What Films Have You Watched This Week - The Sequel.

[QualityChimp]

Well, it's a 12A, so you're supposed to be 12, but an adult can decide to take children younger if they want.

We've all seen films before we were supposed to, but if we're honest, they probably played on our minds afterwards.

We take it for granted that things don't freak us out, but kids might not like them.

My son is 3 and he loves the Toy Story series, but refuses to watch TS3 because the screeching security monkey scares him. He doesn't want to watch Monsters Inc. because Sully can be quite scary at times. The "scary minions" in Despicable Me 2 worry him.
I was going to show him the Lego movie, but I think it might be a bit much for him.
I'm checking films are U now and not PG as I think they're more suitable.
I remember myself getting freaked at the scene in Superman 3 where the woman gets sucked into the computer!

We forget that some of our favourite "family" films are quite intense because of TV edits and bad memories, but there's swearing in Back to the Future, hearts being removed in Temple of Doom, penises in The Goonies and Bambi's mother

->Open Spoiler<-

dies

!

I actually was watching GotG with the thought of how suitable it is for younger viewers and although they don't play on the gore and a lot of violence is implied (The Accuser swings his hammer on somebody's head and it cuts away at the last second then we see blood on the floor), but the general saucy banter, adult language and violent sequences made me feel it's best appreciated by teens upward.

Obviously we all have differing opinions on what we were allowed to see, what our children should be allowed to see and censorship in general, but in my opinion (which two of you have asked me for, now!), I think 10 is a little young to see GotG.

[PaTaito]

Some killing and swearing bad for a 10year old? I'd seen Robocop, Predator and Goonies by the time I was 8-9 years old!

Yeah, i was watching the likes of the alien franchise, terminator, robocop, amityville etc etc when i was like 8...didnt do me one bit of harm....GOTG would have been utterly standard fare.

Horror is another thing entirely though because it can keep the kids up at night.

I don't get the swearing thing though and i never have, once you enter school good look censoring that.

[bash]

LOL, looks like I've hit a nerve here, a few peeps with an opinion on the subject.

The films I mentioned I saw on VHS rental so they were not cut and had swearing, violence and sexual references in.

Admittadly heart rippig scene from Indy 2 and Superman 3 computer bitch did scare the **** out of me but I feel it made me stronger as a result too.

[The Moleman]

When I was 10 my 18yr old brother put on a video of 'Aliens' to babysit me, it's left me damaged...

[PaTaito]

Admittadly heart rippig scene from Indy 2 and Superman 3 computer bitch did scare the **** out of me but I feel it made me stronger as a result too.

Yeah this is true, you get the scared bit out of your system...by the time i was a teenage lad nothing bothered me.

at 12-13 me and my mates all used to gather round aliens special edition and have a right laugh at it.

When I was 10 my 18yr old brother put on a video of 'Aliens' to babysit me, it's left me damaged...

In what way if you dont mind me asking?

[Dogg Thang]

Thing is, unless you had a twin and they lived in totally different media conditions, you can't say what the effect was. I was fairly bubbled when it came to television until a babysitter decided to put on the Exorcist when I was about 9 or 10. Being honest, I remember very little about it and don't know of any negative effects although I was massively into horror as a teen - a lot of that was about interest in the makeup and effects. My sister on the other hand watched Twin Peaks, tame by comparison, and only revealed as an adult that she was tortured by nightmares as a result. Doesn't mean she was affected more than me, just means her results were more obvious. It all goes in and I'm not sure desensitisation is a good result.

The research into early childhood is pretty clear that violent and not age-appropriate content has a negative effect, although the ability to deal with this varies massively from child to child (doesn't mean they come away with a positive). One study I found a while back was particularly interesting because they deliberately set out to show that kids would come away more able to deal with tough situations when a little older if they weren't shielded so much from media as a young kid. The result was the opposite - the ones who only saw age-appropriate stuff came out stronger. The speculation on why that was comes from other studies which show that exposure to violent media leads to a skewed world view in which people think the world is more dangerous than it really is. That's 'mean world syndrome' and it results in kids (and adults) being more fearful and quicker to react negatively and lash out. Those who have not been exposed to violent media until emotionally really ready for it have a more balanced world view and a stronger, safer sense of self so they are more confident in difficult situations. That's the theory anyway but it has come up time and time again in research dating as far back as the 1950s and running all the way to today.

