'Bring On The Night'
A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
I have studiously avoided that film for the sake of my blood pressure. I keep meaning to see Saved, though.
Saved! is a good time, but I kept telling non-Christian friends that what they were showing was pretty normal, not the freaky Christian camp stuff. Saved! was pretty close to my summer camp experience, at least some of the time, and I went to a New England American Baptist summer camp, not exactly filled with holy rollers. Jesus Camp is terrifying.
There's no gore or sex in Indy, but there were a few kids (probably closer to 6 years old than 8) at the screening I saw who asked to leave because it was too scary for them.
The scene I had to cover my eyes for involved a fist-fight that culminated in the loser being eaten alive by ants but I have pretty major bug issues.
It's not in the 10 ten? I have studiously avoided that film for the sake of my blood pressure.
Seeing as there were no sobbing children in that scene...no. Not even close.
What's the violence like? Is it just cinematic fun or could it be disturbing for the average kid from 8 to 12? Is there gore? Are the sexual situations inappropriate for kids from ages 8 to 12?
The violence is non-bloody, although there is death by ants attacking and carrying a body away, so creepy, and the usual blow-dart deaths. As for sex there isn't any, only kissing.
My 9 year old niece sat on her Dad's lap for some of it, but seemed to enjoy herself. She'd seen the first one and liked it.
eta: change spoiler font
It's funny, because I liked the movie while I was watching it, but I've felt this vague, mild feeling of discontent ever since the end credits rolled. I don't think it succeeded in taking me to Narnia, if you know what I mean (and if you haven't read the books, you maybe can't). I may just be feeling a little let down too, because a friend saw it before me, and he thought it was much better than TLTW&TW. Maybe it was, but TLTW&TW film managed to take me to Narnia, whereas the closest Prince Caspian got me was to a lookout tower from which I could see Narnia. I couldn't feel it. I couldn't taste it. I think at best, I caught a whiff of it on the breeze.
It is action packed. There are lots of battles but there isn't any gore (which is a plus for a children's film). It's solid enough, but I can't help but think it could and should have been more. And it's not the length at fault. I'm pretty sure the film clocked in around 2 hours and 20 minutes.
Very well put, Cindy. I saw it yesterday, and I feel pretty much the same way. The first movie just brought back all of the memories of reading the book as a child, but this one didn't feel the same way. Maybe it's because I have probably re-read The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe more often than the other books.
Re: cougars. I had lunch with a college friend I haven't seen in forever and she is dating a 23 year old (she's almost 38). She said people were calling her a cougar but she's like 38 going on 21 (in looks and actions). I wouldn't consider her to be a cougar.
It's not in the 10 ten?
Oh, no. In a movie where the main character, a Pentecostal children's minister, talks about "using" them (her words!) and exposes them to seriously creepy adults (although most of their parents seem to fall into this category) every other scene, Ted Haggard's queeniness - which I don't know if I would have caught pre-scandal, although it seems pretty clear on the screen - is barely a blip. He mostly comes across as a condescending asshole for the way he talks to one of the protagonist kids.
I have studiously avoided that film for the sake of my blood pressure.
Probably a good policy. I think it's interesting that they confuse the terms "evangelical" and "Dominionist". I mean, the first evangelical President, at least in the modern use of the word, was Jimmy Carter, right?
Sparky, if you longhandedly spoilerfont with t span class="spoiler" instead of t font color="white" it means that people who've customised their stylesheets will still be protected--but on the offchance anyone's changed their wallpaper to navy and their own normal font to white, your spoiler will show right through.
Just a heads up--don't want to be a CSS nanny. Of course, why you weird people don't quickedit is beyond me. Isn't laziness where nirvana lives? Have I been doing this all wrong?
So, Jilli, on that note, have you seen Fido
I LOVED Fido. I need my own copy of it. I found it utterly charming.
Just a heads up--don't want to be a CSS nanny.
I changed it. My lazy is pure because you gave me the fix and I didn't have to think out how to make it right.