Subject:
|
Re: Fellowship on Film
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Dec 2001 08:18:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
269 times
|
| |
|
|
Here's something I don't understand. WHY would anyone take children under the
age of 10 to see this film. First off, it's rated PG-13. Secondly, it's 3 hours
long. Finally, the story isn't suitable for younger viewers anymore than the
Matrix was.
When I saw the film opening day I was shocked at how many pre-teens were in the
audience-brought by their parents even! I wanted to say 'Harry Potter is in the
next theatre', but a few teens beat me to it. I wasn't shocked when the 4 year
old got up midway through the movie due to boredom.
Am I missing something? Is it trendy to take your kids to movies they won't
understand for nearly a decade?
-Dave (who loved the movie as only a 32 year old could)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Fellowship on Film
|
| (...) My son is ten. The only problem he had was what the other poster mentioned: even though he went to the restroom just before the start of the movie, he had to go midway through (I sent him at the safest point when little would happen onscreen) (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Fellowship on Film
|
| First of all, do NOT take any small children to see this film. I would say probably 10 would be the youngest who should see it, and that is pushing it. Younger kids will have nightmares for weeks, possibly years, if they are subjected to this film. (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
13 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
