Bullets 'n' Babes

Still Haloween scares me more than most of them harder films, so at least it must be well made

yeah, large amount of blood doesn't necessarily mean it's more scary... as a kid, the only movie that scared me (mind you that I wasn't allowed to watch films like Texas Chainsaw, although did see the Alien movies) was Basic Instinct, which I watched secretly. The ending scene with Sharon Stone getting away with it, and ice pick under the bed... I never forgot that scene. Seriously scared me as a kid.

Now, some 15 years later, the two movies that scared me most were not Saw, Grotesque (although this one was pretty scary. EDIT: pretty damn scary, actually), or any of the French new wave splatters, but Shutter Island (rated-12 here, btw) and Rubber's Lover, neither intended a pure horror films.

Being scared is a very personal thing

Shutter Island wasn't scary in the slightest.

Toy Story 3

I absolutely loved it The action scene at the beginning recreating the one from the first film was excellent and it's so nice to hear the familliar theme song You've Got a Friend In Me
It was so funny, scenes like Ken trying on different clothes, Mr. Tortilla/Pickle Head and Spanish Buzz's scenes were hilarious While it was fairly obvious that
Mr. Lotso Hugs was the villain from the moment he appeared it was well done, and even quite dark in places the incinerator scene the film is nostalgic as well with lovely insights into childhood, I was 13 when the first film came out and don't want to grow up
I loved the ending scene it made me happy/sad When Andy plays with the little girl and his toys like he once did (and listen to what says about them) - beautiful

Well done to Pixar for creating one of the best Trilogies ever made, a perfect ending. I wanted to clap at the end and I got teary also
10/10

HungFist wrote:Rubber's Lover

Looks cool, I think I'll watch that tonight!

gasteropod wrote:

HungFist wrote:Rubber's Lover

Looks cool, I think I'll watch that tonight!

It is cool. I disliked Pinocchio, but Rubber was pretty great. Not an easy film to make it through, though.
https://www.bulletsnbabesdvd.com/forums/ ... start=1434



I wish people would watch more Shozin Fukui films and less Ridley Scott films

Markgway wrote:Or younger... I remember when I was kid an American woman on British TV commenting that her five year old found parts of Terminator 2 (rated R) too scary. I thought to myself: How come in America a five year old can see T2 uncut when I can't even see a cut version (I was 11 going on 12).

That's scary. It's also scary you knew that films were cut at only 11 . I didn't have a clue (or likely cared) at such a young age.

My parents were much stricter than most. I'd only get to see a film when the rating said I could. I even had to lie about the rating on Die Hard, when I was 15. I got away with that one because I watched it on my own. All those horror/violent films most seem to have seen when they were kids, I didn't until I was much older.

bradavon wrote:How can it be sensible to have a system where in reality only two ratings are ever used? It either has to fit into the PG-13 or R rated category. The NC-17 rating has no practical use to exist, for non-pornographic material.

You're talking about the way in which the ratings system is implemented, not the actual system itself. The system makes perfect sense to me; you have U & PG for the family films, PG-13 for a family film with mild violence/horror/swearing, R for films that wouldn't worry your average teenager, with the extra benefit over our 15 rating being that if you are an intelligent, well adjusted 14yr old you can still go to see The Matrix with your older brother/parents (for example). NC-17 is pretty much exactly the same as our 18 and should be implemented exactly the same way.

Because of that R rating it's actually a more flexible system than the BBFC one, but it's implemented by the muppets over at the MPAA who are counting the number of punches/swear words/exposed breasts on an abacus and rating films accordingly without taking context into account, and then as you say there is the stupid social/business stigma attached to the NC-17 rating by cinema houses/video stores that make it a financially unviable prospect for many studios.

You're talking about the way in which the ratings system is implemented, not the actual system itself.

They are intricately liked though. Otherwise fair points.

Caligula: 2.5/5
Essentially expensive arty porn (imo) with mucho sex and violence, I'd never seen the full film before. Was the hardcore really needed? Ewww.
However it was well made and the classical music gave atmosphere, just a bit boring.

No. The editor of penthouse added it later, much to all involved anger. It's not the director's cut, not the "original" director's cut anyway.

I didn't know that, thanks. I bet the actual DC would remove it, the film is hardly short on sex anyway. Malcom Mcdowell's performance was good, showing the emperor's cruelty and madness.

Shutter Island. Martin Scorsese does it again. Makes a film I know is good, but I don't really like.

Can't really say much about the story without including spoilers. It was more disturbing to endure watching than twisted in its story.

The film had some ugly visuals and clumsily looped dialogue too. Think you can only be called a master filmmaker if you pay full attention in post production

Still a solid enough film but I've seen it now and wont be fussed doing that again 8/10

grim_tales wrote:I didn't know that, thanks. I bet the actual DC would remove it, the film is hardly short on sex anyway. Malcom Mcdowell's performance was good, showing the emperor's cruelty and madness.

