but this film is/will be a far cry from it. Still worth a look though.

  • Dec. 1, 2007, 11:18 p.m. CST

    Yeah, but...

    by ct4buddy

    Is it the next Star Wars?

  • Dec. 1, 2007, 11:22 p.m. CST

    I did get over its unfinished state

    by thecoldisnofun

    Guys I suck at writing. The shear fact I put this sentence together should warrant some special Retards Guild of America Award. That being said I "might" have been the second poster. Even with all the CGI and movie magic in the world I just felt this movie was way immature to deal with. Imagine a kid whose 9 writing a big budget flick. You can edit the hell out of some juvenile dialogue with some interim funny moments, thank you Joke polish writers, but I was still not into it. This movie will do well with kids if its polished up, I just wasn't into it. Kaufman made the other Jonze movies, he isn't a credible force yet to call him an autuer in capable hands with the subject matter.

  • Dec. 1, 2007, 11:22 p.m. CST

    Why would a non plant

    by INWOsuxRED

    not tell us the names of the famous people, even if they might not make it into the movie? Not to mention the whole idea that you can tell the effects work will be good before they do the effects work?

  • Dec. 1, 2007, 11:25 p.m. CST

    See!!!???? Can't spell sheer right

    by thecoldisnofun

    WGA you need to hire me this very moment!!!!!!!!!!

  • Dec. 1, 2007, 11:26 p.m. CST

    has anyone else gotten the army ad

    by INWOsuxRED

    that trys to get people to join the army so they can play guitar? Is that a joke? Some sort of virual ad for a re-issue of Idiocracy?

  • Dec. 1, 2007, 11:49 p.m. CST

    That headline...

    by MaxTheSilent one of the grossest affronts to the written word ever composed.

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 12:06 a.m. CST


    by Magnum Opus

    I kind of wish I had decided to go to this screening, but I kept thinking of just the vast amount of crying, screaming, kicking children in the audience . . . and I could feel my will to live slipping away.

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 12:07 a.m. CST

    What the frack?!?!

    by loonigrrl

    How did I just comment as "Magnum Opus?" Is it just my computer? Am I seeing things? Weird.

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 12:14 a.m. CST

    No loongirl you got the Magnums?????

    by thecoldisnofun

    Be glad you didn't see the screening. It needed a small group of editors picking at it, not the general audience consensus. This was like looking at a 3 month old fetus and asking all of us if it was good enough to be a swimsuit model.

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 12:41 a.m. CST

    Will this movie ever be done?

    by Stormwatcher

    Seems like its been in production for years. I remember the book being like 12 pages so I can't see it being a betrayal of our youths as its not like anyone can say it's cannon or something. By the time it comes out my daughter will be 1 and a half so maybe she'll like it.

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 12:50 a.m. CST

    The movie just isn't done

    by thecoldisnofun

    It wrapped principal photography less than 3 months ago. I hate BS plants that defend a piece of shit. This screener, and I have seen over 200 since locating to the Valley, was way too soon an incarnation to judge. Max, the lead, was good. The dialogue and script was thread-bare and immature. The final product could make it worth your while. BUT I AM TELLING you it will not be a "Oh my God experience." I still think while Spike took this screening for feedback on pacing that it was dual-fold win for the WB because this will be a bitch to market in the end.

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 1:27 a.m. CST

    from wikipedia:

    by robamenta

    In 1983, Walt Disney Pictures tried to start a CGI make of this but never got past the preview/test. The preview/test can be seen here at

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 1:48 a.m. CST

    Agreed - how fucking STUPID is the headline?!

    by JimCurry

    "Couple of Incredibly Premature looks at WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE by Spike Jonze reviews!" You morons! Take TWO seconds to concentrate on what you're writing! If it wasn't written while drunk, there's no excuse.

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 1:58 a.m. CST

    Just saw Where the Wild Things Are Part 2

    by JimCurry

    it was an incredibly premature look by Spike Jonze review.

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 2:07 a.m. CST

    Just promise "NO SINGING" please

    by Mace Tofu

    "I'm looooost in the woooods..."

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 2:19 a.m. CST

    Halfway through the book now

    by BenBraddock

    So far so good, hope they don't blow the ending

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 3:01 a.m. CST

    This film seems...

    by Tourist

    ...To be going through some kind of production hell. Kid actors not up to the task (according minor crew members) actors being replaced bit by bit. Then again, Malick worked like that on The Thin Red Line...yeah, doesn't really relate, does it. Man, this has all the portents of sucking major dick, but its goddamn giant puppets, Jonez and Eggars, so it better, better work.

