Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Monster House Previews Misleading


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
34 replies to this topic

#1 of 35 OFFLINE   Lucia Duran

Lucia Duran

    Screenwriter



  • 1,089 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2005

Posted July 22 2006 - 04:57 AM

I'm not sure how good of a review I can give, since we walked out of the movie, so what I will post is our reasons for leaving.

I have been looking forward to this movie since I first heard about it. My girls have been looking forward to this movie since they first heard of it. So last night we took our girls to this movie. It was packed with families with kids of all ages.

The first 20 minutes of this movie are so intense. Waaaaay too intense for kids my girls ages (7 and 8 years old) and younger in my opinion.

The opening scene with the little girl riding her bike and the old man coming out of his door ... his eyes all evil and dark, really freaked my girls out. He yelled so fiercly and just frightened many kids in the theater.


Many younger kids in the theater began to cry. One behind us was sort of whimpering.

Then the next scene...

the old man chases the neighbor boy and grabs him and yells at him and then as he is clutching him, the old man begans to have a heart attack. His eyes were piercing and scary. It was definitely an intense death scene. My youngest daughter couldn't handle it.


Then...

the house gets pissed that the old man is dead and he ends up going after the young boy. The chimney smokes and a dark shadow comes from across the street and into the boys room as he is lying in bed. A hand forms and reaches out to grab the boy.


The child behind kept asking his mother if she would take him home. She just told him to sit still and be quiet. That pissed me off. th ekid obviously was uncomfortable.

This had my girls curled up and scared. The sound effects were really scary in that scene. The whole feel of the movie was just not kid appropriate. I finally took my girls and left and got a refund.

I was so disappointed because the previews we have watched show this to be a funny movie, not scary and intense like it really was. I hate this about previews lately. This happened with another movie recently as well. The previews make it seem kid friendly, but in reality it was so not.

Anyway, I'm sure the movie was good, but I went into kid protection mode so I couldn't really say.
NO SHIRT

NO SHOES

NO SHELDON

#2 of 35 OFFLINE   john doran

john doran

    Screenwriter



  • 1,326 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 24 2002

Posted July 22 2006 - 07:06 AM

interesting, lucia.

can i ask you what it was about the TV trailers that gave you the idea that it would be a kid-friendly show? i mean, i realize that it's animated and that there are humorous moments in the footage, but there's also all the scenes where the house seems to, i dunno, EAT people. a LOT of people. and the house itself looks horrifying...

i was in fact just commenting to a friend of mine the other day that i thought this show was being mis-marketed. or at least that the presentation was confusing.

perhaps it's just my over-sensitivity to being scared myself...i dunno.

thanks for the review, though - at least i know that i'll be right not letting my son see it.
 fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt

#3 of 35 OFFLINE   Lucia Duran

Lucia Duran

    Screenwriter



  • 1,089 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2005

Posted July 22 2006 - 08:21 AM

John,

The previews that we saw showed things like a car being pulled into the house by a carpet tongue, kids going up to the front door and being knocked off the porch, a kid walking on the sidwalk and it being pushed up to the door. I didn't think the house looked scary based on the commercials, but that is just me.

Honestly the previews I saw didn't have the feel the actual movie has. It seemed more light hearted in the trailers. The actual movie is anything but light hearted, dealing with death and revenge.... It's definitely a mature subject matter. Not for younger kids.

I agree that it is definitely being mis-marketed and I think it would be good if the trailers reflected the actual vibe of the movie instead of playing it off like it's a funny cartoon.
NO SHIRT

NO SHOES

NO SHELDON

#4 of 35 OFFLINE   Malcolm R

Malcolm R

    Executive Producer



  • 11,683 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 2002
  • LocationVermont

Posted July 23 2006 - 10:48 AM

From mpaa.org:

Monster House: Rated PG for scary images and sequences, thematic elements, some crude humor and brief language.

That puts it on par with Jaws and Poltergeist (both "PG" films). I wouldn't take young kids to those films, either.
The purpose of an education is to replace an empty mind with an open mind.

