Daggers Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 Would anyone who has seen the film say I could take an 8 and a 7 year old to see it?
Samilktray Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 Would anyone who has seen the film say I could take an 8 and a 7 year old to see it? It's quite graphic but there was a few youngsters watching it when i went. So i'd say yes.
Simi Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 Would anyone who has seen the film say I could take an 8 and a 7 year old to see it? There's one graphic bit that might bother him, but if he/she can put up with your rants about City then anything is possible!
Daggers Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 It's quite graphic but there was a few youngsters watching it when i went.So i'd say yes. 5Live has been full of parents saying how it is far too graphic for young ones...and Kermode's review says the same. But - most of the parents ringing in the show sound like utter twats. Which leaves me confused. If the violence is graphic then it's probably a 'no' from me.
Samilktray Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 5Live has been full of parents saying how it is far too graphic for young ones...and Kermode's review says the same.But - most of the parents ringing in the show sound like utter twats. Which leaves me confused. If the violence is graphic then it's probably a 'no' from me. Theres no blood or gore, and you never really see anything get sliced open, or any bullet wounds. Someones legs breaking is as violent as it gets. So I think it would be alright.
Simi Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 Theres no blood or gore, and you never really see anything get sliced open, or any bullet wounds.Someones legs breaking is as violent as it gets. So I think it would be alright. Half face?
Alexikokopops Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 5Live has been full of parents saying how it is far too graphic for young ones...and Kermode's review says the same.But - most of the parents ringing in the show sound like utter twats. Which leaves me confused. If the violence is graphic then it's probably a 'no' from me. You see a number of people getting shot, and there's moments of implied violence (like the Joker slices a chaps face, which you don't actually see but know it's happened). I don't remember anything particularly graphic, if you don't mind Daggers Jr. seeing people getting shot then it could be ok. Having said that I'd had a number of pints by the time I turned up to the IMAX and I spent the first hour or so in awe at the size of the screen. Hang on, Two Face is pretty minging.
Samilktray Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 Half face? Two face. And yeah i suppose thats pretty graphic, forgot about him. I think thats more comic than anything.
Alexikokopops Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 Two face.And yeah i suppose thats pretty graphic, forgot about him. I think thats more comic than anthing. Not to an 8 year old kid though.
Daggers Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 Two face.And yeah i suppose thats pretty graphic, forgot about him. I think thats more comic than anything. Point to remember #1: Little kids get too scared to sleep after watching Dr Who. I think you've all helped, thanks
coale39 Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 I would say its too graphic for an 8 yr old. It really just managed to get the 12a cert imo.
Bryn Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 Would anyone who has seen the film say I could take an 8 and a 7 year old to see it? It misses the 15 cause there's no blood or anything. Most deaths are your standard punching but there's a bit of burnt flesh and one quite violent, quite novel, death. It's also quite dark and quite intense.
Samilktray Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 It misses the 15 cause there's no blood or anything. Most deaths are your standard punching but there's a bit of burnt flesh and one quite violent, quite novel, death. It's also quite dark and quite intense. The part of the film your sigs from made me laugh so much.
Phube Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 I would say its too graphic for an 8 yr old. It really just managed to get the 12a cert imo. Yay... for the "Pencil Magic Trick"!!!
Libertine Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 The trick is ****ing brilliant. The hanging of the fake Batman is quite graphic btw. And the tape of him being tortured.
Samilktray Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 Just watched Batman Begins. I think i prefer the story in it. And Scarecrow is a lot scarier to me.
shen Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 Just watched Batman Begins.I think i prefer the story in it. And Scarecrow is a lot scarier to me. The scary thing about the Joker is that he talks a bit of sense. And the fact that he's laughing everything in it's face... Scarecrow is rather lame.
Samilktray Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 The scary thing about the Joker is that he talks a bit of sense. And the fact that he's laughing everything in it's face... Scarecrow is rather lame. Proper lame yeah.
lildave3 Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 Everyone appears to be raving about this. Does this mean I should look into seeing it? Someone sell it to me. Note - If it contains female nudity and/or comedy, mention it.
morris1234 Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 Proper lame yeah. innit blud the reason (like explained in the filM) that the joker is a good villain because he doesnt want anything, he cant be bought hes just doing it for the sake of it and thats what makes it good! oh and his freaky voice!
Samilktray Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 I had a relatively good idea of why the Joker was a good villain. Thanks all the same though.
LeeCovFox Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 Saw this today. I'm not a huge film watcher by any means, amd was sceptical about this, partly because I am not a fan of superhero films, and partly because I went into the cinema thinking that all the rave reviews about Heath Ledger's performance as Joker were steeped in hyperbole due to his death. I was almost looking to pick fault in the film and his performance in particular. Any doubts I had were quickly dispelled. The best film I have seen in a while, and Ledger's performance is majestic. I would recommend this to anybody. The cast is excellent and all perform very well without notable exception. The script wasn't spoiled by a ridiculous love story, other than as a tool to develop the character of "Two Face", as is the case with many Hollywood pictures, and the ending was inconclusive and all the better for it. I hope that there will be no sequel to this. The series should now be left untouched, except in the imaginations of the viewers.
Libertine Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 There's a 3rd. Hopefully not with Jack Napier though. Should try a new version of the Riddler.
Samilktray Posted 4 August 2008 Posted 4 August 2008 There's a 3rd. Hopefully not with Jack Napier though. Should try a new version of the Riddler. Confirmed? Or still rumours.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.