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 3:02 a.m. CST

    can't wait for this one


    I am anticipating genius

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 3:42 a.m. CST

    don't be hatin on my drunk postin'



  • Dec. 2, 2007, 3:44 a.m. CST


    by hamslime

    Has it gotten to the point on this talkback where we start calling Spike Jonze a hack yet? No? JESUS! It's about time talent is recognized.

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 3:51 a.m. CST

    Spike is like a prodigal child

    by TheDohDoh

    the guy needs a lot of reassurance to do great things, but this is going to be great. what a book! fuck you haters, "sabotage" is better than most movies.

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 3:51 a.m. CST

    ok who knows a chick that has a WTWTA tattoo...

    by TheRealSeveren

    mmm... so sexy.

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 4:02 a.m. CST

    Wild thing...I think I love you!

    by IAmMrMonkey!

    That song BETTER be in the movie.

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 4:11 a.m. CST

    I had to give my tickets to this to some friends

    by IndustryKiller!

    Unfortunately I couldn't make it personally otherwise you would definitely have had another review. My friend who I gave it to is a massive fan of the book and when I offered him the chance to see it he lit up and ran and got his original printing copy of it out of his room. Unfortunately he didn't like the film. And not odd for a film this early he said the pacing was very back and forth. He said Gandolfini does an admirable job as the lead monster but that he had no idea why they cast Billy bob Thornton. When you get down to it it just seems that it's simply too early to judge this one effectively. With that said you also can't necessarily trust the claims of greatness since testing audiences are often some of the dumbest motherfuckers you could possibly come across.

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 4:12 a.m. CST


    by hamslime

    I hope you didn't mistake my post as being hateful. I'm just suprised that everyone hasn't turned on Spike Jonze yet. That seems par for the course on this site everytime there's news of a talented film maker's new movie pre or post release. See: Lynch, Tarantino, Aronofsky ect. It's actually quite sickening. On second thought maybe my post was hateful, it just wasn't aimed at Jonze.

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 4:18 a.m. CST

    Oh, he also said that the kid who plays Max

    by IndustryKiller!

    Is the single best part of the movie, brilliant casting apparently.

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 4:25 a.m. CST

    Drunk posting?

    by Spifftacular Squirrel Girl

    That's always fun. <p> Also I find it hard to not like Spike Jonze if only for his part in "Three Kings".

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 4:28 a.m. CST

    Last Review sounds fishy?

    by Redfive!

    Sounds exactly like a studio exec would like there reviews to sound. However im really hoping this movie is what he says it is.I love WTWTA and have loved it for over 30 years.

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 4:37 a.m. CST

    We also know Harry has decided he loves this movie

    by IndustryKiller!

    It's pretty clear that Harry has already decide that this movie is going to be brilliant and nothing is going to keep him from thinking it. He does everything he can to dismantle any argument against it. So in about 10 months or whenever the film comes out you can expect the requisite glowing review, no matter the quality of the final product and no matter what his real feelings are for it.

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 5:31 a.m. CST

    It's hard to imagine Dave Eggers writing something

    by eraser_x

    that a kid or a person with a life would like. I base that rush judgment on my trying but failing to finish his "Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius" abomination of a book. That book (what I managed to read of it) is so self-indulgent and navel-gazing and self-conscious and just plain boring that it is the very opposite of the "Wild Things" book which is free and energetic and, um, wild. By the way, the "American Splendor" comic is also, in a sense, self-absorbed, but I like "American Splendor" quite a bit. The difference is in the sincerity and purpose. "American Splendor" seems to be written by a person who is sincerely interested in what he's writing about and thinking through and he's not writing it to impress anybody. In contrast "..Staggering Genius" (the first 60 or 80 pages, which is what I managed to read) seems to be written by a guy who is writing his own life story that he himself doesn't think is interesting, and it actually is not interesting, and yet he desperately wants the reader to like it. Eggers' book is just bizarre, in a bad, insipid way.

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 5:33 a.m. CST

    My friend said the movie is an hour and a half

    by IndustryKiller!

    Which is sort of disturbing, considering that Jonze isn't really going to have a whole lot of room for editing. Anyone who was there wanna give us a better read on the run time?

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 5:53 a.m. CST


    by Tourist

    ...American Splendor seems sincere the same way Wesley Willis does. It's not some literary Michael Jordan attempting to channel the world view or a simple minded sad sack failure. It IS the world view of a simple minded sad sack failure. While I enjoyed the movies, Pekars actual books are the monumentally dull chronicles of a monumentally dull person. Perhaps its some sort of ironic protest performance art type thing. I liked Eggers book alot. When you have a hard luck story as Oprahfied and cliched as his, you may aswell have a laugh with it.

