Recommendations of good non-animated "family" films for two parents and a 3-year-old?

Beth Kevles wrote:

hadn't read it since I was about 11 myself, and it struck me as being
even better read aloud than it had been then. We'll start on LOTR soon,
I think.

I admit, even though I was a precocious child myself and read LOTR the summer
of third grade, I consider these to be very much adult books...at least
definitely not children's books. The trilogy is very dark. I personally believe
that LOTR should be left until a child is old enough to slog through it on his
or her own. If they can read the trilogy, they are probably ready for it...but
not until then. And yes, I do love the books.

beeswing

"Robyn Kozierok" wrote in message
...
In article , Beeswing
wrote:
I'd love to, but she's long past the age of being willing to be read to
or read books together.

Mine (8yo and almost 11) are still willing to have me read to them if
it is something they would have trouble understanding on their own.
Right now we are reading a nice rendition of the Arabian Nights with
very old-fashioned language in it.

My 9 YO is an avid reader (current project is to read every H.G. Wells book
he can find in print) but would not give up his "bedtime book" if we begged
him (which we don't!), even though he says he finds it harder to follow a
story when it's read aloud. We try to make the bedtime book something he'd
have trouble reading to himself, but he doesn't insist on that. I will be
very sad on the day when he stops letting us read to him!

The Hobbit, IMO, isn't the best read-aloud. I'm not sure why, it just
doesn't seem well-suited. Perhaps because the action is already pretty
slow, amidst a lot of description, that to slow it down more by reading
aloud seems like too much.

I enjoyed the Hobbit as a read-aloud, for what it's worth. I just loved the
easy, conversational tone. Now, LOTR I did find hard going in many places
(those endless geographical descriptions and ancestral lists? do people
really slog through those when they're reading all by themselves?), but I
really enjoyed it as well, and was well aware, all the way through, that I'd
never have read the books if it weren't for reading them with my son. I find
fantasy almost impossible to get through on my own.

The one book we read aloud that I found very hard (so far) was Huck Finn --
Jim's dialogue was a killer. And my poor husband had to do Robinson Crusoe!
(very antiquated language)

Robyn or others: If your son is interested in Tolkien but not into doing
LOTR yet (if ever!), you may try, if you haven't already, the short stories
Farmer Giles of Ham and Smith of Wooten Major, which seem to always be sold
together. The former is vintage Tolkien, in short form (not a bad thing,
IMO). It's got that great, ribald old-time storytelling tone, eccentric and
likable characters, and lots of fun action without too much else.

In article ,
(beeswing) wrote:

Beth Kevles wrote:

hadn't read it since I was about 11 myself, and it struck me as being
even better read aloud than it had been then. We'll start on LOTR soon,
I think.

I admit, even though I was a precocious child myself and read LOTR the summer
of third grade, I consider these to be very much adult books...at least
definitely not children's books. The trilogy is very dark. I personally
believe
that LOTR should be left until a child is old enough to slog through it on
his
or her own. If they can read the trilogy, they are probably ready for
it...but
not until then. And yes, I do love the books.

beeswing


Keep in mind that some kids' ability to read does not keep pace with
their ability to understand literature. I have a freind whose daughter
had a horrid time with reading, so she kept her "up to date" with the
quality of literature she was consuming by reading aloud and doing books
on tape. (She also provided phenominal support with her school work,
and was a fearless advocate for her daughter.) She was pretty close to
high school before she was able to read fluidly, but as a girl entering
her senior year, she's scheduled for 5 AP classes . . . an extremely
bright, energetic young woman who could have been seriously handicapped
by her inability to read well at a young age, had it not been for an
incredible advocate as a parent who recognized that her difficulty
learning to read was not indicative of lack of intellitgence or ability
to understand great literature!

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article ,
Beth Kevles wrote:

I just finished reading The Hobbit to my 8-year old. He LOVED it. I
hadn't read it since I was about 11 myself, and it struck me as being
even better read aloud than it had been then. We'll start on LOTR soon,
I think.

Just goes to show that different people have different preferences in
read-alouds, I guess. ;-)

--Robyn

In article ,
beeswing wrote:

I admit, even though I was a precocious child myself and read LOTR the summer
of third grade, I consider these to be very much adult books...at least
definitely not children's books. The trilogy is very dark. I personally believe
that LOTR should be left until a child is old enough to slog through it on his
or her own. If they can read the trilogy, they are probably ready for it...but
not until then. And yes, I do love the books.

