Conference bookie::movies

	From the commercials I've seen I at first thought this movie
	looked like Robin Williams doing a sequel to his role in "Hook"
	(where he played Peter Pan).  It however actually looks like a
	completely unrelated movie.

    The critic in People magazine liked it but said it could be scary for
    little ones. Apparently he and Bonnie Hunt improvised most of the
    dialog and did a superb job. The effects look quite good as well.

    Lisa

    I saw an interview with the author on New England Cable News last
    night. He lives in Rhode Island. (And do you think I could remember his
    name?) 

    He said he wasn't happy with the trade-off between action and dialog
    (action won). He said he liked the movie, but if he were going to make
    a movie of this book, this wouldn't be the movie he'd make.

    I think he also wrote The Polar Express, but I'm not sure.  

    Lisa

>    I saw an interview with the author on New England Cable News last
>    night. He lives in Rhode Island. (And do you think I could remember his
>    name?) 

Chris Van Allsburg. (sp)

TIME magazine didn't give the movie a very favorable review, fwiw.

-- Nina

    >
    >I think he also wrote The Polar Express, but I'm not sure.  
    >
    		He did.

    My husband took the kids (10 & 13)to it yesterday.
    They all enjoyed it very much. I don't know about
    little kids though. Suppose it depends on how
    sensitive they are. 
    
    	Terry

    I saw this last night.  It seemed to me to be aimed approximately at
    8-12 year olds -- no sex, lots of (gore-free) action, some broad
    humour, an amusing if unsubtle story.  The child characters appeared to
    be in that age range.  The story concerns a board game with magic powers: 
    you roll the dice, and weird things happen.  Mainly, lots of dangerous 
    animals emerge from the game and stampede around town.  There's also a 
    carnivorous plant, a monsoon and a homicidal big-game hunter.  Robin 
    Williams plays a kid who gets sucked into the game (literally) in 1969, 
    and doesn't get out until another kid rolls a 5 in 1995.
    
    It is a good-humoured enough fantasy.  The happy ending involves kids 
    being reunited with their parents.  You have to be willing to suspend
    disbelief in the things that come out of the game; though the animals
    and other effects are well done, they're clearly not real.  I enjoyed the
    movie, as a kids' fantasy.  Somehow, all the action didn't seem
    overbearing.
    
    -Stephen

	Lyons & Medved (Sneak Previews) both gave it a thumbs up, but
	Medved said only for kids 8 or older.  Siskel & Ebert I believe
	gave thumbs down, and also said not for young kids.

	Piece of trivia.  On local NH station they mentioned 7 minutes of
	this film was shot in Keene, NH.

        
    >  Medved said only for kids 8 or older.  Siskel & Ebert I believe
    >  gave thumbs down, and also said not for young kids.

    If your kids liked Jurassic Park, this one is a piece of cake. My 
    5 year old boy loved this movie. Wasn't scared a bit.

    Paul

    
    
    jurassic park scared me, I can imagine how scared a liitle child 
    would feel. This one looks decent. 
    Hey when I was 5 my sisters took me to see " Psycho " I didn't
    understand what I was watching at that time, except it was scary
     and when I got older I grew to understand what a piece of Cinema
     genius it has become. same for Jurassic Park. (I hope!)
    
    
    BR

  The acting in Jurassic Park scared me, it was so horrible at times I thought
Hollywood had been overrun by mutant actors.

  Although the effects were pretty good.

  George

Not too bad - of the 11 replies to the question: "Has anyone seen it,"
one person has.  

Thanks for the report, Stephen. 

> Not too bad - of the 11 replies to the question: "Has anyone seen it,"
> one person has.  

	Since when is any discussion about a movie limited to a single question
	that may of been posed in the base note?

	Some of the other info (such as what the professional critics have
	said about the movie) is also very useful.

> 	Since when is any discussion about a movie limited to a single question
>	that may of been posed in the base note?

Ever since the Noters Book of Etiquette was published.  It says "Wheneth a
baseth note askseth, being hithertofore specific in its querie, said question
shall be honored with forthright and direct resonse, before said topic deviates
into the bowels of Ratsus-Holius." 

    re .14

    There are some things in the netiquette book which don't make sense or
    are wrong. However, starting a rathole, as you did in your note, isn't 
    one of them.

