Stephen King's IT

[DawnM]

Thoughts on this review?

 

http://www.saraborgstede.com/the-one-movie-you-should-not-take-your-children-to-see/

 

My 17 year old would like to go see it.  He has read the book.  He will be 18 in 3 months, however when I expressed concern he said, "Mom if you really don't want me to see it, I won't."

 

But I am not sure if I am being over-protective.  He will be 18 in just a few months.

 

 

The truth is, I am not a "watch whatever, content doesn't matter" type, nor am I uber conservative when it comes to what my kids watch or play on their game systems.

 

If you distain all horror movies, that is fine, but I am not asking about horror films or your personal opinion of horror films, I am asking about the content as stated in the blog.

[chiguirre]

IMHO, this person didn't read the book if she thought this was going to be like Child's Play. The book has all the dark themes in it so they shouldn't have come as a surprise.

[nixpix5]

Hmmm...it sounds to me like she is talking about minors that the rating isn't necessarily geared toward. She referred to her 9 year old nephew. I would say if my child was almost 18 and wanted to see it I would let them make that decision. My brother watched it last night and texted me to tell me it was amazing. He is an avid horror movie watcher. He and I clocked more horror movie hours as kids than anyone I knew. The only movie he ever bristled at was "Hostel". He said "It" was disturbing but it was said with a chuckle.

 

I wouldn't let my 9 year old watch any horror movie but my 17 year old? I would and I did. She mentioned Deadpool as one she came close to disliking. I loved that one personally. Laughed my butt off. You know your 17 yo so if he is sensitive, or you are concerned express that to him. Otherwise, he is almost an adult and I wouldn't worry too much about the review.

Edited September 13, 2017 by nixpix5

[fraidycat]

I sent it to DH for his opinion. He saw it in 4D last weekend, and was very glad I was adamant about our 11 year old not going, even though he watched the original movie.

 

DH is a big horror movie fan, and has read all of Stephen King's books - and even he found this one to be more disturbing and gory than he expected.

Edited September 13, 2017 by fraidycat

[Jenny in Florida]

My first thought is to wonder how this person didn't know about the basic storyline of the film before buying a ticket.

 

There is no mystery about this. The film is a remake and is based on a novel written at least a couple of decades ago.

 

I don't understand choosing to see a film without knowing anything about it, let alone choosing to see a horror film and then being upset and shocked that it is, well, horrifying.

[Wheres Toto]

You know your son best, so if you think that kind of content will disturb him, recommend he wait.   Although at 17 years old, I would take his opinion into account quite strongly.

 

Anyone who takes a younger child to a movie like IT without knowing anything about it is an idiot.  I always hate going to R rated movies and seeing a bunch of kids with clueless parents.  

[DawnM]

You know your son best, so if you think that kind of content will disturb him, recommend he wait.   Although at 17 years old, I would take his opinion into account quite strongly.

 

Anyone who takes a younger child to a movie like IT without knowing anything about it is an idiot.  I always hate going to R rated movies and seeing a bunch of kids with clueless parents.  

 

Speaking of which, my poor (now 19 year old) son was 18 and going to a Rated R movie and didn't have ID.  They let his 17 year old friends in because they looked older, but they wouldn't let him in.

 

We can look back and laugh, but he was quite upset at the time.

 

They were going to see The Accountant.

[fraidycat]

Dh texted me back:

 

Yes, there are many reasons not to watch it. Shielding your child is not going to make the issues disappear but this is not the movie to watch and then try to have a discussion about it. There are a few good qualities in the movie. The importance of friendships and how they can help you overcome life issues. Bullying and picking on the overweight kid is one of the focus points also and shows how having friends that stick up with you can overcome it.

I didn't tell him your DS's age. Just asked him for his thoughts on the blog article.

[teachermom2834]

Hmmm.... my 17.5 yo saw it on Friday. I read the book way back when and remember the miniseries. Personally, I know I would never want to see it.

 

My kid actually has always hated anything scary or violent. Won't watch Hunger Games. He is very sensitive to violence. We have not been liberal with viewing. For some reason he was interested in this movie. He read all about it so he knew what he was getting into and what to expect. He got a friend of his to join him.