That's an interesting criterion. There's lots of stuff my kids *can* read
that they're not ready for. Not every precocious reader is also precocious
in emotional maturity, etc.

Robyn (mommy to Ryan 9/93 and Matthew 6/96 and Evan 3/01)
--
Free Detailed TCP/IP Information Online: http://www.tcpipguide.com

"Far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to
work hard at work worth doing." -- Theodore Roosevelt

In article ,
(beeswing) wrote:

H Schinske wrote:

I just came back from Harry Potter, and I didn't think the dementors were
*nearly* as bad as I had expected them to be. (Note: I am a certified wimp
about scary movies, and found the end of the first HP pretty frightful,
having totally forgotten some of the stuff from the book and therefore
having some horrid surprises. I also took a long while to get used to
Nazgul
and orc scenes when watching the LOTR movies.)

I did put my hands over my eyes a few times, but more for the werewolf.

Nonterrifying dementors? How good of a movie can it be?

Seriously, though, thanks. It's good to know that they aren't *too* bad. My
kid
is completely fearless, but I still feel a little protective (as one can
probably tell from my other recent posts!).

beeswing

I thought it was a _great_ movie. Much more cinematic than either of
the first two, and much less "let's cram in as much of the book as we
can." But a lot of the horror of the dementors is interior, which is
hard to convey in a movie. They did a reasonably good job, but I agree,
it wasn't as scary as in the book.

meh wrote:

Keep in mind that some kids' ability to read does not keep pace with
their ability to understand literature. I have a freind whose daughter
had a horrid time with reading, so she kept her "up to date" with the
quality of literature she was consuming by reading aloud and doing books
on tape. (She also provided phenominal support with her school work,
and was a fearless advocate for her daughter.) She was pretty close to
high school before she was able to read fluidly, but as a girl entering
her senior year, she's scheduled for 5 AP classes . . . an extremely
bright, energetic young woman who could have been seriously handicapped
by her inability to read well at a young age, had it not been for an
incredible advocate as a parent who recognized that her difficulty
learning to read was

You've read me wrong. For me, in the case of the LOTR, the issue has nothing to
do with intelligence or an ability to understand literature. The trilogy is
very dark and, to my mind, deals with adult themes and issues. The ability to
read it by oneself by necessity puts a limiting factor on the age at which it
is read. The books are also quite dense and deep. It is easier to fully absorb
the substance of a book, in my experience, when you read it yourself. I believe
the LOTR deserves that level of attention.

Just my opinion only, obviously.

beeswing

I'm also considering taking him to the 1956 version of _Around the World
in
80 Days_ next week at The Stanford Theatre -- from what I've read, I
think
it should be fine for him, particularly since it has planes, balloons,
trains, and so on, which he's really into these days.

Honestly, I'd avoid Around the World in 80 Days if you're worried about
violence - it features Jackie Chan (as the servant character Passepartout)
so there's going to be a high level of martial arts (hitting), I'm
guessing.

We went to the 1956 version, which is not the Jackie Chan version. I was
disappointed in multiple ways. First, for a winner of the Best Picture
Academy Award, it wasn't that "great" of a film. (Of the other nominees, I
found _Giant_, _The King and I_, and maybe even _The Ten Commandments_ to
all be better; I haven't seen _Friendly Persuasion_.) While I found a
number of parts amusing, overall, it was fairly slow and boring. The
"amazing adventure race" aspect of it wasn't actually all that amazing. It
was fairly non-violent, though there was a whole section of a gunfight with
American Indians, which even aside from the violence was so cliché. (We
covered my son's eyes during that part, and he later said that he didn't
like the movie because it had guns.) It was rated G; I suspect that it
would be rated PG these days. There was also a bull-fighting scene, but
that did not involve any harm to the bull, and was generally comedic. But
the thing that bothered me most was that one of the main characters was
supposed to be Indian (from India) and educated in England, but they used
Shirley MacLaine who is American (not Indian, and not even British).

There's been a significant separate thread about parental "editing" of what
kids watch. Personally, we're very sensitive to violence. We don't want
our son to be exposed to guns, swords, hitting, etc. That means no Power
Rangers, Powerpuff Girls, etc.! Unfortunately, he does go to pre-school,
and his best friend there is from a family that doesn't have such ideas.
(Which is acceptable to us, it's not like we're trying to protect him from
the world and force our ideas onto others.) So, he does end up playing
"power rangers" at school, but we stress that he is not to really hit or
kick anyone and that it's only pretend. When someone really hits him, he is
not to hit them, but to yell "no hitting; hitting hurts me!" at them (which
works very well for kids his age, but clearly won't work years from now).

