MovieChat Forums > Nanny McPhee (2006) Discussion > not for adults, in my opinion

not for adults, in my opinion

posted 18 years ago by lakealice
24 replies | jump to latest

I love children's films when they can be enjoyed by adults but didn't think this one was in that category, as far as I'm concerned. I thought the children's acting was below par, Colin Firth was merely annoying, and Emma Thompson didn't act at all--she just existed behind layers of makeup. Her voice was good, however. Angela Lansbury was the one bright spot-her characterization was marvelous. I don't find food fights that go on and on that funny and I doubt that children in a somewhat upper-class secluded English household in the 1800's would have known those naughty words, so I didn't find that scene funny, either. I also agree with another poster that actually giving the children measles to teach them a lesson is not humorous. I can see kids laughing at these scenes, but there are so many much better children's movies that adults can enjoy, too

[–] rwsmith29456 16 years ago

I and my wife both enjoyed it with our 9-year-old. I think I would have enjoyed just as well by myself. It was lent to us by a 64 year old man whose kids are long gone.

[–] Catdubh 15 years ago

To each, his/her own. I disagree. I loved it, and I am an adult, most of the time.

What, just for once in your life can't you be serious?

[–] SrEditor 15 years ago

I also agree with another poster that actually giving the children measles to teach them a lesson is not humorous.

What's that? She didn't give them measles. She just made them unable to get up out of bed, that's all.

And here is Emma Thompson's own comment about whether the new Nanny is a children's film:

"I don't call them kids' films darling, Nanny McPhee is an adult film. I make films for people, I don't make them for children, that would be daft. In our film you've got Maggie Smith, Ralph Fiennes, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Rhys Ifans, Bill Bailey - I can't think of a cast who would draw me into the cinema more, so that's the most important thing on my list at the moment."

[–] sweiland75 15 years ago

I make films for people, I don't make them for children

children are not people?

http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/ You can help change the world.

[–] J_R_Cash 15 years ago

Perhaps she doesn't view them, simply as children, but rather, just a person. Mayeb she feels that, instead of sitting down and writing a "childrens" movie, she is able to sit down and just write something that EVERYONE can enjoy, not just the kids.

I loved this movie and I am 21 years old, I'll be 22 in a week. Maybe thats too young to be an "adult", but too old to be a "kid", however, I thought it had a certain magic to it, no pun intended, and a certain quality that I really enjoy about it. The movie, simply just simply is... Nothin more, nothing less.

hubpages.com/profile/TheSablirab
davidorth.forumco.com/default.asp

[–] sweiland75 15 years ago

magical

http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/ You can help change the world.

[–] voyagerandsouthpark 15 years ago

she did give them measles, otherwise they wouldn't have had a high temperature and wouldn't say they didn't feel well

"sir, sir, i gotta check and see if you've soiled yourself, I'll get to you in a moment, sir!"

[–] luvmoviesandmusic 15 years ago

I disagree. I've seen this movie twice now, both times with my children and we all love it. It's perhaps a movie to be enjoyed by the child within us but sadly some people lose that and take themselves far too seriously. Just my opinion, of course.:)

[–] johnny_jetson 15 years ago

I am a 47-year-old man and I really enjoyed this movie! I will definitely watch the new one and I hope it is just as good. :)