Edify_Always_In_All_Ways

Saw (and Saw II, and Saw III, and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, etc.):Rated R for people getting cut in half, their eyeballs torn out, etc.

The 40-Year-Old-Virgin: Rated R for Steve Carell talking about sex, as well as implied (but not shown) sexual activity. If there is shown sex, someone correct me- I've never seen the movie, but saw the rating guide and read lots of reviews.

The Dreamers: Rated NC-17 for people walking around naked.

If a movie has blatant sex, it gets a Adult rating- two levels above R, which is what movies with blatant violence.

If a movie implies sex or shows two people in a bed together (with covers over them, no less), it normally gets an R rating, with PG-13 at best.

If a movie implies violence or shows a fistfight without (much) blood, it gets a PG rating, PG-13 only in more extreme cases.

How does this happen? Who is the supposed "Average American Family" that rates these anyway? And how can they let their 2.1 kids watch such terrible implied filth?

__________________
The flamethrower- proof that someone was thinking "I want to set that guy on fire, but I'm not close enough."

1069

The Ring, scariest farking movie I ever saw in my life: PG-13.

Poltergiest, the second-scariest (okay, I was like twelve last time I saw it, but still): PG.

My kids like those gore movies: Saw, the Hills Have Eyes, Hostel, House of a Thousand Corpses, Texas Chainsaw Massacre I, II, and I million.

I can't watch them (at least not without covering my eyes and peeking between my fingers) because they're disturbingly violent and gross. But there's also a... a silliness to them, a tongue-in-cheek feeling, an over-the-top excessiveness that makes them seem more like parodies, as if neither the scriptwriters, nor the director, nor the actors themselves can entirely take participation in such a project seriously.

The Ring was not silly. It took itself very seriously.
That's why it was so scary, even though it wasn't terribly gruesome.

__________________
Lightdemon: "Is 10 going to outer space or something?"
Jerry: "...yes, 10 is going to outerspace."

VTA

They don't, the MPAA rates them and has since the 1920's...

Believe it or not, it's not really as big a problem as it used to be. If you've ever seen Stanley Kubrick's Lolita and knew the trouble he was given over that movie before he could release it, compared to what's on network TV now a days, it's not even close. You'd laugh.

Besides, whatever ends up being edited makes great money for 'Uncut or Directors Cut Editions' in DVD sales.

__________________
-VTA

1069

Pedophilia is still a dicey subject. The 1997 remake of Lolita- about as explicit as Kubrick's earlier version- had trouble finding a distributer in the US as well.

link

mikhail

They are just films children are proberly less fragile than their parents these days the fact is except for psychos people dont do things they see in films.

__________________
The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.

Lachean

[GVIDEO]-559517494445537267[/GVIDEO]

This film not yet rated, great documentary on the bull**** that is the MPAA.

__________________
"Men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity--to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality. " - Ayn Rand

VTA

As well it should be, it's not something to be taken lightly. But watching Kubricks version, which departed from the book by making the girl 16 and the portrayel of Humbert, pretty much gave the viewer the idea that he was more enthralled with the girl herself and not all young girls. It was easy to forget the original content of Nabakov's novel, even though he is credited with writing the screenplay.

I never saw the remake, but I understand it's more explicit.
Being a huge Kubrick fan I don't have much faith in anyone else doing something he already did.

VTA

The MPAA is just an intentioned step in the progress of society.

What does it really matter anyway? Film seems to be dropping dead anyway. With people having access to movies in their own homes, the industry has lost alot to home entertainment, and special edition DVD's restoring original content in the film will negate the MPAA.

Eventually going to the theater might not even exist and movies will truly be made 'straight to video', for home entertainment.

1069

The remake is more serious, and sticks more closely to the book.
It is not more graphic or more sexually explicit. Dominique Swain, who played Lolita, was still a minor in 1997, and therefore could not legally participate in blantantly sexually explicit scenes. Nevertheless, there are mildly erotic and evokative scenes, as there also are in the first Lolita movie.

Kubrick's version was more of a comedy. Like, you know, a british comedy of manners?
That's how it came across, anyway.
The book, although it had some funny parts, was not- taken altogether- comical. It had an overall somber tone.
And so did the 1997 remake. It stayed far more true to the tone of the book than did Kubrick's slapstick-fest.

One has to wonder if it's actually appropriate to take a humorous approach to pedophilia, either.
The remake seems at least to honor the seriousness of the subject matter, in a way Kubrick's version failed to do.

VTA

Given the constraints, I like what Kubrick did. The purpose, to fit within the constraints of the limitations imposed on making a movie, based on a book that was banned in many countries, was to depart from the book.

The movie, unlike the book, is not about pedophilia. In the book Humbert was obsessed with all young girls, and was generally a pervert. It wasn't until Lolita that he actually wasn't turned off by the maturation of a woman and genuinely loved her. The movie, however, is completely about her. His love for her, with never a mention about any predaliction for young girls.

Kubrick had said he wouldn't have made it, had he known the restrictions and problems he would have to face, which left him with a limited manner of expression. Simply having Shelley Winters with a naked back was thrown out of Kubricks version.

The humour is in Humbert's folly. He's a fool who's been duped by a girl, who seemingly has more experience than he. He's looking for a relationship, she goes from looking for fun to necessary security.