 

I was actually quite worried about him. He is sensitive and has never seen anything nearly that intense. But he is a 17 yo senior in high school. He is going away to college next year. He works two jobs and takes a full de schedule and drives and has a girlfriend. Seems odd to tell him he can't see a movie. So he went and enjoyed it. He said it was creepy and it stretched his limits but he was really glad he went. He felt like he conquered a fear.

 

I'm not comfortable with the subject matter but come 17yo, I think it is okay. My kids have been pretty sheltered and seeing that other people do deal with some of these dark themes has to happen sometime.

 

Personally, I couldn't watch it now. But I read the book and watched the miniseries as a teen and it didn't impact me the way it would now.

[Garga]

That blog post was written by a man, if that makes a difference, and it might because men don't seem to be as overprotective of kids as women are.

 

He writes in the blog that he normally loves edgy, horror movies and went to his first one at 10 and generally enjoys them.

 

So it's kinda interesting that someone who normally loves that kind of movie suddenly found this one to be Too Much. Since he was considering for a moment taking his 9 yo nephew, I guess he's the kind of person you see at theaters at R rated movies with kids in tow.

 

My take on his post is that he was writing to a specific group of people: the kind of people who take young children to see R rated movies. He was saying that if you're that kind of person, that you might want to pause before taking kids to this one. It sounds like he normally is ok with it.

 

I don't think he's writing to people who normally don't take their kids to R rated movies. And I don't think he's writing to people who don't like horror films. I think he's saying that if you're like him (you normally take kids to R rated horror films) that you might want to pause and reconsider before this one.

 

 

 

Also, what I think is so strange nowadays is that some random guy giving his random opinion is taken so seriously. This isn't a person in a position of power. This isn't a movie reviewer. It's just an everyday person who happened to write his review about a movie, and through some quirk his review gained more attention that other reviews. I would take it for what it is and consider it with the same weight I'd consider an overheard conversation on the subway about the movie.

Edited September 13, 2017 by Garga

[snowbeltmom]

IMHO, this person didn't read the book if she thought this was going to be like Child's Play. The book has all the dark themes in it so they shouldn't have come as a surprise.

 

:iagree:

My 16 year old D and I went to see IT on Friday.  I read the book 20+ years ago, and my D read the book a couple of years ago.  We both loved the movie and thought it did a good job of following the book.  Now, I wouldn't take a 9 year old to see it, but I wouldn't take a 9 year old to see any R rated movie.

 

If your son has read the book, I don't think the movie will be an issue.

 

[nixpix5]

That blog post was written by a man, if that makes a difference, and it might because men don't seem to be as overprotective of kids as women are.

 

He writes in the blog that he normally loves edgy, horror movies and went to his first one at 10 and generally enjoys them.

 

So it's kinda interesting that someone who normally loves that kind of movie suddenly found this one to be Too Much. Since he was considering for a moment taking his 9 yo nephew, I guess he's the kind of person you see at theaters at R rated movies with kids in tow.

 

My take on his post is that he was writing to a specific group of people: the kind of people who take young children to see R rated movies. He was saying that if you're that kind of person, that you might want to pause before taking kids to this one. It sounds like he normally is ok with it.

 

I don't think he's writing to people who normally don't take their kids to R rated movies. And I don't think he's writing to people who don't like horror films. I think he's saying that if you're like him (you normally take kids to R rated horror films) that you might want to pause and reconsider before this one.

 

 

 

Also, what I think is so strange nowadays is that some random guy giving his random opinion is taken so seriously. This isn't a person in a position of power. This isn't a movie reviewer. It's just an everyday person who happened to write his review about a movie, and through some quirk his review gained more attention that other reviews. I would take it for what it is and consider it with the same weight I'd consider an overheard conversation on the subway about the movie.

