Parent reviews for The Lobster

The Lobster Poster Image

Common Sense says

age 18+

Based on our expert review

Parents say

age 16+

Based on 13 reviews

Kids say

age 15+

Based on 9 reviews

age 18+

Look beyond the movie, actually 21 and older

This is not what you might think. It is shocking and awkwardly interesting and disturbing at the same time. The monotone setting where people accept their fate when they do not have a mate is unsettling. However, one must look beyond to see the message. We are nothing without a partner, without a mate. I kept watching as I was intrigued to see where the storyline would lead. This is not a family night movie or a movie to watch for a relaxing evening. It is intense and not in a thriller kind of way. At times mundane and boring yet you want to continue watching to see where it goes. It is grossly satirical. People's acceptance of this dystopian society wants you to cry out, "does anyone want to stop this madness?". Everyone succumbs to the societal norms. It makes you want to cry out as a watcher. This film is for those who can delve deeper into society and think not to entertain per se. you find yourself rooting for falling in love in the traditional sense. It was not one of my favorite movies.
age 17+

Trippy, great

Man. So. This movie is a trip and a half but so dang good. I can't say a lot about it without spoiling it but, give it a watch. I will say it has quite a bit of gory violence, and some sexual content, and the movie definitely isn't aimed at kids but, man is it excellent.
age 16+

Surprising.

Was just an intriguing and interesting film that I surprised self at and actually liked.

This title has:

Too much drinking/drugs/smoking
age 15+

Dark, offbeat romantic comedy

This is a fun, well made film, but it has some mature content. Violence 6/10. A dog is kicked to death offscreen, its bloody corpse seen after. A woman jumps from a window but survives, and is seen screaming in a pool of blood. A woman is stabbed with some blood. Sex 6/10. References. A 30 second sex scene that includes no nudity but is somewhat graphic (doggy style then missionary). Language 6/10. Some strong language and sexual dialogue.

This title has:

Too much sex
age 17+

This title has:

Too much sex
Too much swearing
age 16+

A Satirical Dystopian Literary Work!

I can't think of any movie that has effortlessly explored the human relationships with such insight, profundity, authenticity, and accuracy. Lanthimos simply took some stereotypes and utilized them flawlessly, thus taking advantage of them in a most potent, effective, and cynical way. I don't the movie to be neither misanthropic nor nihilistic, since it displays both the good and the bad in humans. This is one of these movies that makes you wonder why it hasn't been made before. The Lobster also has one of the most effective uses of voice-over narration in recent years. With a stiff and composed tone lacking emotional weight, the voice-over significantly enriches the film’s narrative, particularly for setting its gloomy and dreary tone that seems as if it came out of a dystopian novel, and it's definitely crucial to carry the film’s development from start to finish. It's also impressive that both different halves of the movie have worked pretty well; the first half, with its sarcastic and dry sense of humor, and the second half, with its more serious, focused and extremely intelligent less-is-more storytelling. The movie almost scuppered by the major tonal shift between its two halves, and became very tepid, since its humor lost its bite almost completely. But it picked up almost instantly, and became as, if not more, intriguing and riveting as it was in its first hour. An instant classic, The Lobster is a highly original dystopian black comedy that proves that Yorgos Lanthimos is one of the most talented and idiosyncratic filmmakers working today. I can't wait to see more of his films! (9/10)

This title has:

Great messages
Too much violence
Too much sex
age 15+

The Lobster

The Lobster is a very original black comedy film that is a satire on our couple-fixated society. Unlike what it has been marketed as, it's more of a black comedy than a romantic comedy. However, there's content here that is not suitable for kids. We see the gory aftermath of a dead dog, a man's hand is burnt with a toaster, a character commits suicide, and people shoot each other in "hunts". There is a sex scene where a man thrusts into a woman, another scene where a woman stimulates a man almost to climax, sex positions are discussed, sexual acts are imitated, and there are some kissing scenes. In addition, there are a few uses of the f-word, mostly in a sexual sense. Some kids might also not be able to handle the themes of the movie, which include punishment, ways to achieve partner compatibility, etc.

