Discuss Film Classifications

rulerofuniverse

OK, I've looked myself and have seen that 12A means it's up to the adult if they take in an under 12 or not. Re. SATC on the BBFC website they write:

The BBFC Guidelines at ‘15’ also state that sexual activity may be portrayed but without strong detail and that there may be strong verbal references to sexual behaviour. The film contains four significant sex scenes; all are quite short and one involves three people. Although we see vigorous thrusting and some breast nudity, the sequences are sufficiently brief and lacking in detail to be allowed at ‘15’ in this case. In one scene that doesn't involve any sexual activity there is a brief sight of a flaccid penis. The numerous strong verbal sex references in the film fall fairly and squarely within ‘15’ classification category parameters.

Indeed that is all true and I think having seen the film, that's enough to make it an 18. What else can they show?!

Flyingharpy

Rooster_Norwich wrote: »

I've seen the film.

It's a complete move away from the kiddy like comic book interpretation of the character.

This is much deeper and DARKER. Heath Ledger portrays The Joker brilliantly, but this is definately NOT a film for kids.

BatMan maybe a toy in some shops and a comic hero in others, but this film deals with issues and ideas that wouls scare or at least disturb a younger child, it's not a comic book film!

There's lots of references to knives, slashing, cutting and plenty of mindless violence. It's a film for young adolescents upwards but unless you want sleepless nights or to walk out of the film I would not recommend anyone taking a minor to go see this film.

If you do want to go see it with the kids, go yourself first and then make a judgement. I'd happily go see it again, but be warned it is nearly 2:30hrs long...:eek:

While I can appreciate what you, and others, have said about this film, I think you are mis-understanding the genre it actually fits in. This film is more of a comic-book movie than some of the other batman films, simply because it is closer to the actual batman in the comic books themselves. Yes, back in the day both the batman films and some of the comics about him were camp and silly, but now-a-days the batman comic is both dark and disturbing, batman can be considered a bit psychotic in the comics, and he is a much better batman because of it. Just because a film is based on a comic doesn't mean it is ok for children - there are many adult-themed comics out there, and just because you don't expect batman to be adult themed, because you remember him differently from when you were a kid, doesn't mean the authors haven't changed their direction. I think you'll find now that the comic market now has a lot of adults as well as children, and comic authors now write for both audiences.

I do agree totally that this film may not be suitable for some minors, but for some minors I don't think this film would be bad for them to see - so long as they knew what kind of film it was before they went and were prepared for it. I personally know children who wouldn't be overly disturbed by this film. It is completely, totally and utterly the parents choice to let their children see it. My only issue in this case would be that not all 12,13 and 14 year olds would be ok watching it - some would but others would't - I'd have made it a 15A (of course, that would involve the rating "15A" to exist...)

dmg24

rulerofuniverse wrote: »

OK, I've looked myself and have seen that 12A means it's up to the adult if they take in an under 12 or not. Re. SATC on the BBFC website they write:

The BBFC Guidelines at ‘15’ also state that sexual activity may be portrayed but without strong detail and that there may be strong verbal references to sexual behaviour. The film contains four significant sex scenes; all are quite short and one involves three people. Although we see vigorous thrusting and some breast nudity, the sequences are sufficiently brief and lacking in detail to be allowed at ‘15’ in this case. In one scene that doesn't involve any sexual activity there is a brief sight of a flaccid penis. The numerous strong verbal sex references in the film fall fairly and squarely within ‘15’ classification category parameters.

Indeed that is all true and I think having seen the film, that's enough to make it an 18. What else can they show?!

I think you need to get out more - nothing in SATC would deem it to require an 18 certificate. The sex scenes were mild, nothing more than you could see on C4 after 9pm at night ... and OMG, a flaccid penis ... most 15 year olds have seen (and done) a lot more than that!

rulerofuniverse

Have you actually seen the film?

lemming64

This quote sums up why the film is not suitable for kids:

Gambol: I]to The Joker[/I Give me one reason why I shouldn't have my boy here rip your head off.
The Joker: How about a magic trick?
I]pulls out a pencil and sticks it upright into the table[/I
The Joker: I'm gonna make this pencil... disappear.
I]Gambol's thug walks over to kill The Joker, who pushes his face into the pencil and kills him[/I
The Joker: Ta-daa! It's... gone!

carbonmonoxide

I remember the original Batman film directed by Tim Burton was one of the first 12 certificates. My Dad took me to see it as a 10 year old (no, they shouldn't have let me in). To be honest the film wasn't that scary - especially compared the the Dark Knight which has some really nasty moments in it. I cannot believe it was given a 12A . They should go back to the old 12 rating as at least not many people younger than that would get in.

willihe_2

ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Having unfortunately been persuaded by my husband to go an see this film I wish I hadn't. It is unrelenting violence and intensely loud. It is scandalous that it has been rated a 12A - it should be at least 15, if not 18. I will not trust the film certification ratings in the future when deciding whether to allow my children to see a film. Nothing more than U or PG for me in the future!:mad:

earmuffin

I certainly wouldn't take anyone easily scared to see it... My 21 year old friend kept jumping every five minutes!
Technically though, a fair amount of the violence is only imagined by the viewer (in my opinion, anyway).

Major spoilers in here, by the by...

dmg24

rulerofuniverse wrote: »

Have you actually seen the film?

Yes, of course.

Have you never seen a naked body before? :eek:

Gemmzie

Parents demanded the 12A - they got it. The "A" is for advisory. The BBFC are very honest about why a film is given any classification.

As for saying yes or no for nine year olds, well that depends on the child surely. I worked in a video rental place from 14 and my parents allowed me to watch 15 and 18 rated films at me and my boss' discretion by looking at the website and letting other older members of staff watch it first if it was borderline okay.

That said, I’m amazed how slack ratings have become in the past few years. It’s clearly all down to money by the film production companies, cinemas etc. Only you as a parent care about whether the film is wholly suitable for your child.
Mamma Mia is a good example, it’s a PG but has some pretty heavy sexual references which are visual and therefore would be unlikely to go over the head of a primary school aged child, but it isn’t really a suitable joke for them. It should have been a 12A imho.