Haha! I didn't even notice it was a guy writing. Talk about me making assumptions based on content! I assumed it was a mom. I don't think it changes how I view it though. Having been a kid of the 80s who was allowed to watch anything and everything, I am now a parent who believes ratings exist for a healthy reason. 17 yo who is almost 18yo and has the ability to get up and leave if he needs to? Yep. A young kid? Heck no, not for me anyway.

[teachermom2834]

The reviewer really did seem to be talking about not taking kids (he mentioned the 9yo). I wouldn't take it to mean that a nearly legal adult shouldn't see it.

 

I really am not inclined to take his opinion, though. The fact that he would even consider taking kids that young to horror movies is a tip off that we don't see these things the same way. Taking a nine year old to an R rated film of any kind wouldn't even occur to me, really. My 14 yo still needs permission for PG13. Lol.

[6packofun]

I guess it depends on if you're more concerned with him reading about all the 12 year old boys in the group of friends taking turns having sex with the girl of the group than you are with a visual representation of some really gross stuff but no sexual stuff.  I'm actually a Stephen King fan but felt that the sex in the book was totally unnecessary (and wrong, actually), no matter how people try to justify it as meaningful to the plot and character development.  It didn't *ruin* the book for me, but it definitely tainted it in a way.

 

Dh took 18yo dd--who had not read the book--and she said that while it was good, she would have been fine never seeing it.  LOL  I think she wishes she HAD read the book to see how faithful/well done the film is (or not; I haven't seen it yet!).

Edited September 13, 2017 by 6packofun

[DawnM]

I guess it depends on if you're more concerned with him reading about all the 12 year old boys in the group of friends taking turns having sex with the girl of the group than you are with a visual representation of some really gross stuff but no sexual stuff.  I'm actually a Stephen King fan but felt that the sex in the book was totally unnecessary (and wrong, actually), no matter how people try to justify it as meaningful to the plot and character development.  It didn't *ruin* the book for me, but it definitely tainted it in a way.

 

Dh took 18yo dd--who had not read the book--and she said that while it was good, she would have been fine never seeing it.  LOL  I think she wishes she HAD read the book to see how faithful/well done the film is (or not; I haven't seen it yet!).

 

Honestly, I didn't even know he had read the book, but I know he likes Stephen King.  

I didn't know she had sex with all the boys......ugh.

[Guest]

IMO, you're being way overprotective but I let my 14 yo see it soooo take my advice with a grain of salt, I guess.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

I guess it depends on if you're more concerned with him reading about all the 12 year old boys in the group of friends taking turns having sex with the girl of the group than you are with a visual representation of some really gross stuff but no sexual stuff.  I'm actually a Stephen King fan but felt that the sex in the book was totally unnecessary (and wrong, actually), no matter how people try to justify it as meaningful to the plot and character development.  It didn't *ruin* the book for me, but it definitely tainted it in a way.

 

I felt the same way. I just re-read the book, and I had forgotten all about that part. It made me very uncomfortable, and I didn't think it was necessary either, though I kind of understood why he chose that concept. 

 

Honestly, I didn't even know he had read the book, but I know he likes Stephen King.  

I didn't know she had sex with all the boys......ugh.

 

It's not really about sex.(Highlight below for more info.)

 

It's about renewing the powerful connection between them all so they could fight IT, because that's one of the things that made them strong.

 

But it was still...stomach turning. 

Edited September 13, 2017 by ILiveInFlipFlops

[Ann.without.an.e]

I do not like horror and neither do my kids so this is a non-issue for us but it made me think of this 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcLM4IprXbs

 

 

 

[poppy]

I just watched the movie this weekend. It was a fun, rather cheesy horror movie, really a good time in a packed theater.  Kind of a throwback to Freddy Krueger-type movies where the killings are inventively gross plus lots of nightmares come to life.  But " I don't know what this guy is talking about.  It is hyperbolic.  YES the movie is completely inappropriate for kids, no kidding.   What kind of idiot would take a child to a horror movie?

 

Without going into too much detail, the film features such adult themes as child abuse, incest, and Munchausen syndrome.  No graphic parent abuse is shown. Plus there is no Munchasusen.  Don't want to spoil the movie so I'll just say I don't think this writer knows what that word means.

