Bullets 'n' Babes

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

Sorry I meant cut version to be the home versions, not the original cinema version. Basically, aren't there DVD versions with the true director's cut?

Markgway wrote:Because Warners haven't submitted the film for viewing since the implementation of the video '12' cert. If they did so now it would easily be downgraded.

Which is really odd. You'd think they'd have done this when the SE DVD came out. I guess they consider most fans are going to now be over 15 anyway. Most 12 year olds would probably think it's "old". Instead of say Matrix, where it made sense to re-submit it.

Markgway wrote: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.

Are you sure they think they've made a mistake? I doubt anyone would disagree with you. It's bonkers to think Batman is a 15 and Dark Knight a 12 though. You actually have to laugh at it .

grim_tales wrote: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.

By that token it should also be R.

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

Which is odd when isn't it actually porn? Not art sex (i.e - Nine Songs, which at least has context) but porn stars, that happen to be in a mainstream movie.

gasteropod wrote:

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.

Ah, so you must be a youngster of about 25?

Just when you mentioned your parents renting Batman, which came out 4.5-5 years before Ace Ventura, I assumed you were about the same age as myself and Brad. I'm not surprised your parents didn't let you watch Batman when you were 5 years old. lol

Haha! Yeah I'm 24. I have no idea if I was that young when they rented Batman, but I do remember having a sneaky peek through the crack of the door and it was the climax in the cathedral

My dad didnt let me stuff like Beetlejuice (I remember) when I was 11 or so, or parents decided it wasnt "suitable" I guess some things my parents were OK with, some not. I was allowed to watch some comedy shows past 9/10pm then.

I've just asked my mum and she reckons they will have rented it when it first came out so yeah I'll have been about 5, and I just revealed to her that I had a sneeky peak

bradavon wrote:Basically, aren't there DVD versions with the true director's cut?

Not sure. I thought it was something Film 4 did especially for TV. You might be right though...

Which is really odd. You'd think they'd have done this when the SE DVD came out. I guess they consider most fans are going to now be over 15 anyway. Most 12 year olds would probably think it's "old". Instead of say Matrix, where it made sense to re-submit it.

The Matrix had to be resubmitted so they could put it out uncut.
I guess Warners didn't feel the downgrade for Batman was worth the bother.
Like you say it's a back catalogue title.

Are you sure they think they've made a mistake? I doubt anyone would disagree with you. It's bonkers to think Batman is a 15 and Dark Knight a 12 though. You actually have to laugh at it .

I'm sure they think they're right... but they (understandably) got loads of complaints when the film was in cinemas. The BBFC could've issued a '15' for DVD/BD but stuck with the '12' ignoring parental concerns. A truly bizarre decision given the controversy. Personally I think that by this point the board were just digging their heels in to prove a point. The BBFC has become desperate to show how liberal and 'with it' they are. They know better than the public. Always.

By that token it should also be R.

A good point.

Which is odd when isn't it actually porn? Not art sex (i.e - Nine Songs, which at least has context) but porn stars, that happen to be in a mainstream movie.

The goal posts change don't they? Porn footage within a non-porn film. The BBFC took the context as a whole and judged the film not to be porn therefore porn scenes within were OK.
9 Songs I disagree with you on as to me it's porn with music. In fact many porn videos at least bother with stories and characters (however crap they may be). Why is Deep Throat an R18 and 9 Songs isn't? Answers on a postcard to the Soho Square...

gasteropod wrote:I've just asked my mum and she reckons they will have rented it when it first came out so yeah I'll have been about 5, and I just revealed to her that I had a sneeky peak

Naughty boy. I hope she spanked you proper.

Changeling. 4.5/5

Excellent drama. Probably the only Angelina Jolie film I've ever enjoyed. Clint does an excellent job as Director once again

Markgway wrote:The Matrix had to be resubmitted so they could put it out uncut.

Exactly. Fans would re-buy it uncut.

Markgway wrote:A truly bizarre decision given the controversy. Personally I think that by this point the board were just digging their heels in to prove a point. The BBFC has become desperate to show how liberal and 'with it' they are. They know better than the public. Always.

