Thanks, Sarah, thanks, BunWat!

I think I still want to see it, but it's good to not have too high of expectations going in.

Zu went in without the nostalgia factor, having come from a family that doesn't read. She thought it was cool looking but overlong.

I don't know if you would enjoy the movie less Rachel. Maybe you would enjoy it more because you wouldn't be comparing it to the book, which for most of us is a powerful childhood memory. Or maybe it would make no sense without the nostalgia. I can't tell.

Rachel wrote: "You're right, I haven't. So would I enjoy the movie less? "

No, I think Bun was just responding to the "Bit like ugly hairy teletubbies or something" comment. The Henson-style monsters are a pretty amazing realization of the ones in the book, in my opinion.

BunWat wrote: "Extended cover version! I really like that description, totally makes sense to me. I think this is going to be one of those movies where people who are very visually oriented love it and others go ..."

You're right, I haven't. So would I enjoy the movie less?

I'm waiting for it to come to our little inexpensive dine-in theater. It's the original theater in Salem that I remember going to as a kid (I think we saw ET there), so it will feel a bit nostalgic on a coupla levels.

I can't wait!!!

All of this publicity is really making me NOT want to go see the movie...

Thanks Gretchen!

"So that's who the Wild Things are. They're foreigners, lost in America, without a language. And children who are petrified of them, and don't understand that these gestures, these twistings of flesh, are meant to be affectionate."

This is a fascinating concept. All of this publicity is really making me go want to see the movie, even if I end up disappointed. That's unusual for me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/oct...

There was some cute dialogue. It all worked, except, oddly enough, for a very strange line reading of "we'll eat you up we love you so!"

And I liked the soundtrack and score for the most part, except for a couple of confusingly timed Karen O yowls.

Heh heh, maybe it would have been better as a silent film.

I agree, Bun. It was very much a visual treat, more than anything else. It had a melancholy grandeur. I appreciated it as a companion to the book. It was well acted, and the wild things were easy to believe. Memorable, and good, but not transcendent.

Extended cover version! I really like that description, totally makes sense to me. I think this is going to be one of those movies where people who are very visually oriented love it and others go meh. Which might explain Sendak's very positive comments.

Rachel have you seen the book? Because from your comment it seems like maybe you haven't.

Is it that good? It doesn't look like much from the trailers. Bit like ugly hairy teletubbies or something. Not judging, just asking.

I saw it last night. It was cool looking, but didn't blow me away. It fell into a weird no man's land - the kids in front of me were alternately bored and scared, but thematically it was a little simple for a movie intended for adults. ETA: It also didn't destroy or replace my memories of the original. It was more like an extended cover version.

No, I'm not going to see it. I already feel as though David Eggers has 'expelled a large quantity of feces' on my childhood (I know that it's mostly the 'work of' Spike Jonze, but I feel like blaming Eggers—h8 him s00 much). I know that this 'film' will appeal to mnstrmers + 'entry-level' alts via success of viral marketing/strength of brand, but is that sufficient enough to generate 'mad bank'? Peter Travers said that the film is 'full of beauty + terror', has 'brilliant songs', and is 'rlly wild'. Peter Travers is trying to 'connect with' alts via modifying his personal brand (he rlly h8s mnstrm 'Hollywood' productions—he likes foreign films where 'young ppl' are 'sexualized' and do the 'kraziest shit imaginable'.), but has run into a 'boat load' of difficulty.

The aforementioned 'brilliant songs' are done by Karen O (h8 YYYs s000 much) and 'The Kids'.

This film will probably spawn 'countless' memes [via the blogosphere/TWTR/BlogHaus:], and it'll probably 'win a lot of awards', because that would represent the idolized merger between alt and mnstrm.

And sub-memes would be generated.

And David Eggers will write a sequel in which Max, grown up + disillusioned with his imagination, takes up 'DJ-ing' in a 'rlly kewl' club.

I haven't made up my mind about this one.

I can't wait to go see this...and its @ the IMAX too :-)

It may be a good weekend to go see a movie, this sounds like a good one.

I've got my Where The Wild Things Are t-shirt, which I'll be wearing when I see it.

it looks cool, i forget if i ever read the book when i was little, the monsters creeped me out a little.. i have a friend who cant wait for it.. we'll see i guess the previews do look amazing..

You going to go see it? I am...I'm kind of excited about the possibilities, actually...Sendak says he likes the adaptation.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/U...