Really? I thought everyone who'd heard of Caligula knew there was two versions. The "uncut" one is the porn version. I understand McDowall and Mirren were really angry.

Tinto Brass was the actual/original director, whose obviously also known for fleshing up movies. See here:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080491/ful ... #directors

I watched the new Batman animated feature earlier, Under the Red Hood. It was decent, slightly strange having the Joker voiced by Bender though hah. Fairly dark, reminiscent of the animated series but with some blood. Gotham reminded me of the city from Ghost in the Shell in this one. It's quite short so doesn't outstay its welcome, worth checking out, I watched it on YouTube.

bradavon wrote:It's also scary you knew that films were cut at only 11 . I didn't have a clue (or likely cared) at such a young age.

Lol... yeah, I was a censorship geek from a young age.
It all stemmed from Bruce Lee and the nunchaku sequences.
I was like, "you mean they cut stuff in the UK??"
I need to see this uncut.

I even had to lie about the rating on Die Hard, when I was 15.

My parents don't like violent movies (my dad especially). They would always complain about me watching them. Yet would rent them for me anyways. I could be a very persuasive little brat. I think mostly the films were worse than they imagined... lol
But when I say 'kid' I do mean from the age of 10/11 onwards. I know it's still young, but I'm not talking about REALLY young.
Die Hard I saw on Network TV (with most of the violence and swearing cut). LOVED it. Went out the next day and rented the uncut version (well my Mum did).

I think if you wanted a true director's cut of Caligula you would just take out the hardcore.

Channel 4 did that once (before the hardcore version was passed uncut).

No interest in the film myself to be honest.

Isn't that what the cut version is?

Whenever I ask my parents to see a film with a rating older than I was, the response was always No. I never managed to convince them otherwise. I remember really wanting to see Batman but I was 11 and it was 12 (before 12A obviously). I had to wait an age for it to come out on video. When it did, I was 12 and thought Yes. To my shock, it was 15 on video and still is.

Which is nonsense. Why? Dark Knight is a 12!

I recall not being allowed to watch Batman when my parents rented it on video, but I also remember them buying me Beetlejuice and Ace Ventura on video when I wasn't old enough for them

Remember getting into X movies at the Cinema when i was 13/14,i used to wear platform shoes to make me look bigger first X Movie i got into at 13 was Rabid,on a double bill with Deathdream. The big one of course was Saturday Night Fever which all the youth of 77 wanted to see, My school mate (Vic McGuire,he's done well for himself as an actor since) and i got refused at one cinema before getting in at the ABC Lime Street.Of course bragging rights at school followed

I know there was another version of Caligula once with 55 minutes (!) of distributor pre cuts (the UK video, the same as the US R rated version) and the porn version and an alternative one (probably the one Channel 4 showed which removes the hardcore). Not something I'd see again but at least I've seen it. IMO the hardcore should have been taken out (I'm no Prudey McPrude, it just wasnt nice to watch).
Thanks for the info Brad.
How come the UK BD had the porn version when it was only rated 18? These days it seems real sex/porn can be in 18 rated films on certain grounds.

bradavon wrote:Isn't that what the cut version is?

No, the cinema verison was massively shredded to remove not only the hardcore, but explicit softcore material.

Whenever I ask my parents to see a film with a rating older than I was, the response was always No. I never managed to convince them otherwise. I remember really wanting to see Batman but I was 11 and it was 12 (before 12A obviously). I had to wait an age for it to come out on video. When it did, I was 12 and thought Yes. To my shock, it was 15 on video and still is.

I was 9 when Batman came out. I had to wait at home whilst all my (slightly older) friends went to the cinema. Saw it on rental the following year.

Which is nonsense. Why? Dark Knight is a 12!

Because Warners haven't submitted the film for viewing since the implimentation of the video '12' cert. If they did so now it would easily be downgraded. The Dark Knight should never have been a '12'. The BBFC refuse to admit they got it wrong. In that sense they've not changed much at all.

gasteropod wrote:I also remember them buying me Beetlejuice and Ace Ventura on video when I wasn't old enough for them

Ace Ventura was only a '12' on video.

grim_tales wrote:How come the UK BD had the porn version when it was only rated 18? These days it seems real sex/porn can be in 18 rated films on certain grounds.

Because it wasn't deemed to be a sex work (ie. porn).

Markgway wrote:Ace Ventura was only a '12' on video.

It came out when I was 8 so I probably got it on video when I was like 9, nothing major but it's just something I remember because I obviously thought it was a bigger deal when I was that age.

The Dark Knight should have been a 15, even with the US PG-13 print used. There's no way the uncut cinema version should have been a 12.