[...] if the movie is indeed a family film. $32 million sounds OK to me. For what it’s worth, I liked it, and so did my kids. “Law Abiding Citizen” took the number 2 spot with $21,250,000. Third was [...]

[...] at number 5 with $5,560,000 ($22,824,000, $11 million budget). Also worth mentioning is “Where the Wild Things Are” which is down to $5,081,000 this week, for a total of $61,800,000 in 3 weeks. The budget? [...]

Comments the ‘wild things’ are not monsters.

My father in law has never “babysat” for my 3.5 year old alone, and yesterday was his maiden voyage. For their first time alone together, he decided to take my boy to see this movie. In IMAX. I was apprehensive, since I didn’t know what to expect, as it was opening day and I hadn’t heard many reviews. Plus I thought if it was scary, how much scarier would it be on the biggest screen there is? But he seemed to like it, was not scared, and enjoyed the fact that the kid was Max, since that is his middle name. I agree with Brett that it probably depends on the kid. I also meet them at the theater, and I saw kids younger than 3 coming out of it, and no one looked traumatized. I can’t speak for their nightmares later, though!

my point about the wild things not being monsters is based on the fact that the author of this piece used the word monster instead of wild things. i’ve heard/read other people do this also. the wild things are just max’s imaginary friends really. he is king of them after all, in his mind.
i just think the focus should be on them being wild, kind and yeah, maybe creatures. monsters is too negative of a connotation for what they are meant to be in the book, i think.

frankly for myself, monster is not a negative connotation for me either; but for my young children it is. i will be going to see the movie for my own entertainment. my kids will not. i believe that imagination is the most important thing for young children, and as a well-read and loved story in our home, they are too young to have someone else add images to their perfectly good ones created in their own minds. just my 2 cents.

Maybe this makes me a ‘bad mommy’ but I took my two year old son who is too young to really get scary movie parts because he’s into monsters and loves the book. He was riveted the whole time. He did say ‘uh oh’ a couple times when the theatre got abnormally dark during a couple parts but mostly murmured about the monsters (“dem running mama; he’s going back to his mama?”)…so I loved it and would say that 4 and up would be a good age. they do say “hell” though! omg!

Kids can get scared in any children’s movie, from Nemo (Shark and Mom dying scenes) to Shrek (dragon). Again, going to the movies should be an adventurous experience for families, we can never be sure if our kids will like the story or not. I love that the grandfather above took his 3.5 year old grandson to the IMAX version.

@Tia – they said “hell”? Not that it’s a big deal, but I don’t remember that. When did they say it?

I saw the movie yesterday with my three kids (7,5 and 2) husband and mother and father in-law and everyone loved it!! It works on so many different levels that everyone takes away different things – my seven year old thought Max was the coolest kid ever. My five year old thought the ‘wild things’ were cute and acted like little kids sometimes. My two year old giggled and oo’d and aah’d. While the grown ups were amazed at the technology involved in the making of the film and the whole concept of translating a book of so few words into such an enormous and complex film! Awesome job Spike!!!!

My 3.5 yo will be going. I’m tired of the it’s “too scary” for a little one crap. Trophies for losers and the sheltering of kids from adventure, imagination and reality. This isn’t The Shining, The Exorcist or The Omen.