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 6:46 a.m. CST

    new form of plant...

    by vadakinX

    Those weeds have gotten smart....and I'm not talking about the reviewers, I'm talking about the studio...why would a studio say not to leak any info to this specific site? <p> Because it's exactly what they want. They wanted people to put reviews up here, but they can't be seen to encourage leaking info, so they say not to, but they give the web address of aintitcool, hoping that people WILL post reviews. <p> Call it reverse psychology, call it a new form of planting seeds, call it a risky but potentially profitable move, but these guys have found a way to promote the movie without the use of plants and they have done it by telling the audience not to do something, knowing full well that some of them will dsregard that order. So they quitely encourage the audience to spill the beans to, while maintaining a public face of anger at leaked info. genius.

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 7:26 a.m. CST

    Spike's a true visionary , this will prove to be a quintessentia

    by KillaKane

    What I've heard and seen so far of this Sendak adaptation has been extremely positive (the rough cut is simply a means to hone and reign elements for a more effective edit, foolish to judge at this juncture) Jonze is being afforded time to finess and craft this, not because the Studio is worried, but because they see immense potential in what has been assembled in rough cut. I'm sure they'll be a cross generational audience that will flock in droves to see this film, precipitated by a wave of publicity and positive advance word. To my mind Jonze is an uber-mensch capable of delivering truly unique imagery with a directorial nouse that will assure WTWTA of a 'children's classic' status. I can feel it in my yarbles, this is going to be something special.

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 7:27 a.m. CST

    and Timeless Children's classic

    by KillaKane

    Give us more header room dammit Harry! ;-)

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 12:09 p.m. CST

    Glad I saw these reviews now.

    by NoahTall

    I'm glad I stumbled on these reviews and the Cloverfield ones now. Undoubtedly within a couple days all that will exist are statements that "My best friend JJ/My next door neighbor Spike asked me to take down the reviews so I did-Love Harry" but both movies seem to hold promise.

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 12:13 p.m. CST


    by Bone-In Foray

    Sorry, but you're wrong. In fact, and I say this as an ardent supporter of Mr. Kaufman, what would Charlie be with Spike? 'Human Nature' anyone? Your assertion is a lame one.

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 12:14 p.m. CST


    by Bone-In Foray

    I meant 'without' Spike. The result is the same...

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 1:11 p.m. CST

    You know where Kaufman would be without Spike, Bone?

    by IndustryKiller!

    Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, one of the best movies of the last decade. That's where. I love SPike Jonze and both Being John Malkovitch and Adaptation, but Kaufman's success is not contingent upon one director and i hope Jonzes' isn't contingent on one writer.

  • How the Grinch Stole Christmas, um..uh..oh dear.

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 4:47 p.m. CST


    by ironic_name<P><P>

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 5:12 p.m. CST


    by afacewithaview

    Spike Joze, please keep Arcade Fire's music in the movie. They are the best band around today and it would complete this movie being the closest to my heart. A) the book that I loved and was slightly spooked by when I was a kid B) Muppets- always had a soft spot for them C) Dave Eggers - fantastic writer D) Spike Jonze - the director whose work inspired me to choose that profession (I'm 16) and E?) Using Arcade Fire's brilliant "Rebellion (Lies)" as a climax? This would be my heaven.

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 5:40 p.m. CST

    jonze wouldn't be my first choice

    by ashhole

    i would love to see michel gondry take a crack at it. based on gondry's body of work, he seems the perfect choice to me. that being said, i like spike's work quite a bit. i just think this film seems outside of his experience, much like dave eggers writing a screenplay. oh, and to the guy who named himself after james joyce's literary persona and thinks spike jonze is nothing without charlie kaufman - get over yourself, give up on your unfinished novel, and hurry up with my appetizers.

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 6:35 p.m. CST

    Unethical bastards

    by Bronx Cheer

    Shame on all of you reviewers for violating the very sacredness of the contracts you signed.

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 9:02 p.m. CST

    This is one of the most retarded posts EVER

    by Mister Man

    If the damn director doesn't know what he/she wants, then they have no business in the chair. Screenings have been around forever, but to start PRAISING (and worse yet, UTILIZING) them as assisting an "artist"?????? Insanity. Screenings have DESTROYED films. This is totally ridiculous.

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 10:19 p.m. CST

    You know where Kaudmans...

    by Tourist

    ...Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind would be without MUSIC VIDEO director Gondry? Non exsistant. It was his concept. Anyway, I've seen Confessions Of A Dangerous Mind and Human Nature, and Spike has easily been the best at bringing Kaudmans work to the screen, even Gondry seemed to do a 180 and go with a more naturalistic style for Enternal Sunshine, similar to spikes initial approaches on Malkovich and Adaptation. Besides, he IS a music video director. Someone who fits more creativity and ingenuity into 5 minutes or less than most directors can get into an entire feature today.

