Cinema - 3.5 year old?

suki1964

tyllwyd wrote: »

Took me about 30 seconds to guess who you were talking about. Googled it to check and I was right. So yes, it was a spoiler.

You spoiled it for yourself

Nothing was mentioned on here

Wiki however has a full synopsis of the film - thats a spoiler - your choice to have gone looked it up

Oh and Im going back to watch it again tomorrow( even though I know what happens ), taking the 6 year old grandson to see it

tyllwyd

suki1964 wrote: »

You spoiled it for yourself

Nothing was mentioned on here

Wiki however has a full synopsis of the film - thats a spoiler - your choice to have gone looked it up

Oh and Im going back to watch it again tomorrow( even though I know what happens ), taking the 6 year old grandson to see it

It was a spoiler. I read what was posted, it was obvious what must have been meant - I only looked at the synopsis of the film to check that I was right. Luckily it hasn't spoilt my enjoyment of the film because Bond films leave me completely cold.

suki1964

tyllwyd wrote: »

It was a spoiler. I read what was posted, it was obvious what must have been meant - I only looked at the synopsis of the film to check that I was right. Luckily it hasn't spoilt my enjoyment of the film because Bond films leave me completely cold.

So why kick up such a fuss??

Once again - no spoiler other then which you chose to go find




Oh and I actually cried at the opening sequence :rotfl:

gregg1

tyllwyd wrote: »

Took me about 30 seconds to guess who you were talking about. Googled it to check and I was right. So yes, it was a spoiler.

I was not talking about a person !!!!!!!

But talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Looks like you are the only one giving the game away:rotfl:

gregg1

suki1964 wrote: »

So why kick up such a fuss??

Once again - no spoiler other then which you chose to go find




Oh and I actually cried at the opening sequence :rotfl:

Double wuss!!!:rotfl: Was everyone sat near you wearing wellington boots?

I want to ask which bit but the non-James Bond watching party poopers are onto us so I will have to try and guess.:D

vickynleon

my son was about 2/3 when we took him first and he loved it, he sat all the way through the film and really enjoyed. alot of cinema's do kids mornings where it is only about £2.00 so why not take ur little one along to one of them and at least if she doesnt sit for it you havent wasted loads of money.

suki1964

gregg1 wrote: »

Double wuss!!!:rotfl:

I want to ask which bit but the non-James Bond watching party poopers are onto us so I will have to try and guess.:D

I know- double wuss I am

But with the tension and the command - well yes I welled up- esp as then it was straight into Skyfall which I find pretty emotive anyway.Add to that the screen play to the theme I was a puddle

Lol


I don't go the cinema often. Last films I've seen other then this was in order( backwards) the LAST Harry Potter, the First Harry Potter , Jurresic Park and Schindlers list

Before that I think it was Mad Max lolololol

bestpud

My youngest has been going since the age of 2 and she manages fine, despite being a 'lively' child.

I find adults more disruptive as a rule.

The times we've been to 15 or 18 films, adults have been up and down, back and forward, chatting and generally being inconsiderate the whole blooming time!

I'm not sure when adults became incapable of going an hour and a half without a toilet trip...?

And don't get me started on the ones who sit texting! :mad:

*Louise*

DD was 3.5 when 'Tangled' was released, I worried that she was a bit young but she sat engrossed the whole way through the film. :T

Perhaps one of the cheaper viewings is a good way to test the water, that way if you end up having to leave early, you haven't waste dmuch money.