Casino Royale Film: Suitability for Children?

DjSatansfury

shopndrop wrote:

My son (20) was it last night and when I aksed him what he thought of it, he said he doesn't know how it got 12A rating. He thought 12 is too young and 15 would be better.

Saw it last night, for all the "violence" its not gory at least. Its easily a 12A and nothing more.

Edit: Seems to be an awful lot of prudes on here

Mrs_pbradley936

DjSatansfury wrote:

Saw it last night, for all the "violence" its not gory at least. Its easily a 12A and nothing more.

Edit: Seems to be an awful lot of prudes on here

I know what you mean but I don’t think prudish is the right way to describe it. The reasons behind having age limitations are to protect children. Not always from things like films but for instance from toys. It is well known than babies and toddlers put almost everything they can into their mouths consequently toys that come apart easily into small pieces will have an age label on them. Horror films may give a child nightmares and so both you and the child have sleepless nights. Rules may we non existent and some households or strictly applied in others but there are laws are in place to protect children from exploitation from adults. If you cannot see what I mean try asking how you would feel about a 35 year old man tackling the curiosity of a 12 year old.

There are plenty of violent nasty issues that as adults we have to confront such as war, torture, vivisection, death, domestic violence, terrorism, drugs and so on. Until children have the mental and emotional maturity to be able to cope they should be protected from such issues if at all possible. Sometimes they cannot be, such as if there is a death in the family but thankfully there are laws so that even “progressive” parents are limited to what they can expose their offspring to. My own opinion is that anything that goes on between consenting adults is fine, although I would not want to be bed hopping with all and sundry.

Sensemaya

We saw the film at 7.30pm last night. I'm not a prude - my mum took me to see Caligula, The Exorcist et al from the age of 12! - but I wouldn't take my eldest ( 12 ) to see it. Unfortunately ( because I had to tell them to be quiet ) I was sitting next to group of kids aged around 10. They were decidedly uncomfortable through the boring " luv" scenes and seeing JB naked with his bum hanging down in a bottomless chair raised sniggers and then gasps once the torture started.

I found the film boring, badly acted and tasteless - certainly not made in the same spirit as the other Bond movies.

I would wait to see it once it's on telly. The torture scene will probably be cut....and all the more better for it. In fact, if you cut about 60 mins out of it totally, even better.

Sisyphus

I thought it was one of the best Bond films I've seen. Daniel Craig is as close to Fleming's character as they have managed so far, perhaps along with George Lazenby.
The character is however a killer, an assassin. I took my 11 year old son along. He's also seen other 12a's and Troy which was a 15. He was seemingly allright with it but personally I think the violence was more disturbing than Troy possibly due to the 'reality' . Worst scene was probably the bloody fight scene in the hotel fire escape where he finishes his opponent off (with some difficulty) with a ju jitsu rear naked strangle.

gundo

Need_More_Money wrote:

Can anyone who has seen the latest James Bond film (Casino Royale) comment on its suitability for 8 year old children? It's rated as a 12A, but I've heard that there is quite a lot of swearing in it and I'm wondering if it is appropriate to take an 8 year old who wants to see it

IMHO DEFINTIELY NOT for 8-year olds.

vickitoria100

Sensemaya wrote:

I found the film boring, badly acted and tasteless - certainly not made in the same spirit as the other Bond movies.

what?!! i thought it was absolutely brilliant, daniel craig was unexpectadly brilliant, really dry and witty. By far the best Bond film I have ever seen! But I agree that it is a different style to the others, more of a love theme, not many gadets and more physical so if you like 'traditional' bond may not be for you.

However, back to OP, if the child really wants to see it it will be likely that they have seen other Bonds and so IMO it isn't that unsuitable. Yeah there are lots of fights but not that gory and/or worse than you would get in an 8 yr old's computer game! Not much sex or strong language really that I can recall, there is a nude torture scene but it's in good humour and you don't see anything.

katiepoppycat

Slightly OT but in the same vein . . .when i went to see LOTR I was surprised at the number of kids that were in the cinema, I was also surprised at their reactions to things that would have terrified me at a young age(and were fairly scary now) - most notable being the 'birth' of the Uruk Hai. Very dark very scary, and the kids behind were going 'whoa! check out the teeth! cool!'. All the throught the chase throught Moria there were cheers and excitement and I was lamenting the demise of childhood innocence until . . .. Gandalf fell into Shadow. Cue moment of silent horror, and then the sniffling started. And then seats began to bang up all over the cinema as kids had to be taken out to get over it. I don't have kids but it would appear that you just can't predict what is going to affect them. Sometimes the impression of horror is worse than anything graphic that might be seen. Just a thought!

ckerrd

My 10 year old son really enjoyed Casino Royale, as did I.

If I had thought it too violent I would not have taken him. Not as many scenes of an overtly sexual nature as in some of the other Bond movies.

Penny_Watcher

Thanks for all the info people :T

DS1(12) is going with his mate tomorrow. DS1 is quite street wise and is able to disassociate himself from the violence and stuff, but his pal is a bit of a 'Walter the Softy'

I'll have a word with DS1 about warning his mate about the violence at the beginning.

Sisyphus

ckerrd wrote:

My 10 year old son really enjoyed Casino Royale, as did I.

If I had thought it too violent I would not have taken him. Not as many scenes of an overtly sexual nature as in some of the other Bond movies.

probably because Bond is a product that sells well in all parts of the World and particularly in places where violence is far more acceptable than sex on screen.