Skyfall - suitable for 8 year old?

[zozzle]

New bond film - too gruesome or ok for an 8 year old boy?

Thanks

[KatharineClifton]

Or ten year old?

[TheDeathAndGories]

No

It's a 12a is it not?

[KatharineClifton]

12A doesn't mean no under 12's though. So 12A may or may not be suitable hence the question. www.bbfc.co.uk/classification/guidelines/12a12/

[FromGirders]

Wait til it.comes out, then look at the parental advisory section on IMDB. It'll give you a fairly detailed.list.of any possibly too-violent / unsuitable bits.

[lazymaisy]

My 9 year old DS has just come back from seeing it with his Dad saying it was epic! So I suppose it depends on the child.

[KatharineClifton]

Thanks FromGirders, found it www.imdb.com/title/tt1074638/parentalguide

Doesn't help much though. Probably will leave it considering Casino Royale was also 12A despite the torture scene.

[KatharineClifton]

Crossposted with you lazymaisy. Thanks.

[PanonHigh]

Saw it last night. I'd be dubious about bringing dd who is 12. There's a fair amount of violence and few children of that age would come home and say they were 'unsettled' by it, when they maybe were.

[PhyllisDoris]

I think it would be absolutely fine for u12s. Not nearly as gory as some Bonds, and no sex scenes either.

[MsAmerica]

Excuse me, but just because a child enjoys something doesn't necessarily mean it's suitable.

[KatharineClifton]

You're excused MsAmerica. p.s. That is the point of the thread, no?

[MirandaWest]

I've seen it and am happy for DS who is 8 to see it - he'll be going with his dad later on this week.

[MrsVincentPrice]

Mmm. I did actually but it was a bit strong for him - there's a few really scary bits and people die, and it's very long.

That said, he didn't have nightmares and has played James Bond games with DD and the teddy bears ever since, so I don't think it's done any harm.

[Wallison]

I would say a hesitant 'yes', depending on the 8 year-old. There is some violence, but most of it is done in a 'Bond' type of way ie stylised and nobody obviously suffering/no lingering shots of gore. Just the same as the other Bond films they were showing during the day on ITV pretty recently. The only exception to this is a bit where he makes a surface cut into himself to get some shrapnel out (it's relevant to the plot, honest!), but again the camera doesn't linger and you don't get to see much and it's all over very quickly.

There's a couple of snogging moments, and one scene where he's briefly in the shower with a woman, but it only shows their heads and again it's not really that different to the other Bond films (naked woman covered in gold anyone? And we watched that as kids).

M swears quite a lot. If you don't want your kid to hear swearing, you might not like that. But again, it isn't gratuitous and is mostly funny and after all they hear worse in the playground.

In the main though, it's a fine film in the escapist tradition that is Bond which I think would put it into the 'family viewing' category for those with slightly older children ie 7/8 or older. Apart from the ultimately quite minor points above, it's not much different to any of the other earlier ones - I mean, there's nothing dark or disturbing or sinister about it (compared to, to my mind, the latter Harry Potters for example).

[QuickLookBusy]

I wouldn't have let mine at that age, but I suppose it depends on the child.

Mine would have hated all the killing, there's a lot of shooting people dead, mine would have been worried by it but I realise others wouldn't.

[zamantha]

no

[Oblomov]

I will be taking ds1, nearly 9, to see it. He has seen all the bond films and adores them. He even wrote a letter to Roger Moore (fan club) and told roger that he thought he was the best bond ever. Bless him.
So, yes, I will be taking him. And yes, I do know what the 12 means. It means I can take am under 12, if I think it is suitable.

[Colyngbourne]

Bond films now are different from Bond films of old, where the villains were more cartoonish and fairly easily defeated - the violence also is more bitter and realistic. I would not take an under-11 to Skyfall because some of the violence is strong but also is quite intimately portrayed and is more likely to be disturbing and upsetting to younger children. Young children in the cinema where I saw it were covering their eyes at various points and really didn't either get or like the very disturbing villain who behaves in nasty ways to certain characters. I think seeing this kind of violence leads to it being normalised as a part of a child's experience of a film at an early age. In a living room the parent has some chance of talking through some of the issues, or covering children's eyes for certain scenes, which is more difficult in the cinema.

Most parents taking their under-12's to this won't know whether it's suitable until they have seen it themselves.

The sex scenes are relatively mild and passable, though there is also a threat of a non-consensual homosexual encounter made against Bond, though younger children may or may not notice most of the elements that might concern parents when considering taking them to see this.

[Tikkabillajive]

Useful info here: www.pbbfc.co.uk/filmDetail.asp?filmID=2525 Personally I wouldn't even consider taking my nearly 8 year old but she is v sensitive. Someone I know took their 4 yr old .

[LadyMargolotta]

No. Too violent.

[BeckAndCall]

I wouldn't have let any of mine see it at 8 or 10. 12 to me would be the very lower limit.

[ninah]

I think it is OK, depends on child I guess hence the category - parental judgement
I took dc 10 and 7, they get that it's not real
You know your ds, zozzle