DonnachaOne

No.

Michael Corvin

Exactly. Some children may be more mature, but ratings are still there for a reason. And like others pointed out, this is a hard-R, no question. Borderline NC-17. A few different edits and style choices and it would have been. No doubt in my mind. The question remains, would you want your child seeing a movie where


That was probably the worst, but I only saw it once and it isn't fresh in my mind.

taa455

My answer would be no.

Drop

Depends fully on your son's maturity, like the other posters have said. I could handle stuff like this when I was fifteen, heck probably when I was 12 I could have been okay with it. Although I'm not sure how much I would have appreciated it. I think that is important when you consider showing movies to children or teens or anyone really. If you think he won't really appreciate it for what it is, or get the wrong message, then don't let him see it.

Of course, he is at the age where he is smart enough to do things on his own and get his way, so he'll see it one way or another. Your choice, man, be the dad. Hope any advice helped.

fumanstan

It sounds like you simply believe that violence is more "acceptable" then sexual content, which i think is debatable. I know many people are more cautious towards that type of material, however i think both are equal in terms of ratings and whether a younger child should view them.

Personally, at 15, i would say they shouldn't watch either. Yes, it depends on the 15 year old. And at 15, i know i would be clamoring to be able to watch these films or try and buy tickets to them, but because both of these films are hard R ratings, i would go the "the ratings and rules are there for a reason" line

cleaver

Big no for Saw, depends on the kid but probably no for Sin City.

thephantom

I haven't seen Saw, but would you really consider the violence in Sin City to be much worse than say Conan or Predator? Both those movies feature a fair number of decapatations and/or loss of limbs without the stylization and in color. I think 15 is pretty much ready for anything. Wasn't that long ago in human history when a 15 year old would be married and have kids.

As for the rating system, I'm not real sure why it's much of a yardstick for anything. It's basically just random peoples opinion, essentially the same as what you're getting here. Actually better, since you might be more familiar with some of us, and can read our post history. The MPAA rating is more like just asking strangers leaving the movie. The only real advice I can give you is watch it for yourself, and then decide if he should see it.

Gerry P.

Yes. The violence in Sin City is pretty much non-stop.

Jray

I don't think it's debatable at all. I was going to respond to NestoJR's post directly but wanted to continue this discussion... I think this is what is wrong with our crazy society nowadays. How can we possibly think that watching people get shot, killed, decapitated and disemboweled is "better" than seeing some boobs? That's wrong in so many ways. I'd much rather my kid (if I had one) have sex than do anything half as bad as what happens in Sin City or Saw. That's putting it simplistically obviously.

I just think it's funny that the human body is viewed as "dirty" when shown without clothes. Hardcore sex on TV or in a movie is a different story.

Back to the original question - I'd say both movies are pretty intense and beyond what the average 15 year old should see. That said - isn't that who the Sin City comics are aimed at???

majorjoe23

But you have seen someones scrotem ripped off and foot cut off in the street?

fumanstan

I agree, and i only threw out the debatable term because there is such a large distincition between what is acceptable for viewing, including from members here. I agree with you, i think violent acts are FAR worse then some sexual content, especially something like Scary Movie that i would hardly consider pornographic. Especially considering its comedic nature, which is far more tame then say, Irreversible.

I don't believe Sin City comics are aimed at 15 year olds at all, but at a mature audience.

NatrlBornThrllr

I haven't seen either, however, I'll respond generically. I'm going to turn 21 in about two month's time. I'm old enough, now, to be able to lead my life as I see fit. However, I'm also young enough to remember what it was like to be 15. I saw Scary Movie at that age. Did it scar me for life? Of course not. Have I, since seeing it at that "impressionable age," gone on to kill a man by sticking my penis through his skull? Not that I recall. I simply laughed at some of the jokes, rolled my eyes at others, bonded with those friends whose parents allowed them to see it, and quickly thereafter dismissed the entire experience. No harm done.

I think people should look at things in the proper perspective, and with issues like these, that never seems to occur. Often, people will hear "15 years old" and immediately envision an innocent child in need of protection. Simply put, that's very rarely the case. Kids are maturing faster today than ever before. At 15, kids are starting to experiment with sexual acts...and, given the opportunity with a few friends around, they might sneak a shot or two from dad's liquor cabinet just to see what all of the fuss is about. They're exposed to a constant onslaught of profanity and dick-and-fart jokes at school. They're 1 year away from being able to opperate a motor vehicle on public roadways. They're 2 years away from being able to see any movie they want at their own liesure, and 3 years away from being allowed to do whatever they please outside of drinking alcohol.