Even though we're non-violent with regards to our son, we (being the
parents) do watch what is probably a normal amount of violent movies and TV
shows (such as "24") when he is asleep. I've actually found that since my
son was born, we do watch fewer movies, particularly violent ones, and I've
become much more "sensitive" to violence. I frequently "flinch" now, which
I know I didn't do before. And some scenes (such as in "24" where Jack has
to kill his co-worker) have much more emotional impact. So, that's good --
I certainly don't want to become desensitized to violence!

But we're pretty lax when it comes to the other hot-button for movies,
nudity and sex. While I certainly wouldn't intentionally expose my son to
something beyond his age, if we were watching a movie that contained nudity,
I wouldn't cover his eyes or skip over it. (For example, _Walkabout_ comes
to mind as a young-adult movie that contains both nudity and sex.)

I have a friend who is exactly the opposite with his kids. He would never
let then see any nudity, but he regularly takes his 4- and 6-year-olds to
the latest action movies (such as _XXX_).

We're also open when it comes to other "mature" themes, but we explain
what's going on. We were watching "Colonial House" on PBS a few weeks ago
(where a group of people live in a recreation of the year 1628), and they
show a goat being killed for food. We stopped the tape before it happened,
explained what was about to happen, and that while we're always nice to
animals, that we felt that it was OK to kill them only if you were going to
eat it, which is what they were going to do. We asked if he wanted to watch
it, and he did. He got a little teary-eyed and sad, and announced that it
was not OK to kill animals for food anymore, and that we weren't allowed to
eat meat anymore, though we could still eat plants, insects, and fish.
While it was a bit of a trauma for him, it was an good teaching moment for
us. (He has since forgotten about the no-meat thing, and he still hasn't
made the connection between the chicken we eat and the chickens we see.
He's only 3, after all.)

In article ,
(beeswing) wrote:

meh wrote:

Keep in mind that some kids' ability to read does not keep pace with
their ability to understand literature. I have a freind whose daughter
had a horrid time with reading, so she kept her "up to date" with the
quality of literature she was consuming by reading aloud and doing books
on tape. (She also provided phenominal support with her school work,
and was a fearless advocate for her daughter.) She was pretty close to
high school before she was able to read fluidly, but as a girl entering
her senior year, she's scheduled for 5 AP classes . . . an extremely
bright, energetic young woman who could have been seriously handicapped
by her inability to read well at a young age, had it not been for an
incredible advocate as a parent who recognized that her difficulty
learning to read was

You've read me wrong. For me, in the case of the LOTR, the issue has nothing
to
do with intelligence or an ability to understand literature. The trilogy is
very dark and, to my mind, deals with adult themes and issues. The ability to
read it by oneself by necessity puts a limiting factor on the age at which it
is read. The books are also quite dense and deep. It is easier to fully
absorb
the substance of a book, in my experience, when you read it yourself. I
believe
the LOTR deserves that level of attention.

Just my opinion only, obviously.

beeswing


I understand that. My point is that for SOME kids, their ability to
handle the darker material, and more mature themes, gets ahead of their
reading ability, so reading it TO them -- or having books on tapes --
works well for them.

I, too, absorb a book better if I read it in person. However, I have a
friend who does MUCH better with books on tape -- she loves that format.
I think some people are just able to handle material out loud BETTER
than reading it. It is important to recognize that people have
different learning styles, and this is one of the ways that people
differ.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

"Robyn Kozierok" wrote in message
news
In article ,
beeswing wrote:

I admit, even though I was a precocious child myself and read LOTR
the summer
of third grade, I consider these to be very much adult books...at
least
definitely not children's books. The trilogy is very dark. I
personally believe
that LOTR should be left until a child is old enough to slog through
it on his
or her own. If they can read the trilogy, they are probably ready for
it...but
not until then. And yes, I do love the books.

That's an interesting criterion. There's lots of stuff my kids *can*
read
that they're not ready for. Not every precocious reader is also
precocious
in emotional maturity, etc.

This isn't a generalized rule of mine. It's just how I feel about LOTR.

The Kid is an advanced reader, and there have definitely been cases
where I had her set a book aside for "later"...or even for never.

beeswing