 

A young pre-teen character uses horrible language throughout.  Yeah, the potty mouth kid, he was pretty funny.  Note all the other kids rolled their eyes at his "yo mama" jokes. 

 

The kids are subjected to all kinds of horrible and painful abuse. Not really so much, considering this is a movie about a demented child killing monster.

 

It is reprehensible, beyond disturbing, and I strongly encourage you not to let anyone under age see this.   Horror movies can be very upsetting and boundary pushing.   This one is just a standard monster movie.   With some well written kids who are more sympathetic than your standard cardboard cutout teen victims.  But it's not nightmare fuel or something you watch and say "I'll never be able to unsee that!"  More jump scares than anything else.

 

 

 

Edited September 13, 2017 by poppy

[Pawz4me]

Almost 18 year olds got to make their own movie decisions here. At three months away from being a legal adult -- no way was I going to be micromanaging what movies they could or couldn't watch. That little bit of independence/control/decision making got turned over to them a long time before 18. Now that sure doesn't mean we wouldn't have talked about it in a "Are you sure you want to see that?" kind of way.

 

Plus I really, really don't understand why a random person's opinion matters just because he has a blog. I do not get that. I could understand if it were a friend, neighbor or relative whose opinion I trusted and valued. But goodness, you can find all sorts of opinions on the internet. I'm sure you can find blogs with glowing reviews that say the movie is no big deal for kids over [insert random young age].

[madteaparty]

I just watched the movie this weekend. It was a fun, rather cheesy horror movie, really a good time in a packed theater. Kind of a throwback to Freddy Krueger-type movies where the killings are inventively gross plus lots of nightmares come to life. But " I don't know what this guy is talking about. It is hyperbolic. YES the movie is completely inappropriate for kids, no kidding. What kind of idiot would take a child to a horror movie?

 

Without going into too much detail, the film features such adult themes as child abuse, incest, and Munchausen syndrome. No graphic parent abuse is shown. Plus there is no Munchasusen. Don't want to spoil the movie so I'll just say I don't think this writer knows what that word means.

 

A young pre-teen character uses horrible language throughout. Yeah, the potty mouth kid, he was pretty funny. Note all the other kids rolled their eyes at his "yo mama" jokes.

 

The kids are subjected to all kinds of horrible and painful abuse. Not really so much, considering this is a movie about a demented child killing monster.

 

It is reprehensible, beyond disturbing, and I strongly encourage you not to let anyone under age see this. Horror movies can be very upsetting and boundary pushing. This one is just a standard monster movie. With some well written kids who are more sympathetic than your standard cardboard cutout teen victims. But it's not nightmare fuel or something you watch and say "I'll never be able to unsee that!" More jump scares than anything else.

we are those kinds of idiot I guess. I feel more conflicted about his second reading of the Iliad honestly. DH said it was more sad than scary. DS said the book is still worse. Edited September 13, 2017 by madteaparty

[Word Nerd]

I disagree strongly that IT is not nightmare fuel. Pennywise stands out about above other movie monsters in my mind over the years. (I don't think that has anything to do with letting a near adult see it. That comment just struck me as funny.)

Edited September 13, 2017 by Word Nerd

[Bluegoat]

I don't think the review is really about teens.  It's a weird review anyway.

 

I doubt I'd restrict a 17.5 year old from seeing much.  Maybe some weird sex stuff, OTOH I saw Last Tango in Paris at that age - at some point, kids start being exposed to really adult ideas.  

 

If you think he'd not enjoy it, a recommendation is fine of course.  But, it doesn't really sound like you have a better idea than he does - if he likes Stephen King, he has an idea what it will be like.

 

Really, worst case scenario to me is, he wishes he hadn't gone.  No big deal.