#5 of 35 OFFLINE   Nathan*W

Nathan*W

    Screenwriter



  • 1,069 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 09 2001

Posted July 23 2006 - 12:23 PM

Ebert and Roeper gave two enthusiastic thumbs up for Monster House, but in their review they made it a point to mention that this film is NOT for viewers younger than 11-12.
 

#6 of 35 OFFLINE   Steve Phillips

Steve Phillips

    Screenwriter



  • 1,526 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 18 2002

Posted July 24 2006 - 03:03 AM

Exactly. The film is rated PG; the MPAA website is always there to give parents more information, and just about every review mentioned the film was might be too much for very little kids. The information is out there for those who choose to find out about movies before they buy a ticket.

#7 of 35 OFFLINE   Chad R

Chad R

    Screenwriter



  • 2,174 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 14 1999
  • Real Name:Chad Rouch

Posted July 24 2006 - 03:35 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malcolm R
From mpaa.org:

Monster House: Rated PG for scary images and sequences, thematic elements, some crude humor and brief language.

That puts it on par with Jaws and Poltergeist (both "PG" films). I wouldn't take young kids to those films, either.

But, if those films were rated today, they would be PG-13. JAWS, in its day, had an additional discaimer that it may be too intense for younger audiences. When those films were released, the PG-13 was not available.

#8 of 35 OFFLINE   derek

derek

    Second Unit



  • 497 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 20 1998

Posted July 24 2006 - 04:08 AM

I find www.screenit.com and www.pluggedinonline.com invaluable tools for in depth reviews of films with material that parent's may want to watch out for.

#9 of 35 OFFLINE   Jerome Grate

Jerome Grate

    Screenwriter



  • 2,935 posts
  • Join Date: May 23 1999

Posted July 24 2006 - 04:33 AM

Thanks for the post, I was prepared take my kids to see it when I pick them up from grandmas, 5 and 4 years of age. Scratching this one from the list.
Listen Up People.., Rack Em and Pack Em.., We're Phantoms in 15.

#10 of 35 OFFLINE   John_Graz

John_Graz

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 88 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 02 2004

Posted July 24 2006 - 04:53 AM

We saw this movie Posted Image and I agree it should be PG-13. Posted Image
Way too intense and not appropriate for young kids.
If Stephen King made an animated horror movie this would be it.

#11 of 35 OFFLINE   Adam_S

Adam_S

    Producer



  • 6,119 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 2001

Posted July 24 2006 - 06:16 AM

I found it to be very funny, not scary; intense and honest about life rather than hiding it behind sugar coated nonsense. Too me there was nothing worse in the film than anything in most of the Harry Potters. I guess as an animated film, this one isn't given a pass the way scary PG live-action films are.
 

#12 of 35 OFFLINE   Scott Simonian

Scott Simonian

    Screenwriter



  • 1,282 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 20 2001

Posted July 24 2006 - 07:00 AM

Wow. A PG animated film is just too much for some people....

*sigh*
Another supporter of 1080p and uncompressed multi-channel sound!

My Twin 18's. 50cuft of box, tuned to 11hz and with 2k watts on tap.

#13 of 35 OFFLINE   Adam_S

Adam_S

    Producer



  • 6,119 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 2001

Posted July 24 2006 - 07:20 AM

also there's a very good reason Nebbercracker was so mean, which if someone walked out, would never find out:

Nebbercracker was protecting kids from his house by scaring them away. The house was created when Nebbercracker's wife (a giantess from the sideshow circuit) accidentally fell to her death while they were building the house together. At the time she was freaking out because she was being 'tortured' by kids for her size, so her malignant spirit infests and animates the house. also, Nebbercracker is not dead, he comes back to try to rescue the kids and works with them to try to subdue the house, and that's where the movie becomes a really fun and exciting (and yes, intense) ride.


There's nothing in the film that should suggest a pg 13. there's no language, the violence is cartoonish, and there's one intense heart attack, it's clearly not a G because of the intensity of the action, but is it really less upsetting than the Lion King? a g rated movie with a very traumatic death and intense climax.
 

#14 of 35 OFFLINE   DaveB

DaveB

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 194 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 19 2002

Posted July 24 2006 - 09:55 AM

I don't understand why some choose to ignore the PG warning and bring young children to films without any knowledge of why the film earned a PG rating. Hopefully, a valuable lesson has been learned.

