Even After All These Years Later, I Still Can't Believe This 2009 Children's Film Starring Paul Dano And James Gandolfini Actually Exists

There are movies I watch that I'll never forget, and then there are films where I wonder if they were only a dream.

I once felt this way about what I could have sworn was a sequel to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (It turns out it was actually 1974's The Little Prince, which also stars Gene Wilder), and it's also the case with 2009's Where the Wild Things Are, which I honestly thought I dreamt about until somebody reminded me of its existence the other day.

Directed by Spike Jonze (who's one of those directors who made a good movie on his first try), and starring the voices of James Gandolfini, Paul Dano (whom everybody loves - well, except for Tarantino), Lauren Ambrose, and many more, Where the Wild Things Are still sits with me today… when I actually remember that it exists. Here’s why.

For One Thing, The Movie Feels A Lot More Melancholy Than Most Family Films

So, here’s the thing. As a ‘90s kid, I used to watch a lot of “family films” that I don’t think would fly today. An American Tail, All Dogs Go to Heaven, The Land Before Time (really, most movies from the Don Bluth company), these are flicks that were actually sad. When I think of most family films today, I don’t feel like they have the same melancholic tinge to the films that I grew up with.

However, 2009’s Where the Wild Things Are does. In this adaptation of the famous children’s book, a young boy named Max (Max Records) is a child of divorce. His older sister doesn’t stand up for him when bullies destroy his snow fort, and he resorts to bouts of rage when he’s alone. His mom (Catherine Keener) has a boyfriend (Mark Ruffalo), and Max gets so pissed off that he bites his mom on the shoulder.

There’s just so much anger, and when Max gets to the island where the Wild Things live, the film takes on a much calmer, but also melancholic tone. In both the book and the movie, we’re to interpret that the “Wild Things” are really embodiments of Max’s emotions, but the movie makes this even more pronounced. For example, Alexander (Paul Dano’s Wild Thing), is hopelessly depressed, while even the angry Carol (Gandolfini) seems to get lost in somber moments once his fury has cooled.

It’s all unlike any “children’s film” that I can even think of, which might be why it really does feel like a dream.

The Actual Wild Things Feel Genuinely Nuanced

As I just mentioned, the Wild Things are really a representation of our protagonist’s emotions, and when he actually feels like he’s finally made sense of all of his complex feelings, he changes and becomes the “king” of the island. It's fascinating stuff.

That said, the movie feels very different from the book (which I’ll get to in a moment) since the Wild Things are much more fleshed out in the film. Carol, for instance, goes through a number of emotions throughout the film and seems to go on his own emotional journey. As an example, one of the Wild Things, KW (Lauren Ambrose), leaves, and Carol gets enraged that she’s departed. He doesn’t understand why she has to be so separate from the other Wild Things, and we get a sense that he feels like he’s not a good leader in that she doesn’t want to be around the rest of them.

Meanwhile, Alexander constantly wants to participate, but when he gets hurt, Carol gets mad at KW for stepping on him. This prompts KW to leave again, making Carol feel even more morose. Gandolfini, who will probably always be most known for playing Tony Soprano, was such a phenomenal actor, and he could get across so much with just his voice alone. You can hear rage, sadness, loneliness and so many other emotions, and it’s something that really makes this movie stand out.

All of the voice actors are wonderful (especially Chris Cooper and Forest Whitaker), and they add so much nuance to the Wild Things, making it almost feel unreal.

It Really Does Not Feel Like The Book At All

I feel like every child of a certain age has probably had Maurice Sendak’s famous 1963 picture book read to them. I mean, outside of The Very Hungry Caterpillar, The Cat and the Hat and Goodnight Moon, I think Where the Wild Things Are is probably the most famous children’s book out there. And yet, when I watched the movie adaptation, I couldn’t think of a film that was more different from the source material.

I mean, yes, the Wild Things are all there, and Max is a bit of a hellion in the book, but at only 40 pages long, the people behind the film really had to take some creative liberties. For one thing, Max’s departure to the island makes a lot more sense in the film. In the book, he gets sent to bed without dinner for wrecking the house, but in the movie, Max feels like a real boy who’s struggling to make sense of his world.

In fact, as a child of divorce myself, I definitely remember feeling like Max, and especially his Wild Things. Sometimes, I felt like Carol, as I was angry at the world. At other times, I felt like KW, wanting to just be alone. Then there were times I felt like Alexander, isolated and like nobody wanted me. I even felt like Ira on occasion, gentle and almost fragile.

The book doesn’t really get into any of this. I mean, it touches on it, but as a children’s book, it’s at a child’s level. The film, not so much. In fact, I’d probably be scared of this movie if I had seen it as a kid, which is why I think it’s more for adults if anything.

I’m Also Shocked They Used Actual Costumes For The Wild Things In 2009

You know what I’m not a huge fan of? Films stuffed to the brim with CGI (sorry, Avatar 3, but I think I’m sitting this one out). Do you know what I am a fan of, though? Costumes and animatronics. I loved it in the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies of old (Like Secret of the Ooze), I love it in Five Nights at Freddy’s movies, and I love it in Where The Wild Things Are.

The thing is, I feel like it didn’t have to be this way. Look at The Hobbit movies for instance. Sure, they came out a little later than Where the Wild Things Are, but I feel like the Wild Things definitely could have been entirely CGI, but they’re not. Yes there's some CGI, but they’re primarily costumes with performers inside of them, and I kind of can’t believe they went that route in 2009.

Do I think the movie is better for it? Actually, yes, because the Wild Things feel more real and even more imaginative. Because that’s the thing about CGI: no matter how good it looks, it still kind of feels ersatz. Yes, we’ve gotten to the point where we can have entire movies or TV shows that are completely CGI, but at the same time, we kind of have to suspend our belief when we go into them.

Max’s world feels more tangible with the Wild Things being physically there, so I applaud this movie for that as well. In a lot of ways, it helps it feel even more like a fever dream, which is why I think I need to constantly be reminded that it exists. It just doesn’t feel real.

But what do you think? Do you remember Where the Wild Things Are? I’d love to hear your thoughts.