It's a Boy/Girl Thing - Cert 12A?!

R

Roy W

New member
Don't flame me - it was FREE, okay???

For anyone who wants to know, it's a slightly above average teen body-swap movie. Dim jock boy swaps with geeky girl, and they discover hidden respect/love for each other just in time for the final reel. It's well executed and not too sugary. Elton John was one of the producers.

BUT, I could not believe that this had been given a 12A certificate, and indeed, the screen had a large number of children there when I saw it.

The film has:
  • clothed erections (three times, I think),
  • masturbation under the bed clothes,
  • the boy (with the girl's brain) staring repeatedly at the black best friend's naked groin (racist stereotype?) - friend says "would you like to touch my helmet?" :eek:
  • and the same best friend running around naked after being tricked by a girl into thinking they are going to have sex behind some bushes.

Because it's a British/Canadian co-production it doesn't have a release or certificate in the US, yet. Ireland has it as 15, which seems more appropriate.

I think the 12A certificate is perfectly acceptable for the vast majority of films (although how parents are supposed to decide what's appropriate based on "contains sustained peril" I don't know). But every now and then, there's a film like this which would be okay as a 12, but is probably not suitable for younger children at all.

BTW the BBFC guidance for was something like "contains moderate sex references and language".

Anyone else seen it, has a different view?
 
That's why it's a 12A certificate. It means it's not suitable for those under 12.

The 'A' part is that children under 12 may watch as long as accompanied by an adult (over the age of 18). The whole point is that it is up to parents to decide what is suitable for their own children.
 
I saw it too *ducks flying object*

I didn't see much wrong with it for a 12A

as island_state says above under 12's can only see it with an adult, it's the parent's responsibilty (cinemas in theory won't underage children to see the film unaccompanied)

I would have thought the brief girls changing room nudity would have been issue too (with OP)

generally it's an okay film, think they could have added another 10 mins to flesh out the supporting characters a bit more. I would say it's pretty much on a par with Vice Versa, but not in the class of Big or the original Freaky Friday
 
I'd draw a distinction between nudity and nudity in a sexual context. Interestingly, so does the MPAA (body that sets certs for the US). PG-13, which 12A equates to, does not allow nudity in a sexual context, which this film contains - so it'll be interesting to see if this film enRAB up with a much less commercial R rating.

As an adult, I'd say that film certificates only serve to inform me of a film's content - I would not be shocked/offended by any content in any film. I'd expect this to apply to the vast majority of adults. The certificates are therefore there to protect children, and I simply don't see how certificating this kind of material as suitable for children of any age (within the discretion of the accompanying adult) achieves that.
 
As someone already said, the point of the rating is to give parents and appropriate adults the choice of whether something is suitable for their children.

The problem is, you can't make a properly informed decision without seeing it, and nobody's going to pay twice and watch it twice.

I remember that Signs was a 12A, and after I'd watched it I thought many young children would be absolutely terrified, had any adults thought it appropriate to take them.
 
I dont see whats wrong.

The BBFC tell you what to expect, which in this case is "moderate sex references and language"

Its up to parents if they think its suitable for those under 12.

From the description, it doesnt sound like a 15 rated film.
 
I think IslandNiles has it right - if you wish to take your children to see a particular film, you are reliant on the BBFC (and, yes, reviews) to guide you as to whether it's appropriate and whether there's any danger of dragging the kiRAB out part-way through because it isn't.

The other aspect is marketing / intended audience. No-one really objects to Bob Hoskins' nudity in "Mrs. Henderson presents", because it isn't intended as a film for families or children. "Mean Girls", IAGBT and the like are different - they are targeted at a younger audience.
 
I completely agree with Cornucopia - I took my 10 and 8 year old girls to see this - they thought it was ok but I thought it should have had a 15 certificate - it wasn't suitable for children of their age and there were plenty their age and younger in the cinema.

We've seen several12A films before and none has been as sexually explicit as this one - I was quite surprised and in future will be much more wary of 12A films. I do think this one has been wrongly categorised. It wasn't that good anyway - we much preferred She's the Man
 
Back
Top