Anonymous
01/18/2015 22:21
Subject: Paddington
Anonymous
01/18/2015 22:17
Subject: Paddington
Anonymous wrote:Haven't read the books, but saw it yesterday. Thought it was much better than the previews. Thought it was well written.
That's good to know. My 8 year old wants to see it tomorrow and the previews look horrible to me. I didn't know if I could sit through 2 hours of ear wax and toilet floods.
Anonymous
01/18/2015 21:21
Subject: Paddington
My four year old saw it last night, and it was too scary for him. We had read the book, but the film was much scarier. The evil taxidermist was what did it. The cinematography was great though.
Anonymous
01/18/2015 21:21
Subject: Paddington
My 4 year old saw a preview for it when we saw Penguins and it terrified him. He's talked about it several times since then and been adamant that he does NOT want to see "the scary bear movie."
Anonymous
01/18/2015 21:06
Subject: Paddington
14:34 again. I was also avoiding it because the previews looked horrid. Slapstick, schmaltz, toilet humor. However it's getting fabulous reviews. My daughter went with a friend to see it today, so I'm afraid I'll never get to find out if it's actually good.
Anonymous
01/18/2015 20:18
Subject: Paddington
Anonymous wrote:I also adored the books but the previews have really turned me off-- something about the way they animated Paddington I think.
He's a bit ... svelte!! Doesn't quite look right.
OP, I would not have taken my kid to see a PG movie when he was 3.5, but you know your own kid. Mine would not have been comfortable with the scary parts, and I'd bet even money that we would have had to leave the theater.
Anonymous
01/18/2015 18:51
Subject: Re:Paddington
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:G movies are more appropriate for a 3 year old than PG. Duh.
Don't be so silly.
I wonder if you are one of the families I've sat near recently who brought young kids to see the Hunger Games, Interstellar, and Into the Woods (which at least is PG but was obviously too long/uninteresting for the kids).
Surely you understand the difference between Paddington and the other movies you're citing to? I know that you would prefer we didn't know, so you could make your point. But, really, you just look stupid.
Anonymous
01/18/2015 17:15
Subject: Paddington
Depends on your kid. My five year old gets quite apprehensive about anything scary in a movie and is hesitant to even go into a theater. We saw Paddington today and he really enjoyed it, despite the scary parts. There is a villain who is trying to actually kill Paddington. I worried that would be too much for him, but he ok on our laps.
Anonymous
01/18/2015 16:53
Subject: Paddington
Haven't read the books, but saw it yesterday. Thought it was much better than the previews. Thought it was well written.
Anonymous
01/18/2015 16:38
Subject: Paddington
We're british and the trailer is not like much of any of the books, unfortunately. And we've read the children's versions and the full hardcovers before.
I'm surprised whomever licensed it out this way. It's probably a nice kids adventure movie but is far from any of the story lines.
I'm surprised whomever licensed it out this way. It's probably a nice kids adventure movie but is far from any of the story lines.
Anonymous
01/18/2015 16:30
Subject: Paddington
Anonymous wrote:Wondering if anyone who is/was a fan of the original books has seen it. I ADORED the original books, and am sort of afraid they have ruined it by over-Americanizing it and making it too slap-sticky (like the bathtub shooting down the stairs in the previews) and adding a villain (the closest thing that the books had to a villain was the intolerant grouchy neighbor -- and the occasional intolerant or overly stuffy Briton that they'd encounter on the streets who would look rather crossly at Paddngton, but that's about it).
I also adored the books but the previews have really turned me off-- something about the way they animated Paddington I think.
Anonymous
01/18/2015 16:27
Subject: Paddington
Wondering if anyone who is/was a fan of the original books has seen it. I ADORED the original books, and am sort of afraid they have ruined it by over-Americanizing it and making it too slap-sticky (like the bathtub shooting down the stairs in the previews) and adding a villain (the closest thing that the books had to a villain was the intolerant grouchy neighbor -- and the occasional intolerant or overly stuffy Briton that they'd encounter on the streets who would look rather crossly at Paddngton, but that's about it).
Anonymous
01/18/2015 14:34
Subject: Re:Paddington
Anonymous wrote:They must rate it PG for a reason, yes?
According to common sense media, some scary parts, a gross ear cleaning scene, and mildly abrasive language (like , stupid). I was definitely sensitive to PG movies when my kids were 4 and under, but I would have been fine with this one.
Anonymous
01/18/2015 14:30
Subject: Re:Paddington
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:G movies are more appropriate for a 3 year old than PG. Duh.
Don't be so silly.
I wonder if you are one of the families I've sat near recently who brought young kids to see the Hunger Games, Interstellar, and Into the Woods (which at least is PG but was obviously too long/uninteresting for the kids).
No. I'm curious why you think a quasi-animated film about an animated bear is similar in genre/rating to these films? Of them, only Into the Woods is PG, and it's a completely different sort of film, with nothing in it to delight a 3 yo.
Would you kindly explain your thinking a little bit more in making the comparison? Because those seem like grossly false equivalencies to me. In other words, justify yourself.
The comparison I am making is that someone who thinks it is "silly" to suggest that G movies are more likely to be appropriate for a 3 year old than PG movies is the kind of person who would bring a 6 year old to a PG-13 movie like Hunger Games or Interstellar.
Anonymous
01/18/2015 14:16
Subject: Re:Paddington
They must rate it PG for a reason, yes?