Film Fanatics Society - Chat Thread Watch

This discussion is closed.
riotgrrl
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4221
Report 8 years ago
#4221
(Original post by Phalanges)
I would probably let my child watch a film when they were three years' younger than the age limit - so 12 for a 15, 15 for an 18. And even then I would check the film myself first; if it's just a transparent exploitation film whose sole purpose is to provide entertainment via violence and sex, then no they would have to wait until they were old enough. If it was something like Scarface, which is ultraviolent yet still has a rich story, then I would let them.

As for a 9 year-old, hell no. I was affected the first time I saw the shower scene in Scarface, to let a kid watch that is just plain irresponsible.
I would definitely agree, it varies film to film. The little girl I look after is 9 and she told me one of her favourite films is Little Miss Sunshine, which I think is a 12, possibly a 15. Anyway, it has a gay character in it and watching that with her parents she obviously ended up asking what that was etc. That's going to set her up to be more accepting than my little sister, who's 10 and would never be allowed to watch something like that (and isn't allowed to know what gay is). It can be a good tool to opening a discussion with a kid.

But then if it's just gore, there's no point in letting a little kid get scared or normalising violence for them. Similarly with sex, it's good for them to know that people do it and it's normal and healthy, but young girls are getting sexualised way too early imo.
0
Phalanges
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4222
Report 8 years ago
#4222
(Original post by riotgrrl)
But then if it's just gore, there's no point in letting a little kid get scared or normalising violence for them.
I'm not quite sure I believe in the idea of desensitisation to things like violence and sex, there's very little evidence suggesting any kinds of links which doesn't take wild leaps of faith and it doesn't explain how soldiers who kill for a living can still become traumatised from the violence.
0
unknownking321
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4223
Report 8 years ago
#4223
(Original post by Guvnor)
Catch me if you can, loved every bit of it :yy:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0264464/
:lolwut: Documentary?
0
Guvnor
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4224
Report 8 years ago
#4224
(Original post by unknownking321)
:lolwut: Documentary?

Yes thanks I have been corrected above

:yy:
0
unknownking321
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4225
Report 8 years ago
#4225
Watched The Town yesterday. Today I plan to watch Zodiac and Rendition.
0
Madjackismad
Badges: 13
#4226
Report 8 years ago
#4226
(Original post by Phalanges)
I would probably let my child watch a film when they were three years' younger than the age limit - so 12 for a 15, 15 for an 18. And even then I would check the film myself first; if it's just a transparent exploitation film whose sole purpose is to provide entertainment via violence and sex, then no they would have to wait until they were old enough. If it was something like Scarface, which is ultraviolent yet still has a rich story, then I would let them.

As for a 9 year-old, hell no. I was affected the first time I saw the shower scene in Scarface, to let a kid watch that is just plain irresponsible.
Yeah, which is what I was trying to say to the guy. I wasn't really watching 18 movies so much when I was 11/12 (some), but I was definitely watching 15 rated films. I would also check the film out first, for example, a film like American History X, which has a fairly decent story, but you know, that infamous kerb stamp scene... then I might not let them watch something like that at 12. But tbh, I did this and you probably did, at that age we would all huddle together with our friends to watch something like Scarface in private with the volume down low and suddenly switching channels if our parents walked in. :teehee:

But yeah, a nine year old is way too young to be watching 18 rated films.
Seanisonfire
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4227
Report 8 years ago
#4227
Maggie Gyllenhaal lets down The Dark Knight so bad.
0
Jace Falco
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4228
Report 8 years ago
#4228
(Original post by Seanisonfire)
Maggie Gyllenhaal lets down The Dark Knight so bad.
I don't remember her being anything special. What in particular are you thinking of?
0
unknownking321
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4229
Report 8 years ago
#4229
(Original post by Seanisonfire)
Maggie Gyllenhaal lets down The Dark Knight so bad.
Not that badly.
0
Prokaryotic_crap
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4230
Report 8 years ago
#4230
subscribes
0
Seanisonfire
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4231
Report 8 years ago
#4231
(Original post by Jace Falco)
I don't remember her being anything special. What in particular are you thinking of?
Her sickly sweet voice, it just irritates me so much. And she's not a good enough actress to compensate.
0
Rocky Raccoon
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4232
Report 8 years ago
#4232
Am currently watching This Gun for Hire a 1942 noir, and will later watch The French Connection

I am mainly (re)watching these so I have comparison points for my essay on Jean-Pierre Melville's Le Samouraï.

Feels like I haven't been to the movies in ages though, but nothing great is on, except for Harry Potter, which I'll see when I come home for Christmas.
0
Seanisonfire
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4233
Report 8 years ago
#4233
Saying that, the terrorist/hostage scene is one of the finest action set pieces in the history of cinema.
0
Ape Gone Insane
Badges: 15
#4234
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#4234
(Original post by Seanisonfire)
Maggie Gyllenhaal lets down The Dark Knight so bad.
Agreed. Me and Phalanges discussed this near the start of this thread and I didn't particular like her in the role or movie.
samstoo93
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4235
Report 8 years ago
#4235
Just wanted to say, i saw when 'The Hurt Locker' won all those awards and so was compelled to see all the fuss and personally did not think it was that good. Not saying its a bad film but i dont think it was good enough to win all those awards.

Thoughts?? Opinions???
0
Jace Falco
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4236
Report 8 years ago
#4236
(Original post by Seanisonfire)
Her sickly sweet voice, it just irritates me so much. And she's not a good enough actress to compensate.
Do you think Katie Holmes would have done a better job?
0
Ape Gone Insane
Badges: 15
#4237
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#4237
Interesting website - http://www.wreckamovie.com/
Seanisonfire
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4238
Report 8 years ago
#4238
(Original post by Jace Falco)
Do you think Katie Holmes would have done a better job?
I'm not overly fond of either of them, but Katie Holmes was inoffensive enough.
0
Phalanges
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4239
Report 8 years ago
#4239
(Original post by samstoo93)
Just wanted to say, i saw when 'The Hurt Locker' won all those awards and so was compelled to see all the fuss and personally did not think it was that good. Not saying its a bad film but i dont think it was good enough to win all those awards.

Thoughts?? Opinions???
I found it to be a fantastically gripping movie not only on the horrors of war but also on the nature of humanity. It was understated to the extreme, and all the more powerful for it. And it was shot unbelievably well.

I remember being a little underwhelmed immediately after seeing it, but as time goes on it really takes a hold in your mind and I found myself thinking about it when watching other films. I was really impressed by it.
0
Phalanges
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4240
Report 8 years ago
#4240
Maggie Gyllenhaal is really quite a good actress I think; looking back over her filmography is pretty impressive. Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Adaptation, Secretary, Stranger than Fiction, Sherrybaby, The Dark Knight, Crazy Heart, there's some seriously good work in there.

She's not A star material, but she's not far off.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (18)
31.03%
No (40)
68.97%

Watched Threads

View All