This title has:

Great messages
Too much violence
Too much sex
age 14+

Excellent satire of relationships

Nothing really inappropriate or suggestive here; just a wee bit of violence and a sex scene that I don't think 14 year olds are going to have a hard time with. If your kid's smart, they'll get it.

This title has:

Too much sex
age 16+

Poignant Dystopian Drama Makes You Think

'The Lobster' is a very unique film, and that I really did admire. In a world of franchises, sequels, and cinematic universes, it was nice to see a plainly (for lack of a better word) weird concept, brought to life in such a thoughtful, intricate way. This is by no means your traditional film. You don't really care about any of the characters, and by the end of the film, you're just left feeling slightly empty inside. The film serves as a sort of allegory paralleling the in-genuineness of dating in our modern society, pointing a lot of fingers, but not really having anything to say. I would say the film is fine for kids 16+ Only because of how depressing and hopeless the film is. There is some sexual content, and one purposely very awkwardly done sex-scene. There is some violence here and there, but nothing too extreme.

This title has:

Too much sex
age 18+

Age 30+ not for kids, nor traditional conservative, only for the intellectual involved in human behaviour analisis or cinematography advanced explorers.

Difficult movie; CAUTION! not for children or teens at any age at all! only for intellectuals, writters, sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers, artists and film subgenre style researchers. As another reviewer said about this movie -a movie to watch just once ... or never at all- However it is important to set clear that: in order to understand and be able to get a grip of what is going on in this movie; the one that decides to watch it must be initiated in alternative filmmaking and have had watched movies from genres such as avant-garde, surrealism, new wave and experimental, and directors such as Luis Bunuel, Jean-Luc Godard, Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch, and more recent directors like Terry Gilliam, Takeshi Kitano, Spike Jonze, or even the screenwritings of Charlie Kauffman. If that is the scenario, and you are a film critic/student, you could probably find the meanings of every single action, shot, or dialog in this story. This is a movie intended only to film scholars. For instance; if you saw Godard -week-end- you would understand the dystopian context and the manners and ways of the loners and the persistence of the woods landscapes, almost as it was intented to be as alive as any another character. If you saw Spike Jonze -her- you could understand the loneliness of each character, if you saw Stanley Kubrick filmography you could understand the distant and almost artificial communication difficulties and the characters struggle. If you saw Luis Bunuel -the discreet charm of the bourgeois- you could understand the absurdity of every interaction and situation regarding the whole hotel charade, and here again it is full of winks to Kubrick works as, for e.g.: the hotel halls are shot using a similar decoration and perspective opticals as -the shining-, and the whole idea of the hotel installement is no other than the same kind of -treatment- given to the main character of -the clockwork orange- as it was happening in the same dystopian word. I believe that the progressive explicit violence that finds its extreme shockingly in the middle of the film not to be -pretentious- or a random move , but rather an eye-opener that this film is not a dark comedy like Terry Gilliam -the meaning of life- and even as an spectator who could had laughed at a dialogue, a scene, or the main -absurdist- idea (the concept of running-out-of-time-to-be-transformed-into-an-animal seems much alike a title line that could had been inspired by a monthy pyton screenplay), but instead, you are reminded by shock that repressive societal impossments are not funny at all. Violence is never funny; precisely. The ways these characters had been builded into automatism, are remarkable; dialogues and impossible situations happen between the parsimony of their frightened-to-stupidity personas. The satire humor that could produce laughter at the beginning it is stretched in the tragic context of the existences of these characters; whom are continually repressed until the alienation of their human behavior, their tragedy is presented to us as a hidden checkmate when the grotesque has already been served.

This title has:

Great messages
Too much violence
Too much sex
Too much swearing
Too much drinking/drugs/smoking