I was in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and saw a few kids in that about 8 or so and it really struck me as a poor idea. That was a very dark, violent movie. But parents have got to make their own decisions, I guess. If those decisions were really based on how well they know their kid, then great. Many kids could be just fine with it. But I'm not convinced all parents are as responsible.

The fact that people come here and ask is a testament to good parenting, in my opinion. And as someone else recommended (Charles I think), Common Sense Media is a great resource for views on age-appropriateness of media. Check it out if you haven't already.

[PaTaito]

Thing is, unless you had a twin and they lived in totally different media conditions, you can't say what the effect was. I was fairly bubbled when it came to television until a babysitter decided to put on the Exorcist when I was about 9 or 10. Being honest, I remember very little about it and don't know of any negative effects although I was massively into horror as a teen - a lot of that was about interest in the makeup and effects. My sister on the other hand watched Twin Peaks, tame by comparison, and only revealed as an adult that she was tortured by nightmares as a result. Doesn't mean she was affected more than me, just means her results were more obvious. It all goes in and I'm not sure desensitisation is a good result.

The research into early childhood is pretty clear that violent and not age-appropriate content has a negative effect, although the ability to deal with this varies massively from child to child (doesn't mean they come away with a positive). One study I found a while back was particularly interesting because they deliberately set out to show that kids would come away more able to deal with tough situations when a little older if they weren't shielded so much from media as a young kid. The result was the opposite - the ones who only saw age-appropriate stuff came out stronger. The speculation on why that was comes from other studies which show that exposure to violent media leads to a skewed world view in which people think the world is more dangerous than it really is. That's 'mean world syndrome' and it results in kids (and adults) being more fearful and quicker to react negatively and lash out. Those who have not been exposed to violent media until emotionally really ready for it have a more balanced world view and a stronger, safer sense of self so they are more confident in difficult situations. That's the theory anyway but it has come up time and time again in research dating as far back as the 1950s and running all the way to today.

I was in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and saw a few kids in that about 8 or so and it really struck me as a poor idea. That was a very dark, violent movie. But parents have got to make their own decisions, I guess. If those decisions were really based on how well they know their kid, then great. Many kids could be just fine with it. But I'm not convinced all parents are as responsible.

The fact that people come here and ask is a testament to good parenting, in my opinion. And as someone else recommended (Charles I think), Common Sense Media is a great resource for views on age-appropriateness of media. Check it out if you haven't already.

Given the world we currently live in, worrying about some very mild fantasy violence in a film would be the last of my concerns for my family...ignorance is bliss and all that, but i think a certain degree of exposure is important personally.

The faces on a couple of kids in my family who are particularly sheltered, when the london riots were all over the news was a real picture, although it was shocking. CCTV footage of an injured foreign lad getting his backpack nicked and psp stolen, people smashing shop windows in, someone shown with a machete after beheading a man in the street...aired all over the news, for me thats a far more worrying watch than a bit of violence in a comic book film.

Not a slight against the way anyone decides to bring their own kids up though, god knows there are enough absolutely horribly behaved kids these days, so a degree of care is generally lacking, but just personally for these reasons i believe that overdoing it is in vein.

And by overdoing it i mean i wouldn't worry about a 10 year old lad watching guardians with his parents, i'd be more worried what he was watching on the news at home, or what he was looking at on his ipad/laptop...which kids all seem to have these days.

[QualityChimp]

The thing is, you don't know how the kid is going to deal with it, so why take the risk?

A few people have already mentioned being affected by things they'd seen as kids.

Children struggle to differentiate between fantasy and real violence, so even though we see it and move on, it stays with them.

There's plenty of age-appropriate films, so if people are taking their children because they think they're ready, that's up to them, but I suspect it's easier to drag 'em along than sort a babysitter.

The boys who watch violent films, when asked by their teachers to write a story, usually end up writing about explosions, shooting and killing, because that's what they think is entertaining.

Just because there are ways to access violence, doesn't mean you should give up trying to guide your kids.

I've given my opinion, Dogg's given some facts, but ultimately it's up to each parent to decide, but I've found my opinions on what's suitable have changed since becoming a dad.

[Finsbury Girl]

Hmm... Personally, I don't think so. The Guardians don't do much killing, but everybody else sure do!

There's some swearing too.

Yeah, give it a miss, but I always thought you were older than 10, Finsbury!

