44 replies to this topic

[Auric64]

I ask this, as my wife and I are currently at loggerheads over whether my 5 1/2 year old boy should or shouldn`t see Casino Royale.

My wife, (who has seen the film) thinks it`s the most violent of the 21 films, and feels that the cold blooded killings in the PTS, Bond`s blood stained shirt after the stairway fight and the torture sequence, could give my little cherub nightmares.

I countered that he has already seen a few of the Bond films, (namely Dr. No, FRWL, GF, SPY, and MR) and mentioned that in the first three alone, my son saw a killing in cold blood, (Dent) two strangulations, (bogus Bond and Grant) and Oddjob being electrocuted. None of these deaths seems to have worried him or caused him any nightmares. This, however, does not seem to wash with her, as she feels that CR is just too "adult" a film to see, even though the British Board of Film Censors have classified this film as a 12A, which means young children, (no minimum age is mentioned) can see a film with this certificate, as long as they are accompanied by an adult.

So, do any of you think CR is too violent for a 5 1/2 year old, or would you cite, (as I have) that earlier Bond`s were just as violent, and nothing has really changed in 44 years?

Have any of you mothers and fathers taken your kids to see CR and, if so, what age were they, and how did they react to it?

My son really loves the Bond films, (well, the ones he has so far seen) but he hasn`t been to the cinema yet, (to see any film whatsoever) and I guess I would love his first film at the cinema to be a Bond film.

Otherwise, he`ll have to wait until Spider-Man 3 or Shriek 3 next May.

Best

Andy

Edited by Auric64, 25 November 2006 - 06:10 PM.

[EyesOnly]

I had this similar discussion about my girlfriends son. She thought the movie was far too violent for him to see, and I agree. But it's Bond and my love for 007 has rubbed off on him and he really wants to see it. I re-watched LTK and Goldeneye whom of which he has seen many times, and although I think CR is the most violent...so is LTK to a certain extent! After I said my piece, we are seeing the film tomorrow afternoon!

...btw, he is 8

Edited by EyesOnly, 25 November 2006 - 06:18 PM.

[Jackanaples]

James Bond is too violent for a 5 year old to watch! Hell, he won't even be able to appreciate the violence till he's ten. But to each their own I guess.

[zencat]

I think seeing blood is upsetting for children. I saw all the 70s disaster movies with my parents when I was a kid and I had no problem with seeing people fall out of buildings, guys blow themselves up in airplane bathrooms, etc. I was like, "Cool!" But I remember seeing Billy Jack where men fight and bleed and that shook me for some reason.

If you do bring him, take him to the bathroom or concession stand at the stairway fight. The torture scene...I don't think he'd really understand what's happening. Hard to tell how kids see that scene, especially as the audience laughs during it (as does Bond). Because of the setting, it might play as more "scary" than violent. It looks like a horror movie. Yeah...bathroom break there too.

Or skip this one. Why take the risk? Mother's know best. My dad secretly took me and a friend to see The Exorsist and it took me years to recover.

[Rich_19]

Interestingly, Auric, there was an article in yesterday's The Times titles 'Is CR too violent for children?' And in general it was thought that yes, it is. Five is a bit too young.

[capungo]

While I'd normally say that 5 is too young for CR, honestly I dunno. If your kid has seen Dr. No, and FRWL, definitely 2 of the more realistic Bond movies, MAYBE it'd be OK for him. I guess it depends on how you feel he can take it.

On an amusing sidenote, I remember seeing Bonds at around that age. I had no problems with any of them except FRWL, just because whenever I got up to the train scene with Grant, I seriously thought Bond was going to get killed. I guess it says something for the dramatic impact of that movie.

Edited by capungo, 25 November 2006 - 06:51 PM.

[Cody]

Other than the torture scene, I don't really think there's anything more disturbing in Casino Royale than in the previous harder-edged Bonds. I don't think the stairwell fight is worse than the Grant fight and LTK's shark attack and exploding head, and it's over pretty quick. I wouldn't have any qualms about a child seeing it.

But then movies such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre have been among my favorites since I was in preschool, so maybe I'm not a good judge in this area.

[DamnCoffee]

James Bond isn't supposed to be for children, it's meant for adults . And i think it's time to give the adults a hard edged thriller instead of treating children to invisible cars, icarus gloves and such

[kneelbeforezod]

I definitely think CR is unsuitable for young children.

Sorry to bring up box office again, but I was just going to say that if this film doesn't do as well in the long run, then the fact that it isn't family entertainment will have played a major part

[sorking]

The 12A UK certificate is deceptive, in that it essentially ranks the films alongside all Brosnan's efforts (well, the UK edits thereof, anyway). But, tweak to the torture or not, there's a MUCH harder edge to this movie.

It's not just the blood and torture, it's the harshness of physical interaction. You really feel the knocks. And the deaths aren't quick, either.

