5 Children and It Reviews

E. Nesbit's classic novel was always a big favourite of mine as a child. The BBC made a series in the early 90's which I remember being quite good so I was looking forward to this one. All in all, I was quite happy with it, all the things I didn't like about it (Freddie Highmore, dodgy CGI) were outweighed by the things I did like such as Eddie Izzard voicing the Psammead, Kenneth Branagh's eccentric Uncle and best of all, the unexpected but really welcome Norman Wisdom cameo. It's not as wonderful as the book, it would have been hard to get all of it into a 90 minute film but it gets the same message across. Not all the CGI was bad though, and I'm not just saying that because an old friend did the SFX but I would have liked to have seen the Psammead as a puppet. The sad truth is though that kids aren't interested in this kind of story anymore, it's a classic but I don't know that many people who even know the story, and that makes me sad because it's really quite lovely and actually quite relevant today.

CAST: Kenneth Branagh, Zoë Wanamaker, Freddie Highmore, Eddie Izzard, Jonathan Bailey, Jessica Claridge, Poppy Rogers, Tara Fitzgerald, Alex Jennings, John Sessions, Norman Wisdom, Duncan Preston

DIRECTED BY: John Stephenson

SUMMARY: While their father is fighting on the front lines, five children find themselves bunking at their uncle's estate, where they befriend a fairy called It (voiced by the hilarious Eddie Izzard), who helps them uncover the mysteries of the large mansion in which they now live. This high-spirited tale finds It bringing joy, laughter and luck to the kids' lives, as the grown-ups contend with the painfully adult challenges of living in a time of war.

MY THOUGHTS: "This is a movie for the kids. My niece's and nephew liked it a lot, I on the other hand thought it was a bit boring. But it had it's moments of humor. Had a some what sad story, and had a good lesson about not being selfish. But still much more a film for the kids. Good cast, and a good young cast as well."

It is a really cute little movie. At first I thought I would hate it because of the look of the sences and stuff, looked really low budget film. And most low budget films I have seen, have been really cheesy. But this one wasn't. I enjoyed it. At first, it reminded me of Aliens in the Attic, but its different.

Another good movie with Freddie Highmore in it. You might remember him from playing Peter in Finding Never land or even out of Chronicles of Spider Wicked. This was a good family movie. I enjoyed it. Have to say I might watch this one again.

Cool Fantasy Movie. Better Than I Expected To Be. Sure To Plese The Fans Of ''The Cronicles Of Narnia: The Lion,The Witch,And The Wardrobe'', And ''The Water Horse Legend Of The Deep''.

I saw this just last year some time. Oh my word, it was a very cute movie!!!! It was sad, but oh my goodness I could have watched this movie all day, The star of the movie was Freddy highmore or Charlie and The Chocolate factory, which was the factor that led me to watch this movie, and I'm glad I did.

Gosh darn it. How can we mess up this book? Let me count the ways. The original book was charming, the story of five children who find a sand fairy and then get themselves in trouble by accidentally wishing for things they don't really want - like when one of them says in frustration about their baby brother, "Oh, I WISH he'd grow up!" and suddenly find themselves having to follow their 20-year-old "baby brother" around. Now that kind of stuff was fun. It is not nearly so fun when people are just stupid and wish for idiotic things. Or when those who grant the wishes deliberately skew them. Add in some random troubled-child-misses-his-father bits, a cast of mostly superfluous characters, and a sappy ending that also just doesn't make SENSE... and you've got something that rather deserves to die.

Charming, sweet family film based on the E. Nesbit classic, one of her Five Children trilogy. Wish they'd make the other two.

This movie does not hold up at all. I get that it's based on a classic children's novel, but I've never heard of that novel until just today, so I don't notice. Besides, the plot is mediocre for a family movie either way. The special effects are bad, with the exception of the Henson-provided puppet of Psammead. The characters are very bland, and overall, it's a bad family movie that, unlike Prehysteria, has no charm whatsoever.

Pretty messy and engaging to watch and not half as interesting as the low budget TV versions. Disneyfying the look and story of the Psammead destroys much of the dynamic and nuance of Nesbit's books. Izzard's strange voice work does a lot to give the digital character character but the limitations of the cgi make things even flatter.