#15 of 35 OFFLINE   Malcolm R

Malcolm R

    Executive Producer



  • 11,683 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 2002
  • LocationVermont

Posted July 24 2006 - 10:52 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad R
But, if those films were rated today, they would be PG-13.
Perhaps...or perhaps not. But they ARE rated "PG" and should give some insight into the level of intensity that might be encountered at that rating level.

Given that so many think a number of today's PG-13 films should be rated R, who's to say whether older PG films might not still be rated PG in today's environment? I could certainly envision Jaws and Poltergeist receiving the exact same rating and description as Monster House:

Rated PG for scary images and sequences, thematic elements, some crude humor and brief language.

Actually, they might even be tamer, since I don't recall any "crude humor" in either older film.
The purpose of an education is to replace an empty mind with an open mind.

#16 of 35 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul



  • 22,341 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted July 24 2006 - 11:29 AM

I can't speak for anyone but I think the point of thread is that the movie is marketed towards all kids when it should be aimed at kids above a certain age. The ratings of other movies or thematic elements (whatever the hell that is) aren't really what the thread is about.

I haven't seen it, and I doubt I ever will, but to me the ads definitely make it look like a movie for any kid that can sit through a 90 minute movie.

#17 of 35 OFFLINE   Lucia Duran

Lucia Duran

    Screenwriter



  • 1,089 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2005

Posted July 24 2006 - 11:54 AM

I understand it had a PG rating. Usually I am on the ball about checking out movies before I let the kiddos go to them. I usually check www.kids-in-mind.com before even taking them to movies, but after viewing the trailers a few times I figured it was okay. A bad decision on my part. My girls are only allowed to watch G and PG rated movies (a few PG-13 if I have screened it before hand and feel it is okay).

DaveB: While I agree that it really is the majority of the responsibility of the parent to keep an eye out for these things, I think the studios have some responsibility as well when marketing these films.
NO SHIRT

NO SHOES

NO SHELDON

#18 of 35 OFFLINE   RickER

RickER

    Producer



  • 5,130 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 04 2003
  • Real Name:Rick
  • LocationTulsa, Oklahoma

Posted July 24 2006 - 02:19 PM

The responsibility falls on know one but the parents. It makes me mad to see people take a 4 year old to a movie like Starship Troopers. An R movie if ever one was made. My parents didnt take us kids when they saw Jaws, and i was 13! Of course i know how you feel Lucia, i dont know how your kids deal with scary movies that are kid friendly, some can handle scary movies and others cant. Glad your not the type who would go to an R rated movie with YOUNG kids. It is important to see what content is in a movie regardless of the rating. Remember breasts in PG movies? My daughter was scared by the 1931 Dracula when she was 10. I on the other had LOVED it at 8, and didnt think it was scary. Was this movie Harry Potter scary, or more, or less?

#19 of 35 OFFLINE   mark alan

mark alan

    Supporting Actor



  • 620 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 19 2002

Posted July 24 2006 - 03:33 PM

I made the mistake of taking my kids to see the movie. While a decent enough animated movie, it was not a comedy. It was, plain and simple, a horror movie.

I think the advertising was very misleading. Plus, the damn commercials were on continuously during shows that younger kids watch.

#20 of 35 OFFLINE   Inspector Hammer!

Inspector Hammer!

    Executive Producer



  • 11,067 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 15 1999
  • Real Name:John Williamson
  • LocationWilmington, Delaware

Posted July 24 2006 - 05:20 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam_S
I found it to be very funny, not scary; intense and honest about life rather than hiding it behind sugar coated nonsense. Too me there was nothing worse in the film than anything in most of the Harry Potters. I guess as an animated film, this one isn't given a pass the way scary PG live-action films are.

But you cannot argue with the proof, kids were frightened and crying in Lucia's screening. Regardless of how we adults might view this film, the fact is that it scared children.
"That's Jack Bauer!!!!!! He's coming for me!!!!!" - Charles Logan





Forum Nav Content I Follow