Only physically!!

[PaTaito]

The thing is, you don't know how the kid is going to deal with it, so why take the risk?

A few people have already mentioned being affected by things they'd seen as kids.

Children struggle to differentiate between fantasy and real violence, so even though we see it and move on, it stays with them.

There's plenty of age-appropriate films, so if people are taking their children because they think they're ready, that's up to them, but I suspect it's easier to drag 'em along than sort a babysitter.

The boys who watch violent films, when asked by their teachers to write a story, usually end up writing about explosions, shooting and killing, because that's what they think is entertaining.

Just because there are ways to access violence, doesn't mean you should give up trying to guide your kids.

I've given my opinion, Dogg's given some facts, but ultimately it's up to each parent to decide, but I've found my opinions on what's suitable have changed since becoming a dad.

I'm not saying take the risk, i'm saying personally i weigh up what they are seeing in a movie vs what they are seeing in every day life...most of the time the movies don't even come close, unless we are talking robocop lol.

Like i say though i'd never criticize anyone for making parental effort, i just find certain films being branded violent as a bit much....never once did guardians of the galaxy strike me as a film i'd be worried about showing the kids for example.

Certainly nothing that would stick with a kid of 10.

[The Moleman]

In what way if you dont mind me asking?

I was exaggerating a bit. But watching it for the first time left me absolutely terrified and I couldn't remove the imagery from my mind. It gave me nightmares for years...

I was born in '86 and grew up watching a lot of scary shows and movies:
The X Files
Halloween
The Exorcist
Fire in the Sky
Suspiria
Dead Trilogy
The Thing
Hellraiser
Scanners
Ringu


As a kid i knew it was all fiction, but to this day there are two films which still genuinely scare me, Alien and The Fly. They're both made with such disturbing imagery. Giger once said his designs came from nightmares he had as a kid, poor bastard...

You only have to witness the racist rage kids on COD to see how exposing kids to certain subjects, in this case violence, can have a huge negative impact. Will I show horror movies to my kids of the future? I really don't know. It depends on the child and their ability to know the difference between fantasy and reality, it varies from kid to kid.

[bash]

Ok so just watched hunger games, I know its been around but I avoided it thinking it was battle royale mixed with Twilight. Maybe the books are as much but the film was played pretty dark n gritty with a fair amount of heart and I just love the reality tv/Pop Idol satire. Its running man for teenagers but less camp and better acting. I dont buy Jen Lawrence as an attractive female but no denying shes a bloody good actress, shes like a chameleon and I buy into all the roles I've seen her play.

The bit where she

->Open Spoiler<-

finds her mate camo'd up as a rock and he grabs her leg

had me cracking up. I cant believe that hasnt been spoofed more.

Interested in the sequel catching fire now, is it any good?

[Neon Ignition]

Catching Fire, I'd probably say is very similar if a little tighter made lifting it a little bit above the first film

[buster_broon]

chinese zodiac
It's meant to be armour of god 3 but I'm sure he is called Asian hawk in the others but in this he is referred to as J.C. - anyway that aside it's alright, not as fantastic as armour of god but some of the fight sequences from a 60 year old man are just as complexed as he has ever done, shame really as the best bit of the movie are the ending credits, as usual you have the out takes but then you have a montage from a lot of his movies from the Guinness book of records for the current record he holds as most live stunts by one man and it serves as a tribute since it's meant to be his last movie - didn't even know this existed until yesterday.

One thing I loved In The original was how he got chewing gum into his mouth and it's still in this one but for the more complex ones it's blatantly CGI whereas in the original I tried to do the off the door and could never get it or slapping my wrist to get them in my mouth ended up with them in my eyes

I first saw jackie in Enter the dragon as a henchman and beaten by Bruce lee (twice) then started watching him when he started to get major billing in movies like magnificent bodyguards and became a fan since snake in the eagles shawdow and still have a massive box full of VHS tapes in my mums loft of his movies

If I had to pick a top 5 it would be the following:
Armour of god
Project A
Police story 2 (love the ending warehouse sequence rather than the shopping centre fight in the first)
Wheels on meals (benny the jet is brilliant)
Snake in the eagles shadow

[CMcK]

I've been waiting for CZ to hit Blu-ray over here glad to see its out now. I think I should agree with your JC top 5. All fantastic action with classic fight scenes.