They've got a point. It pisses me off no end, parents don't bother to educate themselves what 12A means. Sure 12 is too low but parents taking even younger kids, is just bad parenting.

Markgway wrote:The goal posts change don't they? Porn footage within a non-porn film. The BBFC took the context as a whole and judged the film not to be porn therefore porn scenes within were OK.

An interesting point then. Within the context of the film, the BBFC must've thought the sex had context.

Markgway wrote:9 Songs I disagree with you on as to me it's porn with music. In fact many porn videos at least bother with stories and characters (however crap they may be).

We've been over this many times before . It's about the context the sex is based around and also the intent of the sex. From a purely technical point of view, real sex in films and porn are identical. Just like Porn Stars and Prostitution are identical but the context and intent of each is very different.

The sex in 9 songs (as I understand it and I guess in the BBFC's eyes Caligula) isn't to titillate/turn on. Where in porn, that is it's only intention. Again the "intention" of the sex. It sounds like the director of 9 songs failed miserably but the intent of the sex is to add to the story. You may think it's bollocks but that I believe is how the BBFC view it. As do I. The stories in porn are only there to appease women . It's probably best to continue in the "9 songs" thread if we wish to discuss it further. This is a "agree to disagree subject".

There's clearly a simple way to get porn released as an 18. Create a proper film around it .

luckystars wrote:Changeling. 4.5/5

Excellent drama. Probably the only Angelina Jolie film I've ever enjoyed. Clint does an excellent job as Director once again

It's an excellent film. Jolie's best work is A Mighty Heart but this is very good still. Has Clint made a bad film?

My mum took me to watch Batman when I was 10 after some pestering. Obviously it was my first 12 and also the last film either of my parents ever took me to! Can't say I found Dark Knight to be too explicit for a 12 rating either, all the worst stuff is implied rather than shown and Two-Face is just cartoony. Mind you I think most of the regulars on these boards are a right bunch of pussies when it comes to screen sex & violence!

Markgway wrote:Why is Deep Throat an R18 and 9 Songs isn't? Answers on a postcard to the Soho Square...

It's because the BBFC don't just go by context with sexually explicit "arthouse" films like Caligula and Nine Songs, they take into account the likely/intended audience, which for both films shouldn't really be people watching just to get their jollies off.

Good point Shing. It's an odd thing to include though. The "likely/intended audience". Shouldn't that also work for violence too? On second thoughts, maybe not.

Shingster wrote:Can't say I found Dark Knight to be too explicit for a 12 rating either, all the worst stuff is implied rather than shown and Two-Face is just cartoony.

Explicit? Of course not. That's missing the point. It's the intensity and sadistic tone that's the problem. Violence isn't just blood. The Joker is a psychopath who uses knives because it's so personal a method of murder (he actually says this in dialogue I would have cut). He then presses the knife against an unarmed woman's face. A scene suitable for a 12? No. A scene suitable for a 12A - a certificate which the BBFC know full well allows parents to take kids well under that age ? Definitely not. Did anyone here go to a screening of The Dark Knight that didn't have kids of 8 and under?

Mind you I think most of the regulars on these boards are a right bunch of pussies when it comes to screen sex & violence!

I know you're joking... but we're all adults here. I can choose what I want to see. Young kids shouldn't legally be exposed to films with strong violence and threat. We all watched violent films when we were kids (but illicitly). We never expected the BBFC to say 'that's OK'. The first '12' I saw at the cinema was Gremlins 2 - quite a long way from The Dark Knight. Kids are exposed to violence at too young an age already. We don't need to encourage it just so the studios can make an extra £20m.

It's because the BBFC don't just go by context with sexually explicit "arthouse" films like Caligula and Nine Songs, they take into account the likely/intended audience, which for both films shouldn't really be people watching just to get their jollies off.

You have to admit that's a pretentious method of deciding what porn is. Will Joe Pleb jack off to this material at home? No = uncut 18. Yes = R18. Besides what else is hardcore sex on screen for if not to spank the monkey?

Markgway wrote:Besides what else is hardcore sex on screen for if not to spank the monkey?

