Part 0800.0005

[missuscluck]

Went to see Batman last night. Has anyone else seen it and what did you think of it?

 

I should have looked into it more. We went as a familly. It is a 12A and foolishly we took our daughter who is 10 1/2 thinking she would be fine. She was the one who really wanted to see it.

 

She lasted about 20 minuites and my husband took her home and then drove back to pick us up when the film had finished. To be honest, neither of us minded leaving and both were happy to go. He won!

 

Im not sure about the 12 A. I would have said it was more of a 15. Heath Ledgers portrayal ot the Joker is quite disturbing for younger veiwers.

 

My overall thoughts on the film are...weak story line (I got 'lost' a number of times ) violence continually through the film for the sake of it, a very wooden performance from 'Batman' and visually disappointing.

 

Ledgers performance walked away with the film.

 

The old Batman movies were set in a fantasy Gotham, so were visualy good. This was set in real life. It just dosent work.

[Guest]

My 19yo and 16 yo have both seen the film. My 13yo is going this afternoon. DD1 has frequently said that she doesn't think it is suitable for DD3 and would certainly agree with you about the 12A. I am still letting her go, but I would not let my 10yo see the film.

 

I think that sometimes the potential popularity of a film colours the ratings it is given. The first Lord of the Rings was a PG and really gruesome. The rating of a film should be a guide to parents and by the sound of it, it is not in the case of the latest Batman

[Egluntyne]

There has been a lot of talk about the British censors lack of judgement in giving this the 12a rating.

 

**Article here**.

[chocchick]

I thought it was really good and Heath Ledger does deserve an oscar or some award, but I'm an adult and I was scared

It should have at least been 15. The violence was actually implied a lot rather than shown though. The bit with the face (not to give away plot) was very grisly and I could hardly watch.

I think it is down to the fact a high certificate reduces the audience and box office takings e.g. Hancock was edited when it received an 18 for that reason.

[Snowy]

OH and ES took me to see it the other week. I really didn't like it - it lurched from one nasty event to another with no let up. At the end I could only wonder at Heath Ledgers state of mind after playing that part. He was excellent - but it was a very dark film. It actually left me feeling very flat - when i go to the pictures I do like to see something that stirs very different emotions, not one that drains them completely. And definitely not suitable for under 12s - should've been a 15.

[Ms Marple]

Saw it last week with both sons and OH. Enjoyed it (sort of). Would agree that it is very 'dark' and that Heath Ledgar's performance was very scary. Especially the scene towards the end with his head out of the car window looking quite manic.

Think is should have been a 15 as not really in same style as earlier versions - deliberately I know. But I remember my 20 year old running around in his batman outfit being a superhero which seemed to match the earlier movies with Michael Keaton. THis leaves us with Batman's public image as that of a baddy. Not sure I'd be so keen to buy the suit this time round. But then, they had no guns when they wee really small and so fashioned them out of toast! So as long as you allow the discussion/conversation to explain the thinking it is perhsps ok for some younger children??

[missuscluck]

I feel a bit daft that I just agreed to going without checking it out a bit further. I think I am too far into 'chilled summer holiday' mode and have lost all sense.

Snowy, I felt the same as you when I came out. I like to be awed at the cinema. If you are going to fork out to see it on the big screen, you should be rewarded by a visual spectacle. It was dull and depressing, even the 'chase' scene was a big yawn.

[chelsea]

we've seen it, its a bit "different" to what I was expecting. Quite scary for youngsters IMO

 

Heath Ledgers acting was superb though.

[Guest]

I'm very interested by all this actually. My 13yo DD3 has just seen it today and wasn't at all alarmed or disturbed by it. Her friend, same age, has seen it twice and feels the same. My 16yo, DD2, was unfazed too as was DD3's friend's 16yo brother. But my 19yo DD1 still thinks the film was horrific. I suspect she has transferred into adulthood a bit and is horrified that any child should be watching it. Hey-ho!

[Helly Welly]

We went to see it as a family, DD is 9, and she was't disturbed at all. I agree that Heath Ledger was the star of the fim but we enjoyed the whole film. Not as good as Wall-E though.

 

There were extra posters up at our cinema saying that although the film was a 12A there was implied viollence throughout and may not be suitable for younger viewers.

[Seagazer]

We saw this film last weekend with our youngest son (10 and nearly 3/4).

 

I thought Heath Ledger played the Joker briliantly (but could sense how it might have affected him).

 

I kept closing my eyes at the bits I thought were violent although my OH said that you didn't really see anything. I think it was a scary and depressing film. I came out feeling very low (my exact words when we discussed it was that I will never get those 2 1/2 hours of my life back!).

 

My hubby and son enjoyed it and couldn't understand why I was so worried about the violence and darkness of the film.

 

Give me Mamma Mia any day.

[Rhapsody]

Lets face it everyone buys DVD's and watches them at home so all this censorship is pretty meaningless. My younger son was quite easily disturbed (and still is at 14) by some things on film so I would be careful what he watched, my Elder Son saw this with friends and he said he was blown away by HL's portrayal of The Joker.

I love Supehero films and cant wait to see it myself.

[Seagazer]

I think this is the problem with my YS as his brother is 17 and sister nearly 21 - so big age gaps. They watch things I wouldn't let them watch at his age and just let him watch the dvd or programme with them.

 

The amount of times he has turned round and said about a 15 film 'oh I've watched that' makes my blood boil.

[Guest]

Lets face it everyone buys DVD's and watches them at home so all this censorship is pretty meaningless.

Not in my house!

[Rhapsody]

Sorry Ginette- Everyone apart from Ginette buys DVD's and watches them at home so all this censorship is pretty meaningless.

[Guest]

[Snowy]

You're not the only one Ginette, I'm really strict with age limits too!

 

I agree the violence was implied most of the time rather than actual - possibly why it didn't affect the younger ones the same. I think when you are older you are more able to see the potential for harm! My 16 year old thoroughly enjoyed it!

[BarbaraJ]

i saw it with hubby, i thought it was gloomy, too long and depressing, didn't feel like others, i had had a screen experience! was actually falling asleep. i think theres something wrong with me i didnt think the joker was that bad! oh dear does that say something about me much preferred the last one, much more entyertaining and really don't like Maggie Gyllenhaal thought she was very wooden!

Edited August 7, 2008 by Guest

[spratly0]

My eldest daughter (20) and is a film student she thought it was a good film rather than a great film, youngest daughter (18) saw it yesterday at IMAX in london and can't stop raving about it.

 

I will go in a couple of weeks when most fuss has died down, hopefully less teens and paper rustlers in then. I to like a superhero - am looking forward to it.

[jlo]

Just watched it this afternoon. Son (13) and daughter (11) were not at all fazed by it. Like others on this thread I found the implied violence more disturbing than was actually shown. The problem with a 12A is that much younger children will be taken by their parents to see it and I agree that it could be very scary.

 

Having said that, I found it entertaining and was pleased to have DD holding my hand during the really tense bits!