Five Children and It

In these days of blockbuster movies made especially for children, it is quite refreshing to see an old fashioned tale of magic and mischief. Children of all ages will like this film and take it at face value - it is an adaptation of a classic story. The special effects are reasonable but unremarkable and we are drawn mainly to the characters played by Kenneth Branagh and Zoe Wanamaker, the latter having the best role by far. The story skips along nicely to its inevitable and predictable ending. The storyline is sentimental; unfortunately the child actors do not add anything to this emotion and appear to be fairly wooden. The film is worth a viewing on a rainy afternoon but it is unlikely to draw in the crowds.

Searching through the movies on 'Sky' when I was off work with flu, I stumbled across the film 'five children and it', when I was a young kid i Remember watching a program of the same name on 'BBC' and really loving it, so in an effort to restore past childhood memories (or potentially risk damaging them) i decided to give the new adaptation a go.

It got me gripped from beginning to end and I could not believe this had not been 'in my face' more with advertising and marketing schemes, this has the feel of a real good old classic BBC children's drama that you would find on a Saturday afternoon and leaves you with a real good feel good factor.

The cast is a really good choice with not a sniff of bad acting and plenty of great script work with funny,emotional and sometimes hysterical pieces of dialogue. 'Kenneth Brannagh' for me leads the cast as the professor, really funny and keeps a smile on your face. The children are all equally good, putting in excellent roles and not looking lost for a minute.....you would think they are a real family! Eddie Izard is a real gem though, giving him the role of the psamiead with a dodgy accent at first gives you the impression you are about to be disappointed but I could never have been further wrong, he has an amazing role and keeps the punchlines coming and coming.

Overall I am a 21 year old guy and found this film to be a real treasure and would certainly tell my own kids one day to watch. I still think it is criminal that the film didn't do better than it did.

a real worth see.

I took my 7 and 9 year old daughters to see this and enjoyed it as much as them. It is set in the First World War and has the same sort of feel as the Railway Children but with some magic in. It was a really good family film with no f*rt jokes or rude bits that you have to explain later.

It has a sentimental theme to the story without drowning you in saccharine which made it much more genuine and affecting - cue me sniffing! At the same time it had a good line in comedy which was quite modern and stopped the film from being too dated. I'd recommend this to anyone who wants an really enjoyable film to take the kids to.

Lovely!

Five children go to the country to stay with their uncle during the First World War. While exploring the house they come upon a secret door which takes them down to the beach where they meet a "sand fairy" who agrees to grant one wish a day for them. The wishes all go horribly wrong, but in the process the children learn something.

The Jim Henson Company produced this adaptation of the E Nesbit story and its not one of their better works. The film looks like any other children's book adaptation you can think of to the extent that you could probably inter-cut scenes from this film with any other similar children's film and not be able to tell the difference. Its not bad, but it doesn't have anything unique about it...

...well actually it does, It has two excellent performances that keep this film from sinking to the bottom of the children's film adaptation barrel. The first is Kenneth Branagh as they kids crazy Uncle Albert. he isn't in it all that much but while he's on screen he chews the scenery looking like a deranged Jim Broadbent. He is charmingly scatterbrained as a man who doesn't know what day it is and who wonders where last October went to.

The other joy is Eddie Izzard, in his best role to date as the voice of the sand fairy, the "It" of the title. This is Izzard at his free-form best as he bounces off the walls of sanity in a steady stream of nonsense. Izzard's portrayal is a kin to an evening of his best stand-up comedy but in the context of the story, where anything can and will come out of the mouth of a little creature with a mobile home. Its one of the funniest things I've seen on screen on long time and he's the real reason to see the film.

Over all a completely average children's film made more than watchable thanks to Eddie Izzard's vocal performance as It. Worth a rental or a viewing on cable, especially if you're a fan.

I would think that this was one of those films whose director hadn't read the book it was based on, were it not for the fact that they are just slightly similar. It is certainly possible for a great film to be "based" very loosely on a book and this was certainly the latter but not the former.

There were a number of flaws. One was that it tried to be too much like the Railway Children, probably because adults would expect this, being from the same author. Another is that it also sought to be too like Harry Potter, down to the music and in overemphasizing the setting. I have nothing against J K Rowling or the films but the book is just nothing like the Harry Potter ones. I thought the Psammead, though very well voiced by Eddie Izzard and in character too, was almost gratuitously in a totally inappropriate environment. I may have missed something here, as the comments made about one of the characters' own books may have been a reference to the inaccuracy of the adaptation. There was also no need for the extra characters, and today's special effects could easily have been used to tell the story as it was written, but they weren't.

I saw this film with my two children, one of whom knows the book and the other of whom doesn't. The one who does know it thought it was all right but wasn't as enthusiastic as the one who doesn't. I'm not sure what this means.