[Sneezyone]

Good grief. I read the book for my 7th grade GT lit analysis and watched the original miniseries. I never found it frightening or nightmarish, maybe because there were people in my school like each and every one of the child characters. We weren't deaf, dumb, or blind to the pregnant 13yos in our midst or the kid whose mom practically wrapped him in bubble wrap before leaving the house. The remake, I agree, is much tamer than the book and the language in the film harkens back to 80s films like Goonies (which would never get a PG rating today).  If anything, seeing IT reminds me just how much more stringent movie ratings are than they used to be. There was lots more gore and innuendo in the Nightmare on Elmstreet series than IT. For DD and I (she's recently discovered the horror genre and enjoys it), it led to a great discussion of how things are different for her and her peers than they were for me in the 80s.

Edited September 13, 2017 by Sneezyone

[heartlikealion]

Dh saw it. He told me about some of the jokes. I can see why people laughed. I even chuckled. Now, maybe some of the jokes were worse than the ones he told me. I would not one second consider taking my 9 year old and I knew that much from previews and/or things dh told me about the original. I don't know why she thought about her 9 yr old coming along.

 

Now I didn't read the entire blog. I stopped where it started getting graphic. Dh already told me some things. And online people were saying a scene in the book was removed so it could have been worse.

 

Personally I would rather my child rent it and then if they didn't like it they wouldn't be embarrassed to turn it off and walk away. I don't like disturbing movies. I regretted seeing big hits such as A Clockwork Orange. I watch The Walking Dead, but I know I can turn off the tv or close my eyes or have dh even watch the ep first if I'm hesitant. A theater is a little different.

 

I admit I'm not into horror films so take my opinion with a grain of salt. I don't know how your son's mind works. If he sees something will it stick with him for a long time? Because my mind is like that so I would rather not see/hear something I can't easily shake.

[heartlikealion]

Good grief. I read the book for my 7th grade GT lit analysis and watched the original miniseries. I never found it frightening or nightmarish, maybe because there were people in my school like each and every one of the child characters. We weren't deaf, dumb, or blind to the pregnant 13yos in our midst or the kid whose mom practically wrapped him in bubble wrap before leaving the house. The remake, I agree, is much tamer than the book and the language in the film harkens back to 80s films like Goonies (which would never get a PG rating today).  If anything, seeing IT reminds me just how much more stringent movie ratings are than they used to be. There was lots more gore and innuendo in the Nightmare on Elmstreet series than IT. For DD and I (she's recently discovered the horror genre and enjoys it), it led to a great discussion of how things are different for her and her peers than they were for me in the 80s.

 

I'm assuming a miniseries aired on tv? It might not be as intense as something in theater?

 

[Sneezyone]

I'm assuming a miniseries aired on tv? It might not be as intense as something in theater?

 

 

The graphics were certainly less intense but there really wasn't that much gore in IT for a true horror book/film. Seriously, films like Halloween or Nightmare on Elmstreet had buckets of the stuff. This was more akin to Carrie. More over-the-top and theatrical than scary.

Edited September 13, 2017 by Sneezyone

[teachermom2834]

I'm assuming a miniseries aired on tv? It might not be as intense as something in theater?

 

Sure, but the subject matter as far as what the kids were dealing with and adult themes were there or at least very heavily alluded to even if actual graphic violence was not as intense.

 

My 17 yo would have gotten up and walked out if it was getting to be too much. A kid that age should have the ability to remove himself from uncomfortable situations. I guess he could be embarassed but mine would have laughed at himself and told his friend he was getting freaked out. I teach mine to take control of their situations. I can't picture any of my teens, even younger, just feeling trapped in a theater.

[TheReader]

I just saw this movie last night, and had not had any previous exposure to it (did not see the original tv mini-series/movie, have not read the book). 

 

I read the blog you posted, to see what she was objecting to. 

 

I agree with her that the circumstances in the lives of the children being terrorized by the clown are actually far worse than the clown. It definitely was more disturbing to me, realizing what each of the children/teens are going through, than the horror of the clown (which wasn't terrible). 

 

But, each of these situations is done in a way that the viewer realizes what is happening....but they are not graphically portrayed. Or, perhaps that's not the right word.....we do definitely see the boys who carve into the other boy's belly; we do see blood when the teen kills his father; we do not see "sexual advances" in a way that reveals anything other than the slimeball character of the father. 

