criterionforum.org

Here's the first pic.

ehhh

Oh dear.

But on the Maurice Sendak note, I'd love to see a big-screen adaptation of Pierre.

Here's a higher quality version of that same still.

I have a feeling that many will inevitably disappointed by this flick simply because it won't--can't--match up to their childhood experience of the book. Not the film's fault, but whaddya gonna do?

I'm just glad it's being directed by Spike Jonze, and not Michel Gondry.

Actually, I was just thinking that this would be perfect for Gondry.

Jean-Luc Garbo wrote:Actually, I was just thinking that this would be perfect for Gondry.

Damn, you beat me to it. I was just thinking that especially in light of the Human Behaviour video.

I like that it looks more like Jim Henson type live action (a la Labyrinth) as opposed to CGI (which really should stand for cheesy generated images)

SheriffAmbrose wrote:

Jean-Luc Garbo wrote:Actually, I was just thinking that this would be perfect for Gondry.

Damn, you beat me to it. I was just thinking that especially in light of the Human Behaviour video.

Well, I was thinking the opposite especially in light of the clusterf#%k that was The Science of Sleep.

Wow really? I loved Science of Sleep, I mean really loved it. I'll have to search for that thread now to see if I'm in the minority there. I actually think the story-book style of SoS would lend itself quite nicely to an adaptation like this but hey, differing opinions is what makes the world go round.

Well, I suppose it's a matter of taste. However, while I loved Eternal Sunshine..., I was really turned off by Science... But I've already posted my thoughts on the latter film in the other thread.

Bringing things back to Where the Wild Things Are: The book takes about 15-20 minutes to read aloud to children. The film, on the other hand, will probably run for ~90 mins. or so. If I'm watching a film about about a child's imagination, I want a director who's more focused than Gondry. Childish flights of fancy become incredibly boring to me after 20 or so minutes, at which point there better be a coherent story to tell.

While there are marvelous moments of wonder in Being John Malkovich, mostly involving the Cusack character's puppetry, they served the overall narrative. This did not happen in Science..., and while there were a couple of nice moments, I mostly thought the film was too self-indulgent, a tendency that was already present, albeit kept under control, in Eternal Sunshine... I guess I just trust Spike Jonze to mold childish fantasy into a coherent, watchable 90 min. narrative more than I do Gondry at this point.

jbeall wrote:If I'm watching a film about about a child's imagination, I want a director who's more focused than Gondry.

I suppose it depends on if you want to watch a child's imagination or if you want to re-experience a child's imagination.

Personally, I'm on the Gondry boat here, but I have a real hard time distinguishing the two at some points, because much of both of their work so far has been tainted by Charlie Kaufman, who I can't stand.

-Toilet Dcuk

toiletduck! wrote:... Charlie Kaufman, who I can't stand.

I'm with you on that.

My avatar's out, Six Feet Underette is in

SheriffAmbrose wrote:

toiletduck! wrote:... Charlie Kaufman, who I can't stand.

I'm with you on that.

Really, two of you? I don't feel as intensely about Kaufman--think he's fairly amusing in the way he cribs from Philip Dick among others--but I can't understand why people think he's the greatest thing since cornflakes, either.

Karen O of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs and Carter Burwell will be penning music for the film.

Jesus, does anyone have hope for this still

Jesus, it's cool to hate the Yeah Yeah Yeahs now, too? Can someone start forwarding me these memos? Apparently my Jaded Club membership was revoked.

-Toilet Dcuk

toiletduck! wrote:Jesus, it's cool to hate the Yeah Yeah Yeahs now, too?

Yes, in the witty but occasionally bitchy universe in which domino harvey determines what is or isn't cool.

chaddoli wrote:

toiletduck! wrote:Jesus, it's cool to hate the Yeah Yeah Yeahs now, too?

Yes, in the witty but occasionally bitchy universe in which domino harvey determines what is or isn't cool.

This would seem to imply that there are things domino thinks are cool. It's well documented that there aren't.

toiletduck! wrote:Jesus, it's cool to hate the Yeah Yeah Yeahs now, too? Can someone start forwarding me these memos? Apparently my Jaded Club membership was revoked.

Get into the New Films mindset and hate on everything. Then you can't go far wrong.

Not to encourage my fan club, but the Yeah Yeah Yeahs have always sucked.

domino harvey wrote:Not to encourage my fan club, but the Yeah Yeah Yeahs have always sucked.

I concur. Watching them open for Bjork was torture.

That said, Carter Burwell's influence could yield some interesting results.

Their first EP was great... it's the sort of thing they should have continued doing (extremely lo-fi... it sounds like it was recorded in a dumpster)... high production values don't work for them.

I'll withhold judgment on Where the Wild Things Are until I've seen it, but having finally just finished the Directors Label disc, I wish Jonze would go back to making documentaries. For some reason I watched all the videos, then put the DVD back into the to-watch pile, postponing watching the other side for quite a while. "What's Up Fatlip (the documentary)" and "Amarillo By Morning" are just amazing films. The subjects just spring to life in each interview. All the personalities seem so unguarded and I feel like I really knew more about the people in these 30-minute films than the people in most 90+ minute documentaries. I was especially astounded after watching "Amarillo by Morning" to read that Jonze got all those amazing moments in a single day. I guess documentary has never been what Jonze has aspired to do, and it's probably not the form of filmmaking he most enjoys or finds satisfying, which is too bad because he's so good at it.