A fun family movie that lacks its depth and could have been a masterpiece. Nevertheless, it was entertaining no doubt

Fun movie for the family.

The Guardian reckoned that the children in this film were upstaged by the adults. Could be. Not a very deep plot - I couldn't see quite where it was going. Still, Dad comes home safe from the war - predictable - and the kids have a great time with their daily wish. Now, how about something for grownups?

i rate this a 5 that was the best movie

gosh... this movie is the epitome of lame.

tooooooooooooooooooooo goooooooooooooooooood...................

As a book and movie fan, I've learned that when I approach a movie adaptation of a book or novel I like, that I shouldn't expect the book verbatim. After all movies are a completely different genre of entertainment that have their own mechanics compared to books and novels. Some things work in movies, but not in books, and vice versa. However, when I had the chance to see this adaptation of E. Nesbit's book, I left wondering what had happened to the previous 89 minutes I had spent watching the thing. While I will admit that the movie does have a decent family film quality, it relies too much on family film stereotypes to keep it going, and it relied too much on Freddie Izzard to keep the audience interested. Personally I found the intense attention on Freddie and his character simply annoying as he doesn't impress me as an actor. Also, while I can understand some alteration of the plot, completely reworking it to suit a later time period than was intended (1914 instead of 1902), and altering a few of the characters' ages (making Cyril older than he was supposed to be--to aggravate older-younger sibling conflict) was simply bad taste and did nothing to improve the plot. In my honest opinion I would venture that most of the changes were done to try and ride the coat tails of the Narnia movies--in an attempt to attract the same audience. Some good points in the movie I'd include would be the creative rendering of the Psyammead as well as the voice actor who portrayed him. Also Kenneth Bragnaugh & Zoe were a delight as always. One of the changes I did like was the inclusion of the car sequence--that felt like an equivalent wish to what E. Nesbit already had. I did miss seeing the Lamb become a grown up for a day, as I thought the comic potential for this would be too good to pass up. Overall, the movie has its good points and its bad ones as well. Watch with an open mind and you won't be disappointed.

Although a good family film for kids, it never quite grabbed me. As a fan of the book, parts of the film just didn't gel to me. I don't understand the need to make such big changes to the original novel, it didn't make the film better. The novel is a Classic for a reason! I can't find fault with any of the adult actors, however a couple of the kids were a tad annoying. It's strange for me to find any actor irritating to watch so prehaps I would have liked the film more with a different younger cast...

Áí êáé ü÷é ôßðïôá ôï éäéáßôåñï, âëÝðåôáé åõ÷Üñéóôá êáé Ý÷åé ôéò óôéãìÝò ôïõ.

Nothing special, but has its moments.

Why is there this perverse need to set movies based on English children's novels during World War I? Ye Gods, the book was written in 1902! There is no World War I for it to be set during. (Likewise, [i]A Little Princess[/i] has its origins in a story written in 1888 and published in its final form in 1905.)

Anyone wanting to watch this movie because of a great fondness for the book is advised to forget it. Heck, I [i]don't[/i] have a great fondness for the book (I read it once and found it dull), and I didn't care for it especially. It gets extra bonus points for Eddie Izzard, Kenneth Branagh, Zoe Wanamaker, and Freddie Highmore--who did much better work with a much better script in [i]Finding Neverland[/i]. However, the children--and there's an extra kid thrown in who wasn't in the book--are really annoying, the premise confused, and the WWI aspect given too much focus, especially considering its nonexistance in the book.

Every movie adaptation of late in which there are multiple children in a family of varying ages seems insistent on the subplot of the older ones having to exert authority over the younger ones and the younger ones resenting it. It was less forced in the book of [i]The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe[/i], and I don't remember it appearing at all in [i]Five Children and It[/i]--not least because, as I recall, they were in fact living with their parents at the time.

One of the girls--we never get to know them well enough for me to remember their names, and I don't remember hearing the Lamb mentioned more than once, though he's in practically every scene--gives It a teddy bear at the end, which is called Brian. I wonder how much this is because It was created in the Creature Shop; was Brian the Bear named after Brian Henson?