"Where the wild things are"

Max is playing with his sister's young friends. A snow-ball war. Max run to her rabbit hole to hide. He's happy. He think the young boys are happy too. They are sharing the game. In that moment the camera take a shoot imitating max point of view from the rabbit hole's inside: One of the young boys jump onto the snow made rabbit hole and all fall apart.

Max don't understand when the game become a real war. In what moment his harmless universe become into a real world of pain and suffering... And Max, obviuosly, cry. Cry like the young kid that he really is.

Jonze's movie are inside this escene. Pain and suffering are real, and are here, everywhere. Our rabbit holes fall apart, broken by the heavy weigth of time.

The Rabbit holes it's the image of Alice, of Peter Pan, of the Narnia's chronicles, Spiderwick, etc.: psicological imagining of holding time into a harmelss world where all is posible. Where you are the king (or, in other way, you are the kingmaker).

“Where the wild things are” undestood that worlds like Max's have limited time. There is no utopias. Max have to come back to her mother arms because his world (like and old exausting sun) is going to be overwhelm by time. Monsters allways will stay here, waiting for another king. But the king is growing up, and it's inevitable.

Tim Burton's film lack of this “reality principle”. I think that he really believe that in some near future he'll find his rabbit hole. At last he achieved it making “Alice in wonderland”. Burton dislike me since “Planet of Apes”.

When somebody saw a movie based on a book usually says: “The book is better.” This is the first time than i didn't hear this sentence from any critic. Few (or very few) recognize that he/she read the book, 'cause it's a child's book. or, in other way, looks like did't have any sense make a question like: Who's better? because a child's book can't categorize into this statements.

Yes, this is an adaptation, a very good adaptation, indeed.