Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Films

Related: TV discussion forum.

Flip

1 2 3 4

Original poster

Peter rabbit

80 replies

allthegoodnameshadgone · 17/03/2018 20:20

I saw this today and I thought it was great. I even had a little cry in parts. Anyone else seen it yet?

OP posts:

AndNowWeAreSix · 21/03/2018 23:00

Want to take my 5, 7 and 9 year olds but worried the 9 year old is too old - anyone taken a LO that age?

4strikes · 21/03/2018 23:04

Dd 2.5 wants to go and see it. Is it suitable? I was going to take her but am worried by the comments on here

Psychobabble123 · 22/03/2018 05:08

I was being sarcastic, obviously. I'm well aware of how film classification works thanks

And DD1 is 10, she really enjoyed it. Lots of older kids in the showing we were in.

4strikes my DD2 is a similar age and loved it! She keeps asking to go again.

But my kids aren't sensitive at all and fully get the concept of "its not real" re the mild peril scenes. From others reactions, if yours is a sensitive child maybe wait and see it at home.

Plantlover · 24/03/2018 22:22

I thoughts there were lots of inappropriate bits in this film.

Was disappointed by it.

Snoreyhell · 25/03/2018 17:17

That's what I thought from the trailers plantlover. I think it's a shame that they haven't geared it towards its obvious audience. Apparently that makes me pearl clutchy...

CramptonHodnet · 26/03/2018 17:09

I took DS (8) to see it yesterday. I thought it was nowhere near as good as Paddington, which we loved.

There were some funny bits, but on the whole it was disappointing and silly (not even silly in a good kind of way). DS said he thought it was a bit boring actually . The romance stuff wasn't really good and it just looked like it was made for the American market with the storyline around Harrods. A bit of eyerolling from me by the end. And I had to explain epi-pens and anaphylaxis to DS for "that scene".

ListeningtoBowie · 26/03/2018 18:19

It had the potential to be a really nice film, set in the beautiful countryside and with all the different characters in it. It went off in a whole new crazy direction and was nothing to do with Beatrix Potter and Peter Rabbit.

RolyPolyLilBatFaceGirl · 26/03/2018 19:39

Snorey - you’d have to really have a very delicate and sensitive 3 year old if he or she was distressed by this film

Plantlover · 26/03/2018 23:23

Roly

Or a caring child.

Snorey

That's exactly what I thought! Not geared to its target market. If my children were younger they would have needed lots of explainations and safety messages after this film due to the playing with electricity , climbing on roofs, vandalism etc etc

gabsdot · 02/04/2018 16:39

I really enjoyed this movie. This may have had a lot to do with Domnhaill Gleeon. (He's luvly)
It was very funny and sweet. Suitable for all the family.

plastix · 02/04/2018 17:27

Wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. Took 3 year old. Didn't think it was especially suitable but she was unscathed and laughed at the slapstick

Leicesterpiggott · 02/04/2018 17:42

What age is it for? Would 10yo DS and 8yo DD like it or is it too young for them?

Namethecat · 02/04/2018 17:47

Tbh I was a bit meh about it. A few younger children watching it lost the enthusiasm and you could see the parents were having trouble keeping them in their seats. For me it was ok but not great.

mamapants · 02/04/2018 17:51

My DS, nearly 6, loved it. Thought it was hilarious and he is delicate and thinks most Disney films are too scary
My 4 yo wasn't really into it, as he prefers cartoons and there was quite a bit of talking/romance scenes.
I enjoyed it.

MollyDaydream · 02/04/2018 17:56

It was a bit Peter Rabbit meets Home Alone! Lots of bum jokes and slapstick violence.
I think it was more aimed at primary age children than under 5s, my two aged 4 and 7 thought it was hilarious.

RumAppleGinger · 02/04/2018 17:57

I thought it was awful. This could be because the last couple of films I have taken the children to were excellent (coco and padding2) and this didn't come close. Or it could be because I have a real dislike of Rose Byrne, the woman cannot act for toffee. Seriously how does she keep getting work? It's like Paltrow all over again.

I thought it was very light on laughs for both adults and kids and it didn't hold my 3 year old's attention at all and he is usually transfixed at the cinema.

sakura06 · 02/04/2018 22:36

@MollyDaydream that's a great description!

We all enjoyed it. Lots of slapstick humour. The pig and Domnhall Gleason were great. I've not read Beatrix Potter, so there was nothing to spoil as there might be for fans of the book.

musicinspring1 · 02/04/2018 22:46

My 6 and 8 year old enjoyed it more than my 3 year old who found some of it overwhelming and turned in for a cuddle (eg the loud dynamite bits) but wasn’t overly upset by it.
I thought it was ok but nowhere near as good as Paddington 2.

Mindhunter · 02/04/2018 23:19

My children loved it 7 year old ds did get a bit worried when the old me McGregor died but other than that he loved it. I on the other hand wanted Peter to end up in a pie because I can't stand James Corden and his voice really grates on me.

MorgaineLeFay · 02/04/2018 23:31

My 4 and 7 year old loved it and thought some of it was absolutely hilarious, so did I, tbh and I'm no really a fan of corden either.

raisedbyguineapigs · 04/04/2018 14:39

Rum we went to see Coco and Paddington 2 before seeing this too, and agree with you that it didn't come close to those two, but my 2 still enjoyed it. They came out thinking Peter was the baddie and feeling sorry for Mr McGregor though! Rose Byrne is just annoyingly twee. I have an irrational and completely unfounded dislike of the Peter Rabbit books and I don't quite know why, so I was never going to love this. I thought the anaphylaxis scene was unpleasant and unnecessary and James Cordon is just James Cordon voicing a rabbit, as he is in every animated film he does. But as I said, the kids liked it!

juneau · 05/04/2018 17:44

I just saw this with my kids and I thought it was horrible

I can cope (just about), with wise-cracking, all-singing, all-dancing, gangsta rapping animals, but Peter Rabbit? That quintessential English bunny that was created by a quiet artist in the Lake District? Is nothing sacred? The whole thing was awful IMO and the script had all been written in American English, which I don't have a problem if it's an American film with American characters, etc, but this was supposed to be a cast of English characters so it sounded utterly wrong. Bleugh!

WallisFrizz · 05/04/2018 17:54

My 6 year old and I liked it but both of us preferred Paddington 2. It was my 3 year olds first trip to the cinema, she enjoyed the experience as a whole but got restless which was to be expected.

None of the content of the film bothered me but I felt uncomfortable watching one trailer in particular with my small children as I felt it was aimed at a teen audience rather than the primary age audience that would likely be watching Peter Rabbit (it was for a film that appeared to be about teens dealing with their sexuality and cyber bullying).

Snoreyhell · 05/04/2018 18:03

It is a PG though, not a U. The trailers will be geared towards a PG audience which is not really a 3 year old. Hence my earlier comments about Peter Rabbit totally missing its natural audience.

Ihatebuildabear · 05/04/2018 18:12

Have absolutely no idea why it was a PG. nothing in it to warrant that rating. We liked it especially my 6 year who laughed the whole way through. Just been to see the greatest showman and found that a bit disappointing.

Flip

1 2 3 4

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.