according to the website I saw, they use it clearly once and two other times in a muffled sense...
These are just parts of the reviews... but this is how they do it... the scale is out of 10, with 10 being the worst...
SEX/NUDITY 4 - A mother asks her teenage son if he was masturbating, he protests her question, they discuss it, and she tries to come up with euphemisms for the act while he is embarrassed.
Men shower in a makeshift military shower stall (we see bare chests and boxer shorts). While being attacked by a small robot a young man's pants are pulled off and we see him in his boxer shorts. A man is forced to take off his clothes (we see him in a tank T-shirt and boxer shorts). We see posters of scantily clad women on a young man's bedroom wall. A young woman wears a sheer top and her bra and abdomen are visible through it. A young woman wears a short skirt and top that reveal cleavage, bare thighs and abdomen throughout the movie.
and
PROFANITY 5 - 1 F-word, 2 not fully-enunciated F-word derivatives, 6 sexual references ("I'm still a virgin," "were you masturbating?"), 1 obscene hand gesture, 12 scatological terms, 4 anatomical terms, 9 mild obscenities, name-calling (freak, knucklehead), 21 religious exclamations.
They also have a section on Violence, but for this movie, that section is HUGE.. it gives you information on every wounded person and even the robots that are killed... LOL...
I'm sure some may mock me for being so "protective" but I actually do like to know what's in a PG-13 movie before taking an 11-year-old to see it....
The F word? That's a big no to my wife. My son never hears that word except for the three or four times I use it a day.
My son doesn't care to see it. He is pretty screwed up, I offered to give him my 68 convertible Coronet R/T clone and he said "Great, I'll trade it in for something good." By good he meant a tuner.
there are a bunch of sites out there that do it.. the one I usually use is www.kids-in-mind.com ... it rates a lot of old and new movies for appropriate content and spells out pretty much exactly what's in it so there should be no question whether or not you approve...
oh, and sorry to hear about your son... not that there's anything wrong with that.
We don't let our son watch any PG-13 movie without seeing them first. When he has friends over they are only allowed to watch PG movies. I'm not so naive to think he doesn't get exposed to a lot of garbage but I don't want to add to it.
Quote: I'm sure some may mock me for being so "protective" but I actually do like to know what's in a PG-13 movie before taking an 11-year-old to see it....
Well...don't take him/her to see Die Hard
That stuff doesn't bother me. I don't mind if my kids no that people have sex, and curse, and kill. I explain the details of all. They're gonna find out eventually, might as well be with you next to them.
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good" Thomas Paine
What an awesome movie. i did not expect it to be that good all around. It was funny, action packed, the special effects were absolutely amazing, it wasnt corny, it was fantastic. The theater I was in all stood up and started clapping at the end. I will be going to see it again at the theater.
Quote: This is open to anybody who has seen it.. My 11 year old son wants to see it. I've read some of the reviews where they tell you what's in it, like how many times the F word is used, etc... and it seems borderline... any parents seen it who have any advice?
Call me a bad parent. I'm probably going to take my 5 year old...
Quote: SEX/NUDITY 4 - A mother asks her teenage son if he was masturbating, he protests her question, they discuss it, and she tries to come up with euphemisms for the act while he is embarrassed.
Men shower in a makeshift military shower stall (we see bare chests and boxer shorts). While being attacked by a small robot a young man's pants are pulled off and we see him in his boxer shorts. A man is forced to take off his clothes (we see him in a tank T-shirt and boxer shorts). We see posters of scantily clad women on a young man's bedroom wall. A young woman wears a sheer top and her bra and abdomen are visible through it. A young woman wears a short skirt and top that reveal cleavage, bare thighs and abdomen throughout the movie.
I think this review is a bit paranoid, imo. But I suppose that is the result of the damage done from Janet Jackson A person in boxer shorts is not something that strikes me as sexual(at least not when it happens in the middle of a battle) same goes for a man in a tshirt and boxers. Go to a public pool or water park and what do you see? People with less on than in these two scenes.
I can agree with the girl in the sheer top is worth noting. My question is if a parent were to use this as a reason to not let their child see the movie, do they also not let thier kid leave the house? Just about any public place you see girls wearing the same type of clothes.
The review makes no mention of the numerous sexual comments made throughout the movie(the scene where he offers the girl a ride for example). If I was a parent filtering what my kids watched, on the part of sexuality, this review does not mention the parts I would be concerned about.
The movie was good. Really can't expect much from Micheal Bay(other than lots of things blowing up). Sam's parents were annoying and there was a drawn out scene in their middle I just wanted to end. As a whole, a good movie.
that was a sweet movie...it truly was one of the best movies i've seen in a while....
I don't get what the big twist was that someone mentioned in this thread earlier...mayb cuz i don't remember a lot of the original cartoon...o well i thought it was great!!!!!!!!
Quote: I think this review is a bit paranoid, imo. But I suppose that is the result of the damage done from Janet Jackson A person in boxer shorts is not something that strikes me as sexual(at least not when it happens in the middle of a battle) same goes for a man in a tshirt and boxers. Go to a public pool or water park and what do you see? People with less on than in these two scenes.
The purpose of the review is not to pass judgment on how you make your decision, just to give you as much information as possible...
Quote: The review makes no mention of the numerous sexual comments made throughout the movie(the scene where he offers the girl a ride for example). If I was a parent filtering what my kids watched, on the part of sexuality, this review does not mention the parts I would be concerned about.
Actually the full review does, I only cut and pasted a small portion of it...
