Family friendly movies vs harry potter & shrek! (1 Viewer)

[Chris]

My apologies if that was taken as accussatory; it was meant sarcastically; the smily just didn't go along with.

Re-edited to represent that

 

[Tino]

I suggest we keep The Passion Of The Christ comments out of this thread per the Moderators requests, lest this thread turns ugly real fast. There is already a great discussion thread for that film here in the Movies section.

 

[Ricardo C]

Good point, my post's been edited accordingly.

 

[BrettB]

"but I don't think the accusatory comments are correct or appropriate..."

admonishing other posters about their comments right after making this truly disturbing comment...

"He has some weird boner for Garfield"

 

[JustinCleveland]

Here's a thought, Jacob...

Why not let an individual parent decide what to take their children to? I think Shrek 2 was very family-friendly, and though there were scary parts to Harry Potter 3, it was a good movie.

Every individual parent needs to make a decision for themselves. Laying down a blanket statement about a perception of a movie is a horrible idea. Furthermore, Shrek2 and HP3 are both well-made movies, something we cannot say about Garfield (and judging from the previews, I can say it doesn't look promising).

Regardless, no parent should take a child to a movie without knowing as much as possible about it in advance. Threads like this, when you're just saying "don't see a movie on principal" is generally useless. You offer no legitimate reasons (aside from the witchcraft, which is silly, and so-called adult-themes in Shrek 2, ignoring the fact that lots of great kids movies have adult themes that go right over kids heads and entertain adults too, and have for years). You do the same for Garfield, assuming it is going to have any redeeming factors, yet proving nothing. Get back to me after you've seen it.

And parents that care? My nephew enjoyed the heck out of both Shrek 2 and Harry Potter 3, and hasn't started riding our broom or bathing in mud (any more than a normal 6 year old, anyway). But make your own choices, don't take my word on anything.

 

[Chris]

He hasn't tried bathing in mud? What six year old is this in the midst of Baseball season that hasn't waited to slide around the bags and get dirty, or jump into puddles after it rains

Outside of watching Saturday Morning cartoons, afternoon games of baseball/stickball, football and other games geared to get you dirty are every kid's forte.. and very family friendly (what's better then a good water balloon or garden hose fight?)

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Touche! But saying he's got a weird boner for the flick and calling him a shill ARE two totally different things, I think. It was the fact that some accused him of being on the take that bugged me...

 

[Chris]

I think we meant that in jest.. seriously. There was a special a few years ago on TechTV about how Samurai Jack the movie paid fans to fill up message boards and talk positively about the film.. Jacob's unflinching love of a movie he has not seen just struck me as preposterous..

We were simply joking about it as a way to say that he brings it up so often you'd almost think he sold his soul to the venture.

Is he being paid to post about it? I don't think so. But saying it in jest is just a way to say "man, you're going -way- to far.. ala Mr. Wendy in those darn commercials" (who also in the script of the commercials isn't being paid, but can do little else but prop up the product.. )

 

[TheBat]

I am not being paid from fox to talk about the movie. I had a little more faith then some people on the net about the garfield movie. I have seen that review.. its true that the movie was made for 10 years. the audience that I saw with it.. laughed throughout the movie. I got the impression that garfield would be more suitable for younger kids then shrek 2 and harry potter. I have indeed seen the movie. There are some good funny parts in the movie. I do know that some family and friends do like it when I tell them if its okay for family or not. some people at the beginning of the post of this thread, do indeed make sure that they watched what the kids are doing.

I am surprise that the tread got so big. I was out all day.
JACOB

 

[Chris]

Eh, we were just razzing you Yes, people like to know that (I know several of us here strongly recommended Jonah, as I pointed out above) I'm glad you're of the belief it's fitting.. is this G or PG, I'll have to look that up

 

[TheBat]

its PG for mild language. I would say it was more for the cartoon action/violences.. It was very mild violences.
like cats and dogs.

I got into the hype for both hulk and spidey.. I enjoyed them both.
I was very surprise to find so many people negative about the garfield movie. I have been getting the butt of the jokes about the movie ever since from other people.
I don't know if people older then 10 will enjoy this movie.. over all its a very harmless movie unlike other crap that is out there. its not worse then van hesling. its better then scooby doo. I know that is not saying much. if you enjoyed watching cgi characters like gollum and hulk, and beleive in that character.. then you should be able to do the same with garfield. it helps very much that bill murray is doing the voice.. he makes you care about garfield.
JACOB

 

[JustinCleveland]

AICN review of Garfield

Me, I'd just make sure my kid saw GOOD movies. At worst, keep them home and educate them on the classics.

 

[TheBat]

AICN has a biased option about the garfield movie. I really doubt they can review the movie truthfully about it. .indeed its is made for the kids.. I really doubt that the adult critics will be giving it thumbs up. meaning I am not surprise by the reaction.

JACOB

 

[TheLongshot]

Just because a movie was made for 10 year olds, doesn't mean that it is any good. There was plenty of crap that I liked when I was 10, and years later I wondered what the hell I ever saw in it.