 

The theme of the movie seems to be very much "sometimes the real horrors aren't the monsters, but the people" (or else the evils of these people are influenced by the evil of It....?), but I'd allow an almost 18 yr old to see it, especially if he's read the book and so already understands the plot/situations in the movie. 

 

Oh, and the kid who uses vulgar language is very much used in a comic relief kind of way, but there is definitely a LOT of it, and the other kids are shown even getting annoyed with that character over his comments, at times. 

 

 

[heartlikealion]

Sure, but the subject matter as far as what the kids were dealing with and adult themes were there or at least very heavily alluded to even if actual graphic violence was not as intense.

 

My 17 yo would have gotten up and walked out if it was getting to be too much. A kid that age should have the ability to remove himself from uncomfortable situations. I guess he could be embarassed but mine would have laughed at himself and told his friend he was getting freaked out. I teach mine to take control of their situations. I can't picture any of my teens, even younger, just feeling trapped in a theater.

 

As a visual person, I would rather something be alluded to than portrayed. It would definitely make a difference for me. But like I said it all depends on how someone's brain works. I am OCD and thoughts can get stuck on loop.

[Sneezyone]

I just saw this movie last night, and had not had any previous exposure to it (did not see the original tv mini-series/movie, have not read the book). 

 

I read the blog you posted, to see what she was objecting to. 

 

I agree with her that the circumstances in the lives of the children being terrorized by the clown are actually far worse than the clown. It definitely was more disturbing to me, realizing what each of the children/teens are going through, than the horror of the clown (which wasn't terrible). 

 

But, each of these situations is done in a way that the viewer realizes what is happening....but they are not graphically portrayed. Or, perhaps that's not the right word.....we do definitely see the boys who carve into the other boy's belly; we do see blood when the teen kills his father; we do not see "sexual advances" in a way that reveals anything other than the slimeball character of the father. 

 

The theme of the movie seems to be very much "sometimes the real horrors aren't the monsters, but the people" (or else the evils of these people are influenced by the evil of It....?), but I'd allow an almost 18 yr old to see it, especially if he's read the book and so already understands the plot/situations in the movie. 

 

Oh, and the kid who uses vulgar language is very much used in a comic relief kind of way, but there is definitely a LOT of it, and the other kids are shown even getting annoyed with that character over his comments, at times. 

 

THIS. The true 'horrors' are real, not imaginary, and confronting those fears (all of them, together) is how the kids prevail.

[teachermom2834]

As a visual person, I would rather something be alluded to than portrayed. It would definitely make a difference for me. But like I said it all depends on how someone's brain works. I am OCD and thoughts can get stuck on loop.

Oh I agree and I'd rather not see it. I was just pointing out that as far as exposing kids to these themes, the book and miniseries have been out there for years and it shouldn't have been any big mystery what the content of the movie would be. I actually think books tend to be the most graphic and vivid in descriptions and what takes a few moments in a movie can go on for pages.

[Bluegoat]

Yeah, I read it at 12, too.

 

In fact for my grade 6 book project, I read King's Christine, and presented it to the class.  I made a diorama of a city street with a dinky car and a kid made of clay dead, with wheel tracks over his body.

 

I think many kids are a lot more sheltered now about what they read in their tweens and teens.  I agree that movies like Goonies wouldn't get made in the same way today - a lot of the moms I know of youngsters think they are terrible - even E.T.

[Garga]

I wonder if perhaps the blogger is maturing. Maybe he's realizing that just because he went to his first horror movie at 10, it doesn't make it the right thing to do.

 

To me the blog post read more like a man who is growing up from being a young man himself, enjoying pushing the limits and being shocked, and watching others be shocked, into a responsible adult who realizes that perhaps 9 year olds shouldn't watch movies about sons killing their fathers and kids butchering each other in the stomach. I think that when he watched the movie, he had his nephew's face in mind and realized, "Dang! A 9 year old kid probably shouldn't watch this!" I have a feeling it was the first time he ever really thought it through. Or the first time that he was around a kid long enough to understand their development.

