[img]http://www.snitchseeker.com/images/news/hp_grandpre_80.jpg' align='middle'>
Critics warn, Potter not for the little ones -
Summary:
Harry Potter is not as PG as it was before
Article:
Thanks to Wizardnews for the link
Quote:
It's not all chocolate frogs and quidditch for young Harry Potter (news - web sites) in his latest cinematic adventure. And young fans should take note.
When "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" opens Friday, the teen's world will have taken a troubling turn.
There is a werewolf to worry about, a magical beast to be slaughtered and a traitorous godfather on the lam.
His safety, and that of his entire school, rests with a group of hooded dementors who punish with soul-sucking kisses.
Early reviews suggest the glossy, fantastical feel of the first two Potter movies has been replaced by a dark, brooding film. It promises to be a dramatic mood swing, not unlike the transformation from childhood to adolescence.
Our bespectacled boy wizard is growing up.
And so, critics recommend, should his target audience.
"I have an 8-year-old, and she's not going to see it for a few years," said Rod Gustafson, founder of Grading the Movies, a group that reviews movies based on family friendliness.
The Motion Picture Association rated the film PG, indicating some material may be inappropriate for children. Family-minded critics, though, say the movie may be darker than the mild rating suggests.
Gustafson believes the movie deserves a PG-13 rating because of the bleak themes explored in "Prisoner of Azkaban." The danger looms throughout the movie, making it edgier and scarier than the first two installments.
Even the obligatory high-flying quidditch scene takes place in a downpour.
"Violent is the wrong word to describe the movie," Gustafson said. "It's the intensity of the movie that may be too much for younger children. It's much darker this time."
In one scene, the kind-hearted Buckbeak - a winged creature that is half horse, half eagle - is unfairly executed. Though his beheading is not shown on the screen, moviegoers hear the swooping ax, followed by squishy sounds.
"Those kinds of things may be really intense for young people," said Lori Pearson, a lead critic at Kids-in-mind.com, a Web site that grades movies for parents.
Pearson gave the movie a 5 for violence and gore, based on a 10-point scale. The first two Potter films both received 4 ratings.
"There is a lot of creature violence and some confusing situations," she said.
Gustafson believes the movie is best suited for children age 11 and older who are familiar with the first two movies and the five Potter books. They are less likely to be troubled by the plot and the dark images, he said.
"Many teens will find it quite interesting," he said. "For 8-year-olds, it's just a little much."
Pearson's review does not make recommendations based on ages. Only parents, she said, can decide whether a film is appropriate for their child.
Still, she questions whether young children will be able to follow the story. Those who have already read the best-selling novel should have few problems with the movie.
"If they've read the book," she said, "the images they have in their head are probably worse than what they'll see on the screen."
Both Pearson and Gustafson consider the movie a family film. It values teamwork, friendship and kinship, though not to the same extent as the previous installments.
Grading the Movies, for example, will give the film a B when it publishes its review today. Gustafson describes it as a cautious recommendation.
"It's good entertainment," he said. "But we're not saying it is a must-see film for families."
In the end, the critics said, the story is about an occasionally petulant teen who battles both bad magic and a horrific past. If parents realize that before buying tickets, they should be OK.
"As long as parents are well-educated about what's in it before they see it," Pearson said, "it certainly can be a family film."
'Potter': Many say it's still a family film
Yahoo News