44 replies to this topic

[krypt]

When my daughter was younger she was much more disturbed by things on the big-screen than things on television screens.

[Harmsway]

IMO, CASINO ROYALE is far too violent for a child that's 5 1/2. But that's just me.

[sorking]

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.

In that instance, I agree. But I think the killing of the guy in the bathroom, and the second chap in the stairwell, ARE harsher than anything in the 'realsitic' Connerys. But only because every generation gets a version of 'realistic' that, while not ACTUALLY real, has more impact that an older movie on the current audience.

Acting, sound effects, editing...hell, even the colour of movie blood. These things change constantly. The FRWL train fight was seen as brutal in its day; now, I see the choreography and generic sound effects. This doesn't change its brilliance, but just says we're viewing at a time of differing convention.

You know how Brando was meant to be the most naturalistic actor of his age? But you watch Streetcar now, it's very stylised. 'Real' is just a style.

Which is to say - coping with a 60s action film isn't the same as coping with a 00s actions film. But, in the end, it totally, totally depends on the child. They're all different, will all react to different things, and in the end only the family will have any good idea of what is 'too much'.

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.

The BBFC get a bad rap, and the 12A was something they were somewhat FORCED to create anyway. The 12 was easier, but pressure from cinemagoers, companies and local councils forced the 'A' so kids could go see Spider-Man.

They do actually recommend that 12 be the age minimum unless the adult has checked the film over. As you'd expect, they can't say 'but 7 year olds will be fine', because then some parent sues when their child has a crying fit! They DO suggest that nobody under 8 see a 12A...but it's a recommendation. The whole point of the 'recommended' aspect - which parents were instrumental in creating in the first place - is that you know your kids way better than the BBFC do.

They don't expect the parent to toss a coin. They expect the parent to do their research first.

[Vauxhall]

Too young for a 5 year old I feel. The movie has the most violent scenes of the whole series in my opinion, and also, from the sound of it, your son seems to really enjoy the movies and admire James Bond - which is, of course, great! Perhaps, the fact that we see Bond visibly in pain, bleeding, being tortured and in a wheelchair should all be factors that may count against your son seeing it for a few years. It may spoil the illusion of Bond as an infallible hero. Not sure that explaining the reboot to a 5 year old would be for the best. Just my point of view of course, but rest assured, whenever he is ready, he will love it

[Mr Teddy Bear]

Personally, I think 5 would be far to young. Having said that the first Bond film I ever saw was Licence to Kill when I was quite young.

[Pam Bouvier]

I'm really glad to see that you started this topic, Auric64. When I went to see CR, again, last night there were several kids way under 13 in the theater. This bothered me for several reasons:
1. The movie has a PG 13 rating for a reason.
2. When I pay good $ to watch a movie I really don't want to hear babies crying (several of them) or children asking questions during the movie (as well as adults).Spring for a sitter or wait for the dvd.
3. As much as I love 007, I think it is too long for small children (another reason for crying, etc.). It's not far to the child to expect them to sit through such a long, adult movie.
4. Can't we let child be child, for alittle while ? It's the holiday season for God's sake...there are plenty of movies that are age appropriate for little coming up. Be a parent, not a pal.
5. If you let them watch LTK etc., at home, there is a fast forward button, you can use at anytime, unlike the theater (hey, I know grown men who aren't ready for that torture scene).
This is not directed at you personally, Auric, so, please do not be offended.I'm sure you are a great parent (just asking before doing this, shows that) and I'm sure you put your child's best interests 1st. But I know from the noise last night, that there are others who are selfish and stupid and had there small ones in there out of convience, not the child's desire to see the new007.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

To add my 2 cents, the answer to your question is yes. Casino Royale is definitely too violent for young children. I did not want my nieces who are 11 and 6 1/2 to see it at their age. To CR's credit, the world of James Bond has returned to adult audiences. This may be the most "grown-up" Bond film yet.

[Professor Darkglobe]

I think the pounding that Bond recieves in the torture seat would be too much for a pre-teen to see, because torture is different (to me) than just giving the bad guy his due.

