Batman The Dark Knight - I don't like the 12a classification

[Frizbe]

www.bbfc.co.uk/classification/c_12.php

Went to see this last night, great movie fantasic true to the comic portrayl of The Joker by Mr Ledger (RIP) but I'm uneasy with the 12a classification....due to the psychological content of the movie. I honestly think any 12 year old I know would have nightmares after seeing this film, and 12a means Adults can take younger kids in, if they see fit, right?

Does anyone else agree with me? I think a 12 would have been more appropriate, due to lack of nudity it doesn't warrent a 15, but I can see this seriously messing with some young minds.

[Frizbe]

well I can see them wanting to cash in on the toys, enjoy it tonight, it is great, pay for very comfy seats though, its long

[MamaG]

No nudity? Damn

[Flamesparrow]

Hmmm... I'm not sure how much would go over kids heads tbh, so not as bad as it could be (does that make sense?)

[differentID]

I didn't think any films were given 12 ratings any more as they weren't as commercially attractive? I have a problem with that, and I agree that many of the 12A films that are coming out should really be 12 or in a couple of cases 15 certificates.

[MarsLady]

I have to say I'm a wicked mother. If it says 12a my kids don't see it before they are 12. Of course I would also vet the film and if (in my personal opinion) they've classified the film too young then the kids don't see it!

[differentID]

My friends lo is 8 years old later this year and is very much into film classifications at the moment. We have a rule in our house that if it's a U or PG then he may watch it. If it's something like Pirates of the Caribbean then he may not watch it at our place because it's a 12 rating on the DVD.

[PortAndLemon]

There aren't any 12s any more -- they abolished that classification when they introduced 12A. So if it doesn't warrant a 15 (although personally I get rather about the idea that a 12-14 year old can see significant violence/scariness but a bit of nudity is unacceptable) then a 12A is the only option.

Personally I am selfishly glad it's a 12A because that means that cinemas other than the private clubs can show it in mother-and-baby screenings (I do assume that stuff goes over the head of a four-month-old and she won't be traumatised by films)

[theSuburbanDryad]

Way too violent for under 12's IMHO. Fabulous film though - although v long (which would be the other reason I wouldn't take an under 12 to see it). Didn't like the way Gotham looked though - all glass and shiny steel - thought it looked more like Metropolis!

The only reason it wasn't a 15 is because there was not a single bit of swearing in it!

[theSuburbanDryad]

Have you seen Dark Knight yet? If you like Alan Moore's Batman better than Frank Miller's (NOT the All-Stars cack, natch!) then you'll love DK.

I wonder when they'll do Dark Knight Returns?

[ranting]

Ds went to see it on Sunday and he reckons it was good but gory and he's 14, he did say the Joker was the best thing in it!

I can't stand the way that Christian Bale 'rasps', I saw the other one and it irritated me, no end.

Mind you (sucks teeth, adjusts blue rinse), I don't think there has EVER been a better Batman than Adam West, these new fangled versions with their 6 packs just don't hold a candle to him. Batman should have a slight paunch.

[PortAndLemon]

Saw it today -- brilliant, but I would make it a 15.

[Frizbe]

NDTH looks good doesn't it, really hoping it does live upto expectation

Glad I'm not going bonkers then, re the certification! tis a fab movie, but more for 14/15 up.

[swedishmum]

I went with dd (14) last week - great but very violent and some gruesome scenes. Dh took ds (11) today and said there were some pre-school age kids in there. Mad! Dd (film fan) reckons the gorgeous Mr Depp is mooted for the sequel. Could just be wishful thinking but apparently she saw it on the internet.

[nooka]

I saw this last night at 9.30. There was a family sitting behind us, with three of four youngish kids, who spent a lot of time running to the loos. We thought about it for our 9 year old, but having watched Batman Begins decided that it might well give him nightmares. Actually I thought the first one was probably more scary, but that he would have found it difficult to cope with the length and complexity of Dark Knight.

We thought it was fantastic though

[LazyLinePainterJane]

Well there are no 12's any more. It's not necessarily the case that just because it doesn't make the grade for a 15, it will get a 12A, they may well have been told that it falls between the two and that they would have to remove some material to get the 12A rating.

There does seem to be massive variance though in the 12A classifications and what gets put out.

[WideWebWitch]

I agree, dh went to see it and said it is absolutely not suitable for ds, who is 10. There was an article in the Sunday Times yesterday agreeing too, record no of complaints to the BBFC - reckon Warner put pressure on to keep it a 12a tbh.

[LazyLinePainterJane]

It does seem odd though. I mean, it is NOT a children's film. The whole series was never really a kids film in the same way that Spider-man was. That one with Arnie in was a PG, but that was a joke. Seems odd to me that both of the latest ones have been 12A's when the whole tone of the film isn't.

[chelsygirl]

I though Spiderwick Chronicles was too scary for 12!

[Dottydot]

Dp and I went to see it and I thought it was horifically violent - not suitable at all for under 12s and way more violent than things like the Spiderman films. It was psychologically scary as well as having so many deaths in it.

I didn't enjoy it and I'm not a wuss - can't believe people take their young children. Why would you want your child to see people being killed, kidnaped, terrified. Don't get it.

[Hulababy]

DH agrees that it is too voilent and dark for children, and was suprised at such a low rating, having seen it.