 

I think the blogger is simply finally growing up into a responsible adult and realizing that sometimes it's up to the adults to say, "Um...no," when a kid wants to see an R rated horror film. I see him as going from being the crazy uncle who takes the kids to edgy movies to being more dad-minded. I think his review was more about him changing as a person, whether he knows it or not, than about whether the movie was Too Much or not.

 

 

OP: At 17, your son is old enough to see R rated movies. I'd tell him factually what you think about it, state whether or not you think he'll like that kind of thing, and then let him decide. You can say, "Son, I wouldn't go to see it, and you prooooobably won't like it either, but I'm letting you decide."

Edited September 13, 2017 by Garga

[nixpix5]

Yeah, I read it at 12, too.

 

In fact for my grade 6 book project, I read King's Christine, and presented it to the class. I made a diorama of a city street with a dinky car and a kid made of clay dead, with wheel tracks over his body.

 

I think many kids are a lot more sheltered now about what they read in their tweens and teens. I agree that movies like Goonies wouldn't get made in the same way today - a lot of the moms I know of youngsters think they are terrible - even E.T.

So true. I watched Gremlins as a kid and Saturday morning cartoons had toy commercials for stuffed Gizmo yet it was every bit a horror film. I had forgotten that part and watched it with my kids. They aren't scarred but it was funny how I did squirm a bit and shot my DH wide eyed looks over the top of their heads. They have seen ET, Labyrinth (nothing is more frightening than David Bowie in those tights) and Neverending Story. Each movie was much more generous with "innapropriateness" than we would see now.

 

Still, I wouldn't let my 9 year old see "It". Your comment though made me nostalgic about how many times I watched "Christine", "Children of the Corn" and "Pet Cemetary" as a young kid. I am mostly unscathed :)

[Bluegoat]

So true. I watched Gremlins as a kid and Saturday morning cartoons had toy commercials for stuffed Gizmo yet it was every bit a horror film. I had forgotten that part and watched it with my kids. They aren't scarred but it was funny how I did squirm a bit and shot my DH wide eyed looks over the top of their heads. They have seen ET, Labyrinth (nothing is more frightening than David Bowie in those tights) and Neverending Story. Each movie was much more generous with "innapropriateness" than we would see now.

 

Still, I wouldn't let my 9 year old see "It". Your comment though made me nostalgic about how many times I watched "Christine", "Children of the Corn" and "Pet Cemetary" as a young kid. I am mostly unscathed :)

 

I found David Bowies tights pretty fascinating when Labyrinth came out.

 

My kids actually have some Gremlin toys - they came with Happy Meals when I was a kid.  They keep asking to see it, and I haven't been brave enough to try.

[heartlikealion]

That blog post was written by a man, if that makes a difference, and it might because men don't seem to be as overprotective of kids as women are.

 

He writes in the blog that he normally loves edgy, horror movies and went to his first one at 10 and generally enjoys them.

 

So it's kinda interesting that someone who normally loves that kind of movie suddenly found this one to be Too Much. Since he was considering for a moment taking his 9 yo nephew, I guess he's the kind of person you see at theaters at R rated movies with kids in tow.

 

My take on his post is that he was writing to a specific group of people: the kind of people who take young children to see R rated movies. He was saying that if you're that kind of person, that you might want to pause before taking kids to this one. It sounds like he normally is ok with it.

 

I don't think he's writing to people who normally don't take their kids to R rated movies. And I don't think he's writing to people who don't like horror films. I think he's saying that if you're like him (you normally take kids to R rated horror films) that you might want to pause and reconsider before this one.

 

 

 

Also, what I think is so strange nowadays is that some random guy giving his random opinion is taken so seriously. This isn't a person in a position of power. This isn't a movie reviewer. It's just an everyday person who happened to write his review about a movie, and through some quirk his review gained more attention that other reviews. I would take it for what it is and consider it with the same weight I'd consider an overheard conversation on the subway about the movie.

 

Wow, I hadn't even noticed that. I clicked on the link like 3x before seeing his name. I kept seeing the image and caption to the right!