Well, I gave my son the choice between this and the new Harry Potter coming out and he chose Harry Potter... I'm sure he'll see Transformers eventually, just not in the next couple weeks.
Quote: Well, I gave my son the choice between this and the new Harry Potter coming out and he chose Harry Potter...
That boy ain't right!
Harry Potter's for geeks!
j/k Good books, bad movies.
Excuse me, but the movies imitate the books! So how can you say the movies are bad? Sure they cut a bit of stuff out from the books, but what book-to-movie doesn't? Also, they have about as good of actors for the parts as I could see them finding. Although, Richard Harris, the original Prof. Dumbledore, is sorely missed. I'll be seeing both Transformers and Harry Potter, plus, getting the final HP book in 2 weeks!
Quote: SEX/NUDITY 4 - A mother asks her teenage son if he was masturbating, he protests her question, they discuss it, and she tries to come up with euphemisms for the act while he is embarrassed.
Men shower in a makeshift military shower stall (we see bare chests and boxer shorts). While being attacked by a small robot a young man's pants are pulled off and we see him in his boxer shorts. A man is forced to take off his clothes (we see him in a tank T-shirt and boxer shorts). We see posters of scantily clad women on a young man's bedroom wall. A young woman wears a sheer top and her bra and abdomen are visible through it. A young woman wears a short skirt and top that reveal cleavage, bare thighs and abdomen throughout the movie.
Why did they use Pittsburgh math Nobody was nude, nobody in a thong, nobody topless, no bare butts. Thats a ZERO not a four. Even Mr. Rogers would give it higher than a one.
Quote: name-calling (freak, knucklehead)
Thats it I didn't realize the movie would be that over the top. Nobody under the age of 40 should have to hear such wild, over the top, rude, nasty language
This is the closest thing to a trailer that you can get right now. Cloverfield is not the title heres a website link to get to it. http://www.parasitemovie.com/ Click on the left shining star with you click cloverfield.
From the synopsis: A giant monster movie (currently referred to internally as Cloverfield; the monster itself is referred to as "The Parasite", not to be confused with the film project The Parasyte) that is shot using home video cameras from the point of view of people who are experiencing an attack on New York City.
I just saw it too and I wish half the humans were cut out of the movie (blond computer chick, Men in Black, etc). It probably would have been better with about 20 minutes shaved off. I also had a hard time figuring out what Decepticon was on screen at the time because they made so many changes. The Autobots were easier to follow. Anyway, overall, it was a very funny and entertaining and definitely what I imagined live action Transformers would look like. Brilliant effects and I thought Shia pulled off the leading role well. Oh, and Megan Fox is worth the price of admission alone
Quote: Just got back from seeing it. Great, great movie.
I went this afternoon.....fell asleep for about 30 minutes until the noise got so loud it interrupted my snooze.
Seemed like that movie was about 40 minutes too long.....how long can the same transformations be interesting??
I guess to many since I am in the minority here....but it wasn't a great movie. It was the same 4 things over and over and over mixed with some bad acting.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Quote: Just got back from seeing it. Great, great movie.
I went this afternoon.....fell asleep for about 30 minutes until the noise got so loud it interrupted my snooze.
Seemed like that movie was about 40 minutes too long.....how long can the same transformations be interesting??
I guess to many since I am in the minority here....but it wasn't a great movie. It was the same 4 things over and over and over mixed with some bad acting.
You also dislike 24 if my memory serves me correctly...
Seemed like that movie was about 40 minutes too long.....how long can the same transformations be interesting??
i think the one problem was that it took them a while to really get into it... the autobots didn't get into the movie until at least an hour after it started...
i think if they would have cut out 20 minutes from the first hour, it would have been better
but still, this is one of the best movies in a long time, easily the best movie of the still-young 21st century...
I think the concept of where they buried the cube was good and could have some sound possibilities.....but it was too much transformations and battle scenes with a bunch of campy acting.
Spielberg went for the buck here.....high budget on the EFX no doubt....but it was a weak script as reflected by the 2 bit acting.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Quote: ...but it was a weak script as reflected by the 2 bit acting.
Did you ever watch the cartoon? I just downloaded the first two seasons and watched the pilot trilogy. My wife just asked me to stop watching it. LOL I remember watching all three when they aired.
i don't think anyone was really expecting schindler's list as far as the quality of acting goes...
i thought the acting was good enough, action films don't require oscar-worthy work
i think they tried too hard for comedy and ended up with overkill...
bringing back the original voice of optimus prime was great...
the obvious product placement by GM was a bit much...
i didn't understand sam's friend climbing the tree, actually i didn't understand his friend at all, they introduce him, and then you never see him again... the same goes with the chick's cliche' football player boyfriend... i would have loved to have seen a part with him later on when they roll up in the camaro and bumblebee transforms, sending the dude crying home...
![[Linked Image from sternfannetwork.com]](http://www.sternfannetwork.com/forum/images/smilies/Props/munch.gif)
He is pretty screwed up, I offered to give him my 68 convertible Coronet R/T clone and he said "Great, I'll trade it in for something good." By good he meant a tuner. 
![[Linked Image from fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net]](https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/276870_6711658857_1403067853_q.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i89.photobucket.com]](http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k233/marctheshark1969/thrandelelisafaggot.jpg)
Nobody was nude, nobody in a thong, nobody topless, no bare butts. Thats a ZERO not a four. Even Mr. Rogers would give it higher than a one.
![[Linked Image from damontech.net]](http://www.damontech.net/bedatd.gif)
![[Linked Image from i4.photobucket.com]](http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y132/Defiantmac/nickk2.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