Kids mature at different ages, and you're doing the right thing by going to see the film for yourself first. I know kids who would deal with it just fine a 'only a movie', and kids who would cry at the brutality. But the 12A cert is still there for a reason. It's not just PG-plus.

The new tone is GREAT for the film, for the franchise, and us as funs...but it ain't for the young-uns.

Plus, of course, it has a proper thriller plot, love story, and central card-game. Unless you want your child bugging you (and thus everyone sat nearby) about what's going on and the fact that they're bored...it's maybe better to leave it a few years. )

[Dr. Noah]

I definitely think CR is unsuitable for young children.

Sorry to bring up box office again, but I was just going to say that if this film doesn't do as well in the long run, then the fact that it isn't family entertainment will have played a major part

No worries. The adults love it. It did over 13 mil in the US on Friday.

[kneelbeforezod]

Plus, of course, it has a proper thriller plot, love story, and central card-game. Unless you want your child bugging you (and thus everyone sat nearby) about what's going on and the fact that they're bored...it's maybe better to leave it a few years. )

I agree actually, you should leave it a few years because he'll get so much more out of it if he was say, 11 or 12. Most of this film will be lost on a 5 year old.

[EyesOnly]

How violent does everyone think LTK is? If an eight year old can see that why not CR? Maybe i'm very wrong about this..maybe my judgement is skewed at the fact that it's a Bond film!

[kneelbeforezod]

How violent does everyone think LTK is? If an eight year old can see that why not CR? Maybe i'm very wrong about this..maybe my judgement is skewed at the fact that it's a Bond film!

Why is it that for me, the violence in LTK leaves a nasty taste in the mouth? Could it be something to do with the violence in CR being more responsible somehow? I keep wondering about this. There's something sadistic about parts of LTK

Edited by kneelbeforezod, 25 November 2006 - 07:16 PM.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

How's the torture scene handled???

[sorking]

How violent does everyone think LTK is? If an eight year old can see that why not CR? Maybe i'm very wrong about this..maybe my judgement is skewed at the fact that it's a Bond film!

Why is it that for me, the violence in LTK leaves a nasty taste in the mouth? Could it be something to do with the violence in CR being more responsible somehow? I keep wondering about this. There's something sadistic about parts of LTK

Certainly there's an argument to be made that the LTK violence is occasionally unnecessary, or at least handled in a way ill-fitting to the rest of the picture. There's an odd stylistic clash between, say, that great water-ski scene - old-school fun - and Krest being decompressed to death.

I love the movie, but Glen often had trouble balancing tone. (Usually, though, it was in the other direction - with making overt comedy work in a realistic context.) While CR is more brutal, it's consistant with it; it's there from the first moments. Whereas the pre-title in LTK doesn't suggest scenes of whipping are to come...

Edited by sorking, 25 November 2006 - 08:17 PM.

[delfloria]

I'm with mom on this one because of the age.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

I'm 16 yrs old... I'm going to the premiere with some Bond fan friends of mine

[kneelbeforezod]

Why is it that for me, the violence in LTK leaves a nasty taste in the mouth? Could it be something to do with the violence in CR being more responsible somehow? I keep wondering about this. There's something sadistic about parts of LTK

Certainly there's an argument to be made that the LTK violence is occasionally unnecessary, or at least handled in a way ill-fitting to the rest of the picture. There's an odd stylistic clash between, say, that great water-ski scene - old-school fun - and Krest being decompressed to death.

God I'd forgotten about that! I was thinking of Bond setting Sanchez on fire, and Benecio Del Toro falling into that mangler thing or whatever it was.

Incidently, I really like the film as well, but the violence a bit sick, and somehow, tawdry.

[TheREAL008]

Honestly, if I wanted to start someone young on Bond, probably wait until they're 16.

[Bondian]

Can we honestly say that there's anything that scares kids these days?. Besides if that toy that urinates freely or is based on some absurd new modern story.

My Alex has watched all kinds of movies, and laughs out loud at scenes that involved violence. I think it's because most kids of today are used to violence in modern children's television and films especially made by Walt (Mafia) Disney.

On a rather drunken evening a few months ago. My Brother an I let all the kids watch 'The Evil Dead' (I'd admit it was a rather dumb thing to do). And all they could do it to laugh at the absurdness. Let them stay up to watch 'Easterners', and they're hiding behind the settee. I think it proves that serious acting or melodrama can affect a child's imagination more than a horror. Either that, or they're so used to seeing their parents first thing in the morning.

So I would say that Casino Royale maybe scary for minors.

[sorking]

Honestly, if I wanted to start someone young on Bond, probably wait until they're 16.

I think young kids'll get a kick out of the 'silly' collection - TOLT, TSWLM, Moonraker, DAD. They're perfectly acceptible family viewing, and big and bright enough to keep the nippers entertained.

But - do you start 'em out early or do you start 'em out right?