I mentioned a few reasons above. We've been over "that one" so many times .

bradavon wrote:
Has Clint made a bad film?

As director?The Rookie wasn't very good. His latest,Invictus is worthy but blimey it's boring.

Can't remember if there were any young kids watching the Dark Knight when I saw it in the cinema or not - maybe some. Where do you draw the line? Is it OK for an 11 year old to see a 12A with an adult but not an 8 year old?

It's so funny here we are arguing if The Dark Knight should've been 12 or 15 in the UK, and in the other topic we're discussing if Battle Royale should've been 12 or 15 in Japan. Shows the difference between the two countries

Japan is an excellent example of a nation that proves children can be exposed to far worse than Dark Knight at a young age without growing up to be violent, mentally tortured loons as adults. I think people on these boards seriously underestimate what kids can and can't handle - but then again it's no shocker given Salty's probably the only member who has actually raised children.

It's interesting how as kids we always thought the ratings were far too strict, and very soon after we reached the age of 20 we turned into moralist grannies who think violent movies will destroy our children (and most of us ain't even got children)

I think we've forgot how grown up we actually were at the age of 12.

And, I think most of us simply compare movies to the rating category average (is this movie more violent than the average 12, 15, 18 movie?) rather than thinking about what is harmful to children.

Battle Royale has violence and dark themes that are too much for a 12 year old (IMO), I can see why it was given the rating it was.

saltysam wrote:As director?The Rookie wasn't very good. His latest,Invictus is worthy but blimey it's boring.

Yes. I don't think I've seen The Rookie. I thought Invictus was good. His weakest for me is Mystic River. I didn't get along with that one but it's not a bad movie.

grim_tales wrote:Where do you draw the line? Is it OK for an 11 year old to see a 12A with an adult but not an 8 year old?

Yes. Age differences are much bigger in kids than adults.

Shingster wrote:I think people on these boards seriously underestimate what kids can and can't handle - but then again it's no shocker given Salty's probably the only member who has actually raised children.

Good point but I do think Battle Royale is unsuitable for 12 year olds (one of the cuts even had a paedophile in it). I'd be okay with 15 year olds seeing it though, which is still 3 years younger than the 18 rating it got here. I guess the Japanese censors agree.

The point is, there is a massive difference between a 9 year old compared to a 12 year old vs. a 15 year old to an 18 year old. Kids maybe able to handle it but it doesn't mean it's suitable.

I never went to a film underage, but then I didn't drink in pubs til I was 18 either.

I know it's been covered before but I was shocked at people taking very young kids to Dark Knight.

The laws are ok if the parenting is good too

Shingster wrote:Japan is an excellent example of a nation that proves children can be exposed to far worse than Dark Knight at a young age without growing up to be violent, mentally tortured loons as adults. I think people on these boards seriously underestimate what kids can and can't handle - but then again it's no shocker given Salty's probably the only member who has actually raised children.

Yes, but we're talking about an entirely different culture. Same goes for alcohol. Europeans drink responsibly, Britains don't. You have to take geography and education into account.

I'm not saying that The Dark Knight is going to 'damage' kids, but that doesn't mean I would approve the film for a lowish rating. It's not the explosions and fisticuffs that are the problem, but the sadism, unusual in a blockbuster with a young audience in mind. In one scene the Joker gives a gangster a 'smile' (partly offscreen). Previously he impales another man's eye on a pencil. Come on, that seriously goes beyond what one would expect in a comic book adventure.

Jason & The Argonauts 4/5

Classic 60's adventure holds up well today,Harryhausen's stop-motion effects are dated a little but just so cool the acting is a little stilted but the movie is full of legendary,iconic sequences (Talos,Neptune & the Clashing Rocks,the Skeletons) that are part of cinema greatness.the blu-ray is a stunner and a faithful representation of the film.

Do you have 7th Voyage of Sinbad BD?

A Very Long Engagement: 4.5/5
I really enjoyed it. Cute Audrey Tatou refuses to believe her lover died in WW1, she searches for him in the 1920's in an often quirky and comic film