To put it simply, it's been said that one of the most vital factors of parenting is knowing when to pick your battles. There's no sense in picking this one. If you tell you child that he can't see this film, no good is likely to come of it. For starters, he'll probably see the film at a friend's house anyway. Sure, you'll stick your ground as a parent. Perhaps the kid will then respect you for that. Or, perhaps he'll resent you. Perhaps he'll hesitate to tell you the truth about where he's going, a year from now, when that first big babes-n'-booze high school party is thrown. Perhaps he'll begin to lie about the level of parental supervision at little Tommy's house this weekend, remembering back to the time that you wouldn't even let him see something as trivial as a movie.

I don't know. I don't have any kids of my own, so perhaps I can't possibly understand the responsibility entailed. Conversely, though, I think parents often lose touch with the mindset of the very people they're parenting. Having a kid that's willing to be open and honest with you...that's important, infinately more important than refusing to allow him to see some violent action film that he will discuss with his buddies for a few days, and then quickly dismiss.

-JP

pdinosaur

i think they prefer to be mocked using the word "Sinamax"

Y2K Falcon

It's no accident that I'm only asking about these films, and not rated R films in general. I would have no problem with him pulling my copy of Patriot Games or Air Force one off the shelf, or asking to see Passion of theLast Temptation of Christ. And we've watched Aliens together.

Saw seems to have a different feel than many other R flicks (though admittedly I haven't seen it). Kind of a Kill Bill without the humorous edge. I wouldn't blink to have him in the room while watching Beverly Hills Cop or the like (though I may skip past the ineveitable strip club scene). The violence in films like the Friday the Thirteenth series, or the Screams of the world is short and usually abrubt for a quick jump out of your seat shock, where the audience may even laugh at some of the acting/action. I'm ok with that more than a long drawn out gory sequence, though to an extent at least the beach landing scene of SPR has historical value.

I'm not naive enough to think that he won't gain access to some of the things we don't want him to, but on the other side, I don't want to be the supplier of them either.

Sure, he may find a way to get a six pack with his friends, but I won't wrap one up as a birthday present...

ScrapbookGal

I am an adult. I grudgingly watched this movie with my husband. I think it needs something more than an R rating personally. I honestly thought the story was something like a 16 year old would write. (Really warped unrealistic ideas about violence and women!)
I don't think any teenager needs to see that many partially clothed women with weapons and fully packed hours of violence.
Just my .02

thephantom

So you think Kill Bill is ok, but some boobs is a problem? I don't even remember what that movie shows, if anything. I'm not trying to start an arguement with you, just think that's a little odd.

*Edit* That movie being Bevery Hills Cop.

taa455

This is not an attack on the poster I have quoted or anyone personally. I just wanted to respond to the idea that kids are maturing faster. Simply being exposed to violence and sex does NOT translate to maturity in those areas. The sad thing is kids these days are so bombarded with sex and violence they become oblivious to it and, in time, very casual about both. This may influence their own personal decisions, or not. The effect varies depending on the individual. The question is why are we as a society (especially kids) entertained by people killing each other in more and more horrific ways. Personally I don't get it. It will be a sad day when my son at 15 years old sees people getting their limbs cut off and their entrails spilt all over and respond with, "Woah. Cool!" I know that day will probably come, but as a parent I will try to teach him that violence (even though it's "only a movie" or it may be "stylized") should not to be glorified. Kids are "maturing" faster because parents aren't laying down boundaries, and if they do, the boundaries are gradually retreating. In ten years, we'll be saying Sin City and Saw are fine for a 10 or 12 year old because of all the much worse stuff that will be out by then.

Another thing is just because he will hear it at school or see it at a friend's house, that won't get me to endorse or support it. If the OP is hesitant about giving his approval for his kid to watch these films, that is probably a gut feeling he doesn't need to ignore. I realize this is an unpopular opinion on this forum, but it's my honest feeling.

thephantom

Well, I disagree. I think kids are maturing much more slowly, not in terms of experience but in how they process those experiences. They've been exposed to mounds more information of every type, but expectations from them are alarmingly low from what I've seen, and consequently the results are just as low.

I feel they're capable of so much more at those ages. Our history as a species has proven this time and and again, and it's only been within the last 50 years or so that the majority of children have been coddled at this level. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should start forcing 12 year olds to be adults. I just think we should stop treating them like they're still 6.

naitram

Ditto. I don't even think I was old enough to see either of those movies (and I'm double that age).

NatrlBornThrllr

Perhaps we're just interacting with different people. Most of my contact with people younger than I am has left the stark impression that these teenagers are both intelligent, and sufficiently ready to handle mature matters (be it taking on extra responsibility, or going out to see a gore-film without letting it warp their psyche).

Like I said, not even a decade ago, I was around that age. Now, living on my own, paying my bills...being out in the "real world," I look back and realize that the maturity level of most of my peers was astounding, albeit not recognized by most authority figures. Granted, there are some that age who aren't mature enough to be behind the wheel of a car, spend a weekend at home by themselves, and so forth...but in retrospect, I'd say that's certainly the minority, despite what the masses think.