  • Dec. 2, 2007, 10:23 p.m. CST

    There is no I in TEAM

    by thecoldisnofun

    and no D in Kaufman

  • Dec. 3, 2007, 12:54 a.m. CST

    I would agree with you Mister Man

    by IndustryKiller!

    Except that Judd Apatow EXTENSIVELY test screens his films, for example I've already seen Pineapple Express which doesn't hit screens until August, and that policy seems to work pretty swimmingly for him. Although you could say with comedy it's a bit more understandable considering you can audibly hear whether a scene is working for an audience or not.

  • Dec. 3, 2007, 1:05 a.m. CST

    That's utter bullshit Tourist

    by IndustryKiller!

    Eternal SUnshine would have been a music video unless it was directed by....ummm...a music video director?? That doesn't compute. Gondry's directing was brilliant yes, but Kaufmans script would have been brilliant even if the movie had fallen into less talented hands. It's one of the most insightful scripts ever written above modern love and don't forget it won the Oscar for best screenplay. I've also seen Be Kind, Rewind and it isn't half the film Eternal Sunshine is. Science of Sleep, while great, still doesn't hit the emotional highs that Kaufmans script afforded in Eternal Sunshine. I've never seen Human Nature, but Confessions of a Dangerous Mind is a wonderful and underrated little film.

  • Dec. 3, 2007, 4:17 a.m. CST

    Just read these reviews...

    by EdmundoDupont

    They were PREMATURE-some

  • Dec. 3, 2007, 4:59 a.m. CST

    Advertising is the future

    by The Chosen

    Maybe it will become a pattern...

  • Dec. 3, 2007, 6:28 a.m. CST

    How can it be bullshit?

    by Tourist

    The concept was Gondrys. Therefore, no Gondry, no script for Eternal Sunshine. I liked Science Of Sleep just as much by the way. Wouldn't bother with Human Nature. All the ingredients are there for a success, yet it just never works. Thats probally Gondrys fault. Which is why I think its unfair to label Jonez a "music vid" director who got lucky with Kaufmans material, considering (from confessions and nature) how easy it is to fuck up Kaufmans scripts.

  • Dec. 3, 2007, 7:42 a.m. CST


    by jackalcack

    I like your reverse psychology theory. Studio telling people not to post on AICN so they go and do exactly that as soon as they get home. Plants who don't even realise they're plants. Brainwashed, photosynthesising mother-fuckers.

  • Dec. 3, 2007, 9:34 a.m. CST

    Science of Sleep

    by gobofraggleuk

    I wouldn't give Gondry too much credit for coming up with 'concepts' - the actor Rhys Ifans who was in Human Nature said that he came up with the Science of Sleep idea with Gondry and then Gondry stole it and dumped him to put a more successful actor in the film... I just think Jonze, Gondry, Kaufman - they're all talented and were lucky enough to work with each other, but none has made the other one look a genius.

  • Dec. 3, 2007, 11:15 a.m. CST

    Sure it will be great, but...

    by Sad_Lieutenant

    ... is that ill-conceived Justice League movie dead yet?

  • Dec. 3, 2007, 11:44 a.m. CST

    Yeah, chill out Bacci

    by Grammaton Cleric Binks

    So TomB is too busy plugging Motel Six to appreciate a classic. So what? Hey, I loved it, he didn't, who cares? He gets it, he just didn't care for it. I guess we should all be goosestepping in line together with our unified opinion?

  • Dec. 3, 2007, 4:24 p.m. CST

    I was at the Pasadena screening...

    by I am a machineee

    ..and I wanted to sum up all of the negative review writers.. as I walked out of the theater, a group of middle-aged women were behind me and they were discussing how they didn't like that the Wild Things didn't talk. And that they found the whole movie confusing, they didn't know what it was supposed to be about. And THAT my friends is why you can't rely on these awful reviews. Only look at the positive ones, anyone else's imagination is phucked. Besides, was this movie made for us adults who enjoyed the book as children? Or is it a new way to bring the book to this generation's children? Yeah.

  • Dec. 3, 2007, 8:52 p.m. CST

    only looking at the positive reviews

    by thecoldisnofun

    What are you a communist? I was there and I didn't like it. I could break it down as to why but there's no point. Everyone's got opinions and at least I had the balls to commented on a flawed film that suck on Harry's and the WB's nuts. You don't have to agree with me....just don't be an ass.