"10,000 B.C." advice

My son, who is 5, is into the dinosaurs and stuff BIG TIME. He sees the commericals for this flick and freaks out.
He is kind fo a tough kid who loves pirates and skeletons and stuff and never gets scared at anything. He has seen all of the "Pirates of the Carribbean" movies and handles them fine. Mrs. Uni and I also make sure to explain to him about violent scenes and how they are make beleive and it would not be good for that to happen to a real person, etc.
So, for anyone who has seen "10,00 BC," how is it? Is it REALLY violent? Would it in any way harm a tough all-boy 5-year-old?

 

Honestly, I think you'd be best served going to see it first and deciding for yourself if your son can handle it or, more important, if he should.

My father did that way back when he saw Goonies. He came back and told me he thought it wasn't a good idea for me to watch. Remember this is when Goonies was released. I was about 12 then.

Then again, I'm a bit squeamish and I didn't do too well with gore.

 

No chance I am shelling out cash for it twice. I TRUST MY SJ COMPATRIOTS TO HELP ME DECIDE!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Damn. I let my 4-year-old girl watch parts of Goonies with me the other day. She thought chunk was funny.

I also let her watch some parts of the star wars flicks because she loves the lego game, but there's several parts i don't let her watch.

My wife took her to see the last harry potter flick- with the scary ass souleatin' things ... that kinda pissed me off, but the kid didn't seem to mind ...

 

I think you should skip it, to protect your son not from violence but from crap! It's at 7 percent on rottentomatoes.com, which is the worst score I can ever remember seeing. Seven percent!

 

You're joking right?

First, you'd trust the well-being of your child to a bunch of people you've never met. We appreciate the compliment, but come on. Second, The well-being of your child doesn't seem to be worth an extra $7? I know things are tight, but if they're that tight, just don't take him in the first place.

 

Well, the Star gave it ONE star--I can't remember the last movie that got one:

There are bad movies. There are hack directors.

But with 10,000 B.C., a prehistoric epic that deserves extinction, Roland Emmerich enters a whole new tar pit of crapitude.

The Razzie Awards may have to create new categories to do justice to this mammoth waste of time. Besides expected noms for Worst Film, Worst Director and Worst Remake or Rip-off (One Million Years B.C. and Apocalypto are amongst the obvious steals), this much-delayed film cries out for consideration for Worst CGI, Most Annoying Narrator, Lamest Dialogue and Dumbest Action Hero.

And if that's not enough, here's the Globe:

If you thought 300 was silly, think of 10,000 BC as 33.333 times sillier.

 

What is wrong with letting kids be kids?

We're the parents here, folks. There is no law saying we have to let our children see all the latest movies, listen to the latest songs. Despite what the darling little offspring might think at the time, no child was harmed in not being allowed to see the new crap movie at the theater.

It's your call, Uni. But I will just say one thing. It's much easier to teach your child no at the age of five than fifteen.

 

If you don't want to pay to watch the movie twice, just read the 800+ Yahoo user reviews here:
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809724938/user

 

I thought the CGI effects looked really fake in the trailer.

 

We could have used that line of reasoning during the "should I pay $300 and drive six hours and miss a day of school so my 5-year-old can see Hannah Montana live?" discussion.

 

rosie, you clearly have wisdom well beyond what your girlish robot-maid looks would suggest ...