I remember the "I Want To Hear You Scream" scene in The Serpent and the Rainbow making me cringe as a teen...

(and greetings all!)

[Auric64]

I'm really glad to see that you started this topic, Auric64. When I went to see CR, again, last night there were several kids way under 13 in the theater. This bothered me for several reasons:
1. The movie has a PG 13 rating for a reason.
2. When I pay good $ to watch a movie I really don't want to hear babies crying (several of them) or children asking questions during the movie (as well as adults).Spring for a sitter or wait for the dvd.
3. As much as I love 007, I think it is too long for small children (another reason for crying, etc.). It's not far to the child to expect them to sit through such a long, adult movie.
4. Can't we let child be child, for alittle while ? It's the holiday season for God's sake...there are plenty of movies that are age appropriate for little coming up. Be a parent, not a pal.
5. If you let them watch LTK etc., at home, there is a fast forward button, you can use at anytime, unlike the theater (hey, I know grown men who aren't ready for that torture scene).
This is not directed at you personally, Auric, so, please do not be offended.I'm sure you are a great parent (just asking before doing this, shows that) and I'm sure you put your child's best interests 1st. But I know from the noise last night, that there are others who are selfish and stupid and had there small ones in there out of convience, not the child's desire to see the new007.

Thanks for your kind words, Pam.

On reflection, after reading all the posts, (mostly against, a few for) I think it best I don`t take him to see the film.

At the end of the day, the film will be out on DVD next year, and as you, Pam have said, anything that might be distressing, one can fast forward and explain in a much more simple way as to what the child has missed.

The only problem I have though, is that if Bond 22 and Bond 23 will be similar in tone and execution, (no pun intended there) as CR has been, than I don`t think my son will be able to see them at the cinema. I would expect Bond 23 to be released in 2010, when my son will be 9, and even then it will probably be too violent for him to see, at such a young age.

So come on Daniel, make at least 5-6 Bond films, so all the young kiddies at this moment in time, can watch your magnificence on the screen in 2012, 2014, and 2016. Okay, you`ll be 48 by then, but I don`t think my kid will mind.

Thanks to all who have contributed to this post, and make a Bond fan father see the light.

Best

Andy

Edited by Auric64, 26 November 2006 - 09:09 AM.

[Scottlee]

I didn't think the violence was that bad at all. Sure it was rougher than anything from the Brosnan era, but still nowhere near as brutal as some of the images from LTK i.e exploding heads and mincing machines. A twelve certificate seems fine for my money, and no not too gruesome for kids at all. Even the torture sequence wasn't as bad as I had imagined.

[icecold]

5? The most extreme movie I can remember seeing at that age was Batman '89.

[The_Mole]

I took my younger brothers, aged 8 and 12, to see Casino Royale last evening. Apart from a handful of questions from my youngest ("Why's his eye bleeding?" being the most memorable one, regarding Le Chiffre's eye), they both enjoyed the film fully, with no problems, worries or anything.

There was, however, a baby in the cinema. I mean, come on, that's the worst place to bring a child THAT young. It cried through the Bond-Solange flirtation by the Aston DB5 and several of the key poker bits. Mildly annoying.

It really depends on the nature of the child, really. If they're aware that its all make-believe and they're not going to come out of the cinema with bad vibes, then take them. If they have a nervous, worriee state of mind, then leave them at home and try it on DVD maybe.

The choice is yours.

[Monkeyfoahead]

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

That may be true, but we are talking about a 5-year old here, one would hope that you have a greater maturity level than that.Personally, I think Casino Royale is too disturbing for the young ones, but that's just one person's opinion

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

What about my cousin ? He's 8.

[Mister Asterix]

I would not take my 8-year-old to see Casino Royale and she watches R-rated zombie movies with her mother. I might let her see it when it comes on DVD; watching at home is much less intense then on the big screen with Dolby sound and all.

So yes, Casino Royale is much too violent for a 5-year-old.