my ar$e!

scared stiff!

Was a good film. Have tovsay I was quite surprised it was only a 12.

I enjoyed it, would have papped myself at 12 though!

Kermode and Mayo interviewed both Daniel Radcliff and the BBFC guy about the rating.

There were cuts and tone downs to get it to 12, also Radcliff was keen to point out this was NOT for the younger Harry Potter Fans.

Worth a listen

Oh god I took my brov to see this at the cinema he’s just 14, I was freaking out, he ended up holding my hand and telling me when it was safe to look! There’s a bit near the end still gives me nightmares!!

I watched it on a plane, so only had the small screen and bits were pretty dark (cinematically) so difficult to make out some of the scenes.

That said, I was glad i kept my seatbelt on because i may have hit my head on the cabin roof a few times otherwise. i was terrified.

[not my sort of film TBH, still haven’t actually worked out why i opted for it]

Excellent film, back to basics scarey ghost film. I think 12 rating is a bit low, may be 15 is more apt.

And recommend the play, its cracking live.

And recommend the play, its cracking live.

It is. Yes.

Saw the film the other day, and it’s a good film, but “scared stiff”????? Errrrr nope. Not really.

made to make you jump but nothing horrific.

+1 on the play!Must go see it again, it’s been fifteen years!

play scared the poo out of me when i was about 14… proper terrifying.

haven’t seen the film yet.

I really enjoyed it. As others have said, good old fashioned Hammer horror film. Plenty scary moments and no over-reliance on gratuitous gore.

I thought it was a great film and fine as a 12.
Proper horror stories with an growing air of menace and a good story are so much better than the jumpy / gore-fest movies. (Which are o.k for a bit of a laugh.)
Wish the DVD had been released as a 15 without the cuts though.

I’m quite surprised people like this film to be honest, and that it got so many good reviews.

One of the worst films I’ve watched in quite a long time, however I’m not normally a fan of horror movies anyway so that might be a factor, saying that i wouldn’t class this movie as scary. But On the other hand i probably wouldn’t take my kids to see it if they were 12.

Also Daniel Radcliffe’s acting was terrible. Needless to say i’ll not be watching it again.

Wish the DVD had been released as a 15 without the cuts though.

Have they/haven’t they? Usualy they’re moere lenient with DVD clasifications.

Also Daniel Radcliffe’s acting was terrible.

I thought he did a pretty good job. I certainly wasn’t thinking ‘Harry Potter’ all the way through, so he seems to have shaken that off.

I did think he was (or seems) a bit too yong for the role, though. I know he was supposed to be in his early twenties, but he kind of looked like a kid along side the other actors.

I did enjoy it though and did jump in a few places.

I’ve read the book, but not seen the film yet. Book was quite short from what I recall, so intrigued to see how they have got a film out of it.
Stage play sounds good.

I remember seeing “The Others” at the (quite old) cinema in Stafford, on an awful freezing cold night. The heating had packed up & the cold cinema really made the film quite good. 🙂

I thought it was a bit “meh” really.

The Awakening was a much better ghost story

The handprint on the window bit made me pap myself..

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od_XDxlOlUw[/video]

Thought the end was a bit crap though?

Apparently it was a 12 because it doesn’t have sex, swearing or gore in it.

Haven’t seen it but my 13yo daughter was scared stiff :o)

I also hear the play is amazing.

It was ok but would have been better without Radcliffe. He is not an actor by an stretch. This movie making must be playing havoc with his schooling.

Got bored of it and didn’t finish watching – and Radcliffe is poopy.

Now, Insidious – how the hell is that only a 15?

Apparently it was a 12 because it doesn’t have sex, swearing or gore in it.

Not according to the man from the BBFC – the original cut was 15 with no sex, gore or swearing. To get a 12 they lightened up some scenes and shortened some of the to reduce the impact of them. They also changed the volumes.

Everytime the man from the BBFC does an interview they sound very reasoned and balanced. Similar on on the Hunger Games. It was mostly subtle changes that can still leave a powerful scene but take some of the more overpowering tone from it.

Wouldn’t it be unfair to prevent Molly Harmon from watching it though?

It scared me to death (I’m 44). It’s not even a 12 is it, it’s a 12A which means children under the age of 12 can see it if accompanied by an adult.

I’d have been livid if I’d taken my nephews to see it!

My 11 yr old daughter has seen it and wasn’t phased

GF and I both glad we didn’t pay to see it.
Think it would be better as a play.

We enjoyed the play more, but we did see it before we watched the film.
The play is no less intense, perhaps more so. Proper jumpy. One woman screamed her head off!

I’d have been livid if I’d taken my nephews to see it!

BBFC do a great parents section so you can check before – the A part means adult supervised – that means do some research and decide not just turn up

good to finally see an effective horror film again without being another “torture pron” type film.

Hammer really do the best kind of horror

BBFC do a great parents section so you can check before – the A part means adult supervised – that means do some research and decide not just turn up

Fair enough, that makes sense, but I would have assumed that would be for youngsters under the age of 12 (for which the supervision would be required) and that a 12A (for which children under the age of 12 can go with supervision) would be less severe than a straight 12 (from which they’d be banned). I still think it fair pretty strong for 12 years +.

I absolulty crapped myslf, but luckily my partner and the 12 year old crapped themselves more, so I still came out lokking brave and manly! 😀