Edited by sorking, 25 November 2006 - 10:34 PM.

[JimmyBond]

Perhaps I'd wait till he turned ten. At that point Craig should have three by then, and you can show him all three at once.

[Johnson Galore]

I've been struggling with this too. My 11 year old son has seen all of them more than once. But, there was just something about this one that I couldn't quite see him dealing with. I actually think it's the Vesper suicide maybe. But, at any rate, thanks for all the thoughts on it everyone! I may bring him to it yet.

[booyeah_]

if it helps, you could cover their eyes during the torture scene. CR isnt too violent minus the torture scene.

[ACE]

Is Casino Royale Too Violent For Young Children?

Hopefully!

Anyway, no five year old is going to understand the film.

[Johnboy007]

I'm usually one to say "let the kid see the film", but I think 5 is a bit young for this one. If he were 7 or 8 I would let him.

Of course, he's your child and obviously know him quite a bit better.

[Scamp]

Hi, just to add my thought..... I took an 11 year old and an 8 year old to see it and, apart from the torture scene (which will go over the younger children's heads...thankfully!) I don't think that much of the rest of the film will shock them as the violence etc is not handled in a gratuitous way. Both of the children in question seem tp play age-relevant computer/playstation games that seem more graphic/violent than CR is anyway. They both rooted for Bond all the way through the film and almost fell off their seats with anticipation during the stairwell scenes, PTS and the parkour chase. The 11 year old was absolutely gutted when they rolled the Aston!

Hopefully I am going to see CR a third time tomorrow and will be taking two 8 year olds, accompanied by another parent. For the benefit of the children.....obviously!

Hope this helps

Edited by Scamp, 25 November 2006 - 11:31 PM.

[Auric64]

Thanks to all who responded to this - now I`m more confused than I was, before I posted this thread.

I guess if my son hadn`t seen any of the Bonds before, then I would most definitely have not wanted him to see CR. The fact is, he HAS seen some, and some of the more realistic scenes/deaths in the Connery films that I mentioned earlier, didn`t seem to faze him at all.

He knows the films are make believe, and he knows that people being shot/killed in them aren`t really dead, so I wouldn`t have a problem with him experiencing the deaths in Casino Royale, (though Vesper drowning may have to be explained, as he hasn`t witnessed a drowning before) because he knows none of it is real.

He just loves the films and the way Bond "is" in the films, (yep, even at 5 1/2). He is in a school Xmas play next week, and today at the dress rehearsal, my wife and I dressed him up in the costume he had to wear in the play, which is a white shirt and a tuxedo bow tie. I showed him what he looked like in the mirror. He smiled broadly and the first thing he said was, "I`m James Bond!".

I think kids today ARE more perceptive and less hung up on stuff than I, (and others of my age group), were at his age, (I`m 42) and I agree with one of the posters who said that much of the stuff these days just seems to go over their heads.

Kids are introduced early to Play Station games which depict war and battles, zombie massacres, etc. etc. so the kids become anesthetised to all of that, and what they then see in films is sometimes just an extension of that.

Is watching Bond kill Dent in cold blood any different to watching Bond kill Dryden the same way in Casino Royale? The answer really is no. I`m sure Dryden`s death won`t even register on my son`s radar and the torture sequence could just be explained by saying, "Bond is being hurt because the baddie wants to know something". One doesn`t have to give a young child, (of any age) a blow by blow description of what is happening, he/she will get the gist and that will be that.

What I think is more of a concern, (and Casino Royale and this thread has brought this up) is that it`s okay for the British Board of Film Censors to say, "A young child may see a 12A certificate film, so long as he/she is accompanied by an adult" but the BBFC don`t say what a MINIMUM age should be, for a film of this nature.

It`s all very well showing the trailer on TV, and having a disclaimer at the bottom saying, "Film contains action and one torture scene" (or whatever the wording was - but it did mention the torture scene) but there isn`t a guideline from the BBFC to say, "No cinema should allow a child under 5-6-7-8 (take your pick) to see this film, due to the nature and content of such film." They expect the parent to toss a coin and say, "do we let him/her see it, or don`t we?" and deal with the fallout afterwards, if the child sees it, and is upset at what they saw.

If I DO take him, it`ll be a 1st showing on a quiet Sunday morning, with hopefully very few people in the cinema. Then, if he wants to ask a question, here or there, I can answer them for him and if it helps him to enjoy the film more, and follow the plot a bit better, then I won`t mind doing that.

At least if the cinema is almost empty, we can sit away from people and whisper when we need to. That way I won`t be lynched by someone, because they`re fed up with me yakking in front/behind them.

And we all hate that, don`t we?

Best

Andy

Edited by Auric64, 26 November 2006 - 12:07 AM.

[the007JamesBond]

Yes, I admit then too violent but not more seeing at the screen from brutals scenes and normally cut off.