I went to watch the new james Bond movie, Casino Royale. It certainly broke the mould from previous Bonds in that it was more serious. But I'm suprised it got a 12A rating, considering that amongst other violent happening, there is a torture scene, Bond drowns someone in a bathroom sink by holding his head down; he strangles some other victim whose legs are kicking and twitching for quite a while until he succumbs, and someone gets shot right in the head. If I had a son or daughter who was 12 or under I certainly would not allow them to see it. I have noticed quite a few films over recent years where I think, 'how on earth did they get that rating?' like for example a 12 film with loads of sex in it. I've got to the stage now where I think carefully about going to see an 18 film. If a 12A film can have scenes such as I have described, then what is an 18 going to be like? I think I am getting more intolerant of such films as the years go on. Give me Wallace and Grommet anytime! (By the way, there is a documentary tonight on the South Bank Show on Itv 1 about how Wallace and Grommet films were made)
David
welshceltgirl
Let's face it standards are going down the plughole. The so-called watershed of 9pm isn't worth a light. All the soaps feature, sex, adultery, violence and crime. The cinema is not somewhere I venture often these days as gun-toting macho men driving fast cars bedding women half their age are not really my cup of tea.
Now Wallace and Grommet - they deserve the airtime and Nick Park deserves accolades for making a clean living, amusing bunch of characters