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

by

Some movies stay with you forever, while others feel like fleeting dreams you can barely recall.

I once was absolutely convinced I’d seen a follow-up to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (it turned out to be the 1974 film The Little Prince, also starring Gene Wilder), and I had the same experience with the 2009 movie Where the Wild Things Are. I honestly thought I’d imagined it until someone mentioned it recently.

Spike Jonze, known for his strong directorial debut, brings us Where the Wild Things Are, featuring the voices of James Gandolfini, Paul Dano, Lauren Ambrose, and a talented cast. It’s a film that occasionally resurfaces in my memory, and here’s what makes it stick with me.

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

Growing up in the ’90s, I watched a lot of what were considered ‘family films,’ but many of them were surprisingly sad. Movies like An American Tail, All Dogs Go to Heaven, and especially those made by Don Bluth – The Land Before Time comes to mind – weren’t afraid to explore darker emotions. Compared to today’s family films, I feel like those older movies had a unique, bittersweet quality that’s often missing now.

The 2009 film Where the Wild Things Are effectively portrays a troubled childhood. Based on the beloved children’s book, it centers on Max (Max Records), a boy dealing with his parents’ divorce. He feels unsupported when his sister doesn’t defend him from bullies, leading to angry outbursts. His mother (Catherine Keener) has a new partner (Mark Ruffalo), and Max becomes so frustrated that he physically lashes out, biting her.

The story starts with a lot of frustration, but once Max reaches the island of the Wild Things, the mood becomes much more peaceful, though also a little sad. Both the book and the movie suggest the Wild Things represent Max’s feelings, and the movie really emphasizes this idea. For instance, Alexander, one of the Wild Things, is deeply unhappy, and even the usually furious Carol seems lost in thought when he calms down.

This movie doesn’t feel like any other kids’ film I’ve seen, and that’s probably why it has such a dreamlike quality.

The Actual Wild Things Feel Genuinely Nuanced

As I was saying, the Wild Things symbolize the main character’s inner feelings. When he understands and comes to terms with these complicated emotions, he transforms and takes on the role of the island’s king. It’s a really insightful idea.

The movie differs significantly from the book – I’ll discuss that later – primarily because the Wild Things are much more developed characters in the film. Carol, in particular, experiences a range of emotions and seems to undergo his own personal growth. For instance, when KW, one of the Wild Things (played by Lauren Ambrose), leaves, Carol becomes very angry. He struggles to understand her need for independence and feels like a failure as their leader, as if he hasn’t created a group where everyone feels they belong.

Alexander always wants to be involved, but when he accidentally gets hurt, Carol blames KW. This causes KW to leave, which makes Carol even more upset. James Gandolfini, best known for his role as Tony Soprano, was an incredibly talented actor. He could convey a huge range of feelings – like anger, sadness, and loneliness – simply through the tone of his voice, and that really elevates the film.

The voice acting is fantastic, particularly from Chris Cooper and Forest Whitaker, and it really brings the Wild Things to life with incredible depth and feeling, making them seem almost otherworldly.

It Really Does Not Feel Like The Book At All

It seems like most kids grow up hearing Maurice Sendak’s classic picture book, Where the Wild Things Are. Besides well-known titles like The Very Hungry Caterpillar, The Cat and the Hat, and Goodnight Moon, it’s arguably the most famous children’s book ever written. However, I was surprised by how different the movie version was compared to the original story.

While the movie stays true to the core of ‘Where the Wild Things Are’ – featuring the Wild Things and Max’s mischievous behavior – it takes some understandable detours from the original 40-page book. The film does a better job of explaining why Max ends up on the island. The book simply has him sent to bed as punishment, but the movie portrays Max as a relatable kid dealing with difficult feelings and a confusing world.

As someone who went through their parents’ divorce as a kid, rewatching ‘Where the Wild Things Are’ always hits me hard. I totally connected with Max, and honestly, with all the Wild Things too. There were times I was Carol – just full of rage at everything. Other times I felt like KW, needing to escape and be by myself. And I remember those moments of feeling like Alexander, completely alone and unwanted. Even Ira resonated with me sometimes, that quiet, sensitive feeling of being a little fragile.

The book only briefly mentions these themes, and understandably so, since it’s written for children. The movie, however, goes much deeper. It’s actually quite intense – I think it would have frightened me as a child, so it’s probably better suited for an adult audience.

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

I’m not the biggest fan of movies that rely too heavily on computer-generated imagery – no offense to Avatar 3, but I might skip that one. What I do love, though, is when filmmakers use practical effects like costumes and animatronics. I really enjoyed it in older Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles films, like Secret of the Ooze, and I also appreciate it in movies like Five Nights at Freddy’s and Where the Wild Things Are.

I honestly don’t think the movie needed to turn out this way. Take The Hobbit films, for example. They were released a bit after Where the Wild Things Are, but the Wild Things could have easily been created entirely with computer animation. While there is some CGI, the movie mostly uses costumes and performers, which seems like an odd choice for 2009.

Does this improvement make the movie better? I think it does. The Wild Things now seem more believable and even more creative. That’s the problem with CGI – even when it’s well-done, it can feel artificial. We can now create entire films and shows using only CGI, but it still requires us to willingly accept what we’re seeing as real.

Having the Wild Things feel truly present makes Max’s world much more believable, and I really appreciate that about this movie. It enhances the dreamlike quality, which is probably why I keep needing to remind myself it’s actually a story. It just doesn’t quite feel like reality.

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

Read More

2025-12-17 17:12