    Lisa                                      

>> 	Since when is any discussion about a movie limited to a single question
>>	that may of been posed in the base note?
> Ever since the Noters Book of Etiquette was published.  It says "Wheneth a
> baseth note askseth, being hithertofore specific in its querie, said question
> shall be honored with forthright and direct resonse,before said topic deviates
> into the bowels of Ratsus-Holius." 

	Incorrect.  That has *never* applied to this or the movies conference
	(at least not in the nine years I've been here).  Topics are created
	for each movie or show and any discussion directed related to that
	movie or show is perferectly valid.

	We are not going to start creating multiple topics for each movie
	because the base noter may of asked one specific question about
	the movie.  I'm sure the other [primary] moderators agree.

	Of course if you were just pulling our legs then your Etiquette
	book should say you should put a smiley face in your note somewhere
	to let us know you weren't serious ....

    
    	I understood .14 to be a joke, but maybe that's just me.
    
    	And I like the "Pam Dawber" p_n ... what a blast from the past.
    

> 	Of course if you were just pulling our legs then your Etiquette
>	book should say you should put a smiley face in your note somewhere
>	to let us know you weren't serious ....

I never use smiley faces, or any of those cutesie-wootsie-isms.

Really, I swear, in front of this court, that I believed the term
"Ratsus-Holius" to be a dead give-away that I was yanking the complainer's
chain.  

RE: .15> Excuuuuuuse MEEEEEE!!

RE: .16> I guess we're both warped, eh?

-Sb

All right, all right, let's get back to discussing the movie, shall we?
And I don't think there are any rules here that you have to have seen a
movie before you can discuss it.  Heck, there are plenty of notes entered about
movies before they're released or even MADE.  :-)

-- Nina (a primary moderator)

I finally saw this movie on New Year's Eve at the new cinema in Worcester
(North), MA.  Note .7 includes a good summary of the story, but I don't think
its author liked it as much as I did. I have a tendency to use my imagination
with any story that is fantasy-fiction, especially with movies.  The action is
exciting and believable in itself.  How the action comes about calls for some
imagination.  In other words, if a herd elephants and rhinos got loose in 
a small town, the chaos would probably resemble the scenes in this movie.
If a monkey pulled the trigger on a shotgun in a cop's cruiser, that's 
exactly what would happen to the roof of the cruiser.

All those animals popped out of a board game?  Yea, it's an "Imagine if this
happened" movie.    

The Worcester North cinema has an excellent sound system, which
added to the excitement in general, and particularly every time the African
Kettle drum inside the closed-up board game started pounding.

We all went - my wife and both kids, 11 and 8, and we all enjoyed Jumanji.

-Steve

    a 9-yr old firend of mine saw this over the weekend and said that is
    should be PG-13, not PG.  Even for her it was a bit too intense
    [scary]. Guess we'll wait for video -- my 8-yrold has problems with the
    monekys in jungle book scaring her!

    It all depends on the child. We took our 6-year old this past weekend,
    and he was not frightened at all. He thoroughly enjoyed it as did my
    husband. There were several logic holes in the movie that bothered me,
    and I felt they dragged the plot too much. 
    
    I understand the movie is based on a short story. That makes sense to
    me, I could have been happy to see this as a 1-hour show rather than
    dragged out as a full length movie.
    
    The special effects were great, though!
    
    
    Marilyn

RE: last few concerning young children

My 7 year old son *loved* this movie, and was not bothered by it at all (ie,
just scary enough for enjoyment, but not enough for nightmares later).

For a point of reference, the movie "Cutthroat Island" did bother him, 
because he didn't like the (as he put it) bad things happening to real
people.

-- Ken Moreau

    
    
    My Partner and I saw this movie on the weekend and we both loved it!
    NIce story, excellent special effects and Robin Williams is excellent!.
    The movie is exciting and also has a feel good ending. Kinda makes
    you think of games like Ouija boards etc where the supernatural
    or magic could be involved.
    
    Chris
    :)

    My three year old son (well almost 3 1/2 now) currently watches this
    movie *every night* (its dark out Mommy, we can watch Juuumuuungi now).
    
    He is a bit scared of the drums mostly, and sometimes I catch him half
    way between the kitchen to keep an eye on me while I'm making dinner
    and half in the living room watching the movie.  
    
    I have to agree with him on this one that its a great movie too.  My
    husband and I really enjoyed it.
    
    cj