Simply put, I'm only a few years out of that phase of life, with memories fresh of the discussions, interactions, and actions partaken in by my peers. I speak from experience and personal interaction, not from some baseless notion that I pulled from thin air about exposure to questionable material correlating with maturity levels.

-JP

Julie Walker

First of all Saw would definitely be appropriate for him to see if you let him watch the various films you already mentioned(friday the 13th,passion etc).

It is not 'that' gory of a film. The majority of the violence(which is not much) is offscreen,with brief glimpses of the yucky stuff.

It is far less violent than all of Sin City and the films you listed.

But if you already allowed him to watch such ultra-violent gruesome films like The Passion. Sin City should be a walk in the park



Now I don't understand your comment on Beverly Hills Cop. "Oh I have no problem with him watching this,but I'd skip over the strip club sequence". Again considering you let him watch The Passion among other violent gory films. What harm will brief glimpses of breasts(not even full nudity!!!!) cause???

This goes back to the beyond misguided message of "Nudity evil...violence good!".


I never understood that fear of simple nudity while allowing all forms of violence(even when people say they don't let their kids watch graphic violence...but 'tame' violence..violence is violence,so why is that ok..but any glimpse of nudity is 'wrong'???).

I am glad I thought about all this when I was young and facing the hypocrisy of "shut your eyes/fast forward the naughty nude parts..but the violence? no problem...watch all you like!".

If I chose to watch a film,and it contained graphic violence or nudity. I'd be more likely to view the nudity,but close my eyes..or peek through my fingers durring some of the more gruesome moments(since afterall,the effects can be realistic and disturbing looking at that age). But overall I chose to watch the film..and would watch them all mostly without closing my eyes or turning my head away.

Did I turn into an anti-social delinquient? Nope,I don't even drink or do drugs...despite all the films I have seen,which contained such things. I am also still a virgin at the moment..despite seeing many sexually explicit films.


Now if you want him to turn out like my sheltered cousins who were shielded from all 'objectionable' things in the cinema(even Disney films!!). They turned out into drugged out,alchohalics,violence loving macho-wannabes(some doing prison time) experiancing all the 'sins' they were sheltered from and never told about(besides 'thats wrong'). Then go right ahead,no one is stopping you

Y2K Falcon

Well, maybe it's my fault for not having yet viewed my copy of Passion Last Temptation Criterion. (so many DVDs, so little time ) Perhaps I shouldn't have put that on the list.

But unless I have faulty memory, I don't recall anyone in Beverly Hills Cop or Air Force One having their limbs removed on screen. And I'm more likely to remember the banana in the tailpipe scene. I'm not aware of any scenes I've heard discussed in Saw that didn't involve intense gore for gore's sake. Which is why I brought up Kill Bill. I should have put a paragraph break above. I would prefer he not see Kill Bill either, because I don't want to pander to a film that just gets bloody for the sake of getting bloody. The movies I mention AFTER that, I'm ok with seeing (well, with the caveat for my mention of The Passion Last Temptation which I hadn't viewed, but he wouldn't want to see anyway cause it's not "cool").

thephantom

I was referring to this statement


when I brought up the boobs in Beverly Hills Cop. Something along the same lines of what Julie is talking about. As big a fan of violent cinema as I am, I believe that most movies in this country could do with a whole lot more sex and whole lot less violence. Us Americans are ridiculously uptight about this subject though, so it's unlikely to change.

Slayer2005

I was a "Nightmare on Elm St." & a "John Carpenter's The Thing" fan when I was 4 or 5 years old. I think a 15 year old can handle a rated R film.

tasha99

It sort of depends on your parenting philosphy. My daughter watched Saw on dvd, and she's only 12. She hasn't seen Sin City, but I would let her. I know from personal experience that trying to censor movies doesn't work, because when I was 13 or so, my parents wouldn't let me watch Deliverance. They went out one night, and my brother and I popped in the tape and made ourselves gin and tonics (just one each--we were mostly experimenting). All they found was a lime in the lazyboy when they got back, and we just said we'd been hungry. They believed us. Btw, the movie didn't scar me--in the 20+ years since, I have never anally raped anyone; I don't even get creeped out when I go camping or canoeing.

I know it's a gray area and many people will disagree with me, but I would rather have my kids around and know what they're doing than have them sneaking things at friends' houses. If I allow a movie, then discussion is open, but if I don't allow a movie and it gets viewed anyway, there is no way to clear the air or talk about what was viewed.

Just my opinion, and I'm good about respecting the wishes of other parents when their kids are in my home (for example, I had a girl choose to watch "The Witches" one night at my house. After paying to rent it, I thought that maybe her parents would object despite the pg rating because of the content. I called before we watched it, and it turned out I was right. See . . . kids will try to sneak because she knew darn well her pastor father disapproved of anything related to witchcraft.).