Miss Peregrines Home For Peculiar Children

[PikachuSayBoo]

Went to see this today with teen dd and we both really enjoyed it.

However if you have a younger child especially if they're of a sensitive disposition have a good think about whether they will be ok with it or not. There are a lot of monster scenes and there were numerous small children getting carried out screaming/sobbing!

But that aside its well worth seeing.

[TrollTheRespawnJeremy]

the books are great too. but yes, definitely a 12!

[SouthWestmom]

Saw it today with my mum. Loved the books, hated the stupid comedy scenes they'd squished in.

It was like two different films: horrible fairly gruesome gothic horror spliced onto schlock comedy.

Beginning was so promising but we both hated the ending from 2/3 in.

Definitely won't be letting 11 yr old ds see it either.

[PikachuSayBoo]

Honestly there were 4yos/5yos there today! I reckon some kids will be having nightmares tonight.

Ive never read the books, must check them out.

[AndNowItsSeven]

Why would people take 4/5 year olds to a 12!

[AliMonkey]

I have been quite strict with my DC - let my DD watch her first 12 at the age of 11 whereas many of her peers already onto 15s. But DH insisted on taking DS age 8 to Star Wars and as he was OK with that DH has also been watching the Harry Potter films with them - have left them to it as not my sort of thing. So I let myself be persuaded that DS (now age 9) would be OK with Miss Peregrine given it had been advertised extensively before PGs and a couple of Us. Big mistake - he spent half of it hiding behind his hands and had nightmare last night. I hate to think how some of the 5/6 year olds in the cinema found it - although think I'd be more concerned if it didn't bother them as would suggest they had already seen worse things.

Am now worrying that DH has lost his sense of what is suitable and that maybe the Harry Potter 12s also were too scary?

[SouthWestmom]

Oh poor ds - I had my hands over my eyes for the gross eating scene.

My 8 yr old watches all the HO if that helps and I definitely wouldn't show him this.

Also the time line of how the ending works was very confusing I think - mum and I had to go through it afterwards! Not sure a young child would understand it at all.

[SunshineInMySprocket]

I know lots of younger children that have seen it but won't be taking my 10 year old. I was quite shocked that some friends have taken their 6 and 7 year olds. I'm going with my 13 year old this week and even he says I'll be scared.

[PikachuSayBoo]

I thought it was scarier than the HP films although it's a few years snce I saw those so might be forgetting stuff.

Think it should have been classified as a 12 rather than a 12a.

[SouthWestmom]

Yes - the boy in the bed would be incredibly depressing / traumatic for children

[ScaredAboutTheFuture]

Went yesterday with 13 and 9 yr old. Neither were phased at all by it.

[ScaredAboutTheFuture]

I didn't understand why he was still in the home. Wasn't he dead?

[PikachuSayBoo]

I didn't understand the boy in the bed either. But they left him behind which I thought was sad.

[TheCountessofFitzdotterel]

I took 11yo dd and she was fine but she is pretty tough. I am astonished anyone would take little kids, but iirc we saw a trailer when we went to Secret Life of Pets so I suppose people got the wrong idea.

I preferred it to the book. Beautifully realised and the special effects worked really well on screen.

[tothesideoftheirlives]

Went with teen DD yesterday and I was taken aback by the number of 4/5/6 year olds. One side of me was a mother whose child hid for half the film crying and the other side was a 4/5 year old who watched it like it was CBeebies - don't know which was more worrying.

There are some really scary scenes - tentacled monsters sucking out eyes, dead children - It should really he been a 12 - I think 12a is now just regarded as U or PG by many parents

[SouthWestmom]

Spoiler




The boy in the bed - in the book he was killed by a Hollow Cast and brought back to life by the kid with the hearts etc for a short amount of time every so often. I think he was the twin or brother of one of the other peculiars. He wasn't scary in the book, he was tragic from what i remember.

[SouthWestmom]

I preferred the series of books overall.

As a standalone I would have liked this a lot more without the attempts at humour (repeating myself here) because I really enjoyed it as a gothicky scary sad film.

[catsmother]

I really liked it up until about 2/3 in when it derivatives from the books. That was really disappointing because it felt to me they closed off the story with no intention of ever producing a sequel, or sequels. Without giving too much away the 1st book ended 'up in the air' and the 2nd and 3rd continued the story, building on Jacob's (not Jake!) peculiarity and intensifying the sense of mystery, foreboding and threat from the peculiars who'd gone over to the dark side so to speak. In short I felt the film ended up 'dumbing down' the whole concept ..... presumably so it could be marketed to a wider audience including younger children, but IMO the books were really aimed at an older teen and/or adult audience despite their 'fairytale' style.

I did think Eva Green was very good, and the characters of Jake and Emma were realised well ... and the peculiarities of each child were cleverly conveyed. But the ending kind of degenerated into slapstick and overall, the film simply didn't have a depth to it like the books did. I got a real sense of peculiar history from the books the film just didn't have.

And yes, I wouldn't recommend it for kids under 12!

[BertramOliphantWest]

FWIW there is no longer a 12 classification for films shown at the cinema. They are all 12A. The 12 Certificate only exists for DVDs and means that under 12s may not buy or rent those films.

[deepdarkwood]

Ds (who admittedly is very sensitive) went yesterday with some mates and came out for part of it as he was so freaked! Agree from his descriptions that it is definitely not one for littlies!

[deepdarkwood]

(He is 12)

[TheCountessofFitzdotterel]

I think the plot changes were what I preferred about it - I loved the first two thirds of the book but then felt it petered out a bit. I can see that if you have followed the story through the later books the film would be disappointing.

Re the humour, I thought the dry humour of the book was one of its strengths, so I don't think it's wrong to make it funny, though I agree that doesn't have to mean slapstick. Tim Burton was showing through in those bits, I think.

[SouthWestmom]

Spoiler!






I agree, humour is good but the eyeball eating scene and the fight at the end were ridiculous and jarred with the feel of the film. You can't really recover from having chucked candy floss at an invisible beastie.