Also, I can't get too excited about a movie about a comic strip character that ran out of good ideas years ago.

I'd also say, go to your video store and rent some better stuff. Don't waste your money on crap like this.

Jason

 

[Lew Crippen]

Without commenting on the merits of any of these films (including Garfield, which I have not seen and don’t plan to see), it is worth pointing out the both the latest Harry Potter and Shrek are rated ‘PG’.

This ought to give concerned parents a clue that these film might be unsuitable for some younger children. Besides the fact that regardless of suitability, I’m not sure the small children would get much out of Harry and his friends.

To this though, I must observe that deciding that witches are unsuitable (and one presumes all forms of magic), makes a good deal of the last several centuries of children’s stories, literature, art, and on and on, unsuitable. Add to this George’s well taken point on animals that assume human aspects and there is not very much left.

But everyone gets to decide for themselves.

 

[TheBat]

sometimes.. parents are cluess about the material in the movies. I am not saying all parents are like that.I said some.

JACOB

 

[Mark-W]

"Good Children's films = Adults will give it a 'thumbs down'."

Uh, no.

Many stories that target children seem to come from "fairy tales," and that is of concern to some parents because it often includes characters (both good and bad) using magic that a few of the more conservative religions would find as indoctrination propaganda.

Still, there are a TON of great "family films," that are simply great films regardless of the intended audience.
Pixar's theatrical output, along with anything thought up by Nick Park ("Chicken Run"), are entertaining, widely praised films that work well for kids and adults alike.

Then there are great classic films like The Adventures of Robin Hood, Meet Me In St.Louis, and Singin' In The Rain.

There are so many that do not suck, that I cannot imagine wanting to suffer through a film that has earned such bad early reviews and looks so horrible
just from the trailer alone....

 

[Ernest Rister]

Reading AICN is like reading the graffiti on the bathroom wall of a below-average Middle School.

 

[TheBat]

Garfield the movie review by jacob rubinstein
* * *
Opens June 11, 2004 in USA, July 30th for UK.
Cast: Bill Murray, Breckin Meyer, Jennifer Love Hewitt
Directed by : peter hewitt
Written by Joel Cohen & alec sokolow
based on the garfield strip by jim davis
produced by john davis

RATED PG.

Garfield, the fat, lazy pussycat gets his very first movie. In his first movie, garfield's life is turned upside down when Jon Arbuckle takes in Odie, a dimwitted dog. Garfield had Jon all to himself that took many years of training, and now he must share Jon with Odie. Garfield is a very selfish cat. Its about him, and this movie is all about garfield, in fact garfield has the lead role in the movie. Jon and Liz are just there, which for some people might be a good thing.

Bill Murray is in top form as the voice of garfield. Garfield of course is CGI and Bill makes us care about garfield. Bill also has some great lines, including a varation of the line from apcalpyse now. I know fans of the movie will know that line when it comes. the cgi for garfield is very good for the most part. There are times, when its weak, hopefully by then you like the character to know the intent of the animator. The expression and the movement of garfield was very good. It was cross between a real cat and a cgi. I could only see one scene where the someone was holding garfield and the cgi was not right. It was minor.

the movie is very short and simple. It does move very fast. the movie mostly focus on garfield. We don't really get to know Jon and liz that much. The movie is from Garfield's point of view, so it does make sense that we don't get much from liz or jon. They have a few scenes together and some good chemtry. Hopefully in the sequel we will. I did notice some scenes were kinda choppy. I think the scenes that were cut, could have added more character delopment to Liz and Jon and odie.

There are some scenes if you are a cat owner, you have either done it yourself or know one who has. There is some funny moments with that. speaking of funny moments, were are some great moments. the audience that I saw, the kids and everyone were laughing at a bunch of stuff. I will leave that surprise for the readers.

The people behind scenes on this movie felt they wanted to make a very safe simple movie for kids under 10. I don't think many people over the age of 10 will say that they liked it or not. I think its good that there is a kid movie for the kids under the age of 10, that are not old enough to watch shrek or harry potter.

I think the movie would have been better with a few extra scenes, like I said ealier about the character delopment. There is not much to Arlene's character. She is just there. Nermal has a couple of moments with Garfield. I am not much of a dog person, I didn't feel much for odie. however garfield has the most personity of the group. He is the star of the movie. It also helps very much that Bill played him.

this movie is not as bad as scooby doo. I never saw cat in the hat. I think if the movie was a bit longer, it would have been better. The stuff they cut out was not very long. I wonder if the cgi was not done or they wanted to keep it very short. Hopefully we will see the deleted scenes on dvd or back in the movie, when release on dvd.

I think people with cats will probably enjoy the movie more. they will understand the cat humor, and things that cats do. The movie is rated PG for mild language. I would also say it has some mild cartoon violences. its not gross in adult humor like shrek 2 or scary like harry potter.

 

[Rob Gardiner]