The moment the trailer for Where The Wild Things Are hit the web, the movie was immediately vaulted to the top of almost everyone I know's must-see list. People were already intrigued by Spike Jonze and Dave Eggers adapting Maurice Sendak's classic children' book, but until they saw the beautifully shot footage set to the Arcade Fire's exuberant "Wake Up," no one really knew what to expect. That trailer seemed to confirm what everyone was hoping--that Where The Wild Things Are was destined for masterpiece status. Well, the early reviews are finally in four days before the film's release, and according to two online reviewers, WWTWA is just that--an unequivocal masterpiece.

Drew McWeeny, of HitFix, was dumbstruck by the film, calling it a masterpiece off the bat:

"I don't use this word lightly, but Where The Wild Things Are is an absolute masterpiece, and it's the finest offering from any Hollywood studio thus far this year...a major accomplishment in a beautiful minor key, and as I revisit it in the months and years to come, I expect it will yield fresh wonders each time. This isn't Hollywood filmmaking as we're used to it; it is magic, a gift, and utterly unforgettable."

While Devin Faraci of CHUD launched into his glowing review by invoking the M word as well:

Where the Wild Things Are is a masterpiece. An arthouse masterpiece about the sorrows of growing up. A sensitive, beautiful masterpiece about the pain of being a bright, creative, lonely, troubled child. A brilliant masterpiece about the search for love, acceptance, stability and comfort.

But the film's current (and premature) 78% ranking on Rotten Tomatoes suggests that there are folks out there who would hesitate to call it masterpiece, and that it's rife with flaws. Indeed, those reviews hint that Jonze's film isn't perfect (as anything considered a masterpiece should be), leaning too heavily on lush visuals and forgoing any real plot or narrative thrust. Check out what they had to say below, and decide for yourself this Friday, when the film is released nationwide.

The Hollywood Reporter: Negative - "Where the film falters is Jonze and novelist Dave Eggers' adaptation, which fails to invest this world with strong emotions. In the end, the book probably was too slender to support a 102-minute movie." Postive - "The voice actors couldn't be better."

The New Yorker: Negative - "After a while, the creatures all sound like peevish adults elbowing one another out of the way at the smoked-fish counter at Zabar’s." Positive - "The best scenes are peerless in their creative freedom and warmth."

New York: Positive - "Instead of being bombarded by computer illusions, we’re allowed to suspend our disbelief, to bring our own imaginations into play. For all the artfulness, the feel of the film is rough-hewn, almost primitive. It’s a fabulous tree house of a movie." Negative - "One alteration is unpardonable: Max dashes out of the house and into the woods instead of getting sent to bed without supper, so there are no bedroom walls melting away and no waves rolling in—one of the book’s most archetypal images."

Emanuel Levy: Negative and Positive - "End result is an eccentric, deliberately paced feature that doesn't look like any other children's tale (or any other film, for that matter), but is more visually than dramatically compelling. "Where Wild Things Are" is not consistently engaging from an emotional standpoint, leaving plenty of time for the viewers to ponder about what they're seeing. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but in today's climate of watching movies, the practice is almost non-existent."