F 9/11 - R rating was appropriate

[SaveElmer]

I won't add another F 9/11 review...suffice it to say I thought it was great...and the theater I saw it in here in Northern Virginia was nearly full on a Sunday night.

However, the movie earned its R rating...not full time bad language, but what there was was bad...also lots of footage of Iraqi war casualties, the charred bodies of the American workers, and footage of a beheading in Saudi Arabia, which was far enough away to not be too graphic...but was disturbing nonetheless. I think there are 12-16 year olds who should see this movie, but their parents should be along to talk to them about it.

[southernleftylady]

1. Yes i think it deserved a R rating. Dead bodies and cussing makes it a R

[Zomby Woof]

2. the problem is

Despite my complete lack of belief in a ratings system of any kind, I would counter that the Bush years are unfit for ANYONE'S consumption and goes above and beyond an R rating, let alone NC-17.

[Sweetpea]

3. I have seen worst on Cold Case Files on A & E.

[SaveElmer]

4. That's not real...this was

And kids know the difference...also I wouldn't let my kid watch those shows either!!!

[CatWoman]

8. cold case files isn't real?

are you for real?

ever watch "new detectives" or "body of evidence"?????

[SaveElmer]

10. Sorry...talking about two different things

I thought he meant the show Cold Case on CBS...yes I agree the A&E show is probably no worse than the movie...but I wouldn't let my young kids watch that either without an adult presence

[fsbooks]

17. Geez...

Next thing we will hear is that CSI is not real either.

[Stuckinthebush]

5. Agreed...

R rating is appropriate

[Sporadicus]

6. At the Same Time, I Would Encourage Parents of Mature Teens

to take them to the movie. They are coming of age at a time when they may be conscripted to fight in the same war depicted in the film. It may instill in them the value of political activism - a virtue that has been neglected for too long in this country.

Please note that I emphasize maturity.

[southernleftylady]

7. When I went today there were quite a few parents with teens ! I think ...

that was great!

[tridim]

9. PG = Parental Guidance

IMO, the content of F-911 fits the intent of the PG rating perfectly.

PG: "Parental Guidance Suggested. Some Material May Not Be Suitable For Children."

The theme of a PG-rated film requires parental guidance. There may be some profanity in these films. There may be some violence or brief nudity. But these elements are not deemed so intense as to require that parents be strongly cautioned beyond the suggestion of parental guidance. There is no drug use content in a PG-rated film.

The PG rating, suggesting parental guidance, is thus an alert for examination of a film by parents before deciding on its viewing by their children.

[MsUnderstood]

11. I'm was torn about it.

The first PG-13 movie I saw was RED DAWN--kids rebelling against an enemy communist invasion in middle america. There was hints of rape, violence, lots of death, and violence.

The f-911 film had had foul languange (no more than is heard on EVERY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL), violence (a beheading, bombs, injured from the war)and some VERY EMOTIONAL SCENES.

I agree that the violence was harsh, but kids who can't see that movie now will be the ones drafted in 2 years (as 18 year olds) if Bush is re-elected.

I say let the kids into see it--they need to she the reality of war that our media is ignoring.

[BlueStateGirl]

12. I don't think so. Obviously I wouldn't recommened this movie

be viewed by young children.
But an R rating keeps out anyone younger than 17 w/o a parent.

It seems silly to me that a 16 year old couldn't see this film, considering that in two years the US government would be more than willing to ship him off to Iraq, where he'd be subjected to that violence every day.

Yes it was gory , and I had to look away once or twice, but really, it is no worse than those awful surgery shows TLC loves to broadcast.

[Snoggera]

14. My son is 16 1/2

And you can bet your whatever that I am going to make damn sure he watches this movie when it is on dvd.

Every kid in 10th through 12th grade should be required to watch this, because there is no other place to get a reasonable perspective.

If I had a 12 year old, I would say the same thing, because, after all, this war against terror is said to go on FOREVER!

[seventhson]

13. I disagree. PG-13 would be fine IMHO. I brought my kids who are 9 and 14

and it was fine - but they are politically aware kids who have marched in antiwar marches and heard most of the "bad" language in their schoolyard and who could easily have seen footage like this on CNN (In fact the beheadings were just like a cnn documentary I saw on Afghanistan)

I would say discretion for those under 13 might be advisable - but still, I think to bar teenagers under 18 from seeing this film is obscene.

Kids under 13 should not be unsupervised at a theater generally anyway (depending on the theater)

[noahmijo]

15. I agree there was some nasty reaility shown....

If I had a kid I wouldn't show this movie till he/she was at least 16.

[hlthe2b]

16. Well, those charred bodies were shown (albeit less clearly)

on network news and in the weekly news mags, not to mention the internet. As for the beheading, it was captured from such a distance, you really had to be watching for it. As one who remembers seeing the graphic scenes of Vietnam (the little girl running after being napalmed, the VC officer being shot in the head by the South Vietnamese officer, and all the war deaths) on unsanitized nightly news and Life Magazine as a child, I could not disagree with you more. I think my intense understanding of what war brings was formed in my childhood- early teen years with these images (and that says nothing of seeing JFK, Jack Ruby, RFK, and the aftermath of MLK's assasination)....

Protecting teens who see worse than this played out in movies and video games does not make sense to me. They need to know what war is all about, before they impulsively enlist for no other reason than a response to mass patriotic furvor or peer pressure. Recently, more and more 30 somethings (including many celebrities like Quentin Tarantino) have fessed up to the fact that they have NEVER voted. Had they developed a clear understanding of the impact of their vote early on, I'd bet many would have been lining up at the polls. My own political views were largely formulated from about 14-18 years, during which I had many heated political discussions with my own parents. Understanding fulling the impact of Vietnam, Civil Rights versus bigotry, and the war on poverty really came from images that some would have thought inapppriate for me to see. But, given the very real possibility of a draft, environmental damage that will haunt us for many many decades (or longer), economic disaster that will fall on the shoulders of those who are teens now, I think our efforts to "protect" them from today's realities may well be a mistake...

[fsbooks]

18. It is reality and the kids are a part of it.

Anyone who thinks "kids these days" should be protected from the bad language are living in a fantasy world. I have a 15-year-old daughter (who has graduated from High School) whose language can be foul. Again the graphic scenes are nothing that is not all around us in the media. Any kid who is old enough to go to the movies by themselves and has enough sense to choose this movie is likely mature enough to see it. Obviously to me, the rating is politically charged.

Personally, I think jokes about women's underwear in movies meant for small kids (i.e. Shriek 2) are more inappropriate than the reality of this movie. Making such humiliation acceptable leads to a culture (our culture) that feels we can "humiliate" prisoners who fall in our grasp.

[hlthe2b]

19. Yes... I've just been thinking back and I was 5 when JFK was assasinated

followed by the televised murder of Oswald by Jack Ruby. So, in 1967-8 when all hell was breaking lose with Vietnam, protests, Kent State, RFK, MLK..... I would have only been 9-10 and I saw everything my parents did.

I certainly won't say it didn't affect me. It did (as well, it should). But, I don't like unnecessarily violent movies as a result and I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. Frankly, as a teen we were shown as much or more gore in fire and driver's safety movies than was shown in F911.

(so maybe that's my problem! At least I have an excuse, I guess!....)