What general film/series have you just seen.. marks out of 5

[grim_tales]

Jackass 3D: 1.5/5

I did laugh at the film and enjoy it, and found it stupidly, crudely funny, but in another, more accurate way, insanely repetitive. I'd never seen Jackass before but I knew what it was, so after 5/10 minutes of people getting kicked in the balls, charged by buffalo, whacked in the face/falling over etc, you've seen it all - just very crude and violent slapstick that is like an extreme episode of You've Been Framed. It did make me and go "ewww" in places though
Certainly not a film I'd choose to see again (I only saw it because I figured the other option - Due Date - would have more dialogue and I knew our group was very noisy. In Jackass, dialogue/plot is non exsistant.
Thankfully, it's fairly short, I wouldnt have lasted if it was longer, its like a short stretched out too long.

[gasteropod]

I saw Jackass 3D last night, the 'Sweat Cocktail' bit made me feel sick lol! Unlike you Grim, I'm a fan of Jackass (and own the first two films on DVD) so it's all good for me, I don't tire of it

[bradavon]

Most of Europe is more liberal than the UK and the US.
Just accept it.

Ditto.

I actually don't get why it bothers you Hung. I don't give a monkeys what rating the BBFC give a film, as long as it's uncut (and specifically for me, if it's only a few seconds I'm not bothered but just that's me). I'll get to see it regardless. 12, 15, 18. Who cares? It's not gonna prevent me seeing it.

[grim_tales]

I saw Jackass 3D last night, the 'Sweat Cocktail' bit made me feel sick lol! Unlike you Grim, I'm a fan of Jackass (and own the first two films on DVD) so it's all good for me, I don't tire of it

lol yeah, and the flying portaloo part too!
I enjoyed it but wouldnt see it again.

[HungFist]

Most of Europe is more liberal than the UK and the US.
Just accept it.

Ditto.

I actually don't get why it bothers you Hung. I don't give a monkeys what rating the BBFC give a film, as long as it's uncut (and specifically for me, if it's only a few seconds I'm not bothered but just that's me). I'll get to see it regardless. 12, 15, 18. Who cares? It's not gonna prevent me seeing it.

I don't get why you think it bothers me. It doesn't.

When Mark said "Just accept it" I thought he was talking to himself.

I was talking about Due Date, not BBFC. Mark suggested it would be a "rought" movie based on the BBFC rating, so I was forced to point out that BBFC would (apparently) give a 15 for almost anything. The point was that it's 12 rated stuff by general European standards. I didn't even know what BBFC rated it until Mark pointed out.

[Markgway]

I don't get why you think it bothers me. It doesn't.

You talk about the BBFC as much as I do (ie. the banning of Grotesque) and I live in the UK. I don't see why you keep comparing UK standards with European standards. In Germany they don't count profanity as a contentious issue, but that doesn't mean it's the same here. In France you can have explicit sex scenes that would get you an '18' in the UK. Would you therefore say that Betty Blue was mild because in France it's a 'U'?

The point was that it's 12 rated stuff by general European standards.

Given that you're probably the only regular poster here who lives in Europe, it's disingenuous to post that Due Date is a mild content film when clearly by UK (and US) standards it isn't. We're all adults on this forum, but those ratings are there as guideance for children. And at present it's deemed that 40 'fucks', masturbation gags, and scenes of dope smoking aren't suitable for under 15s in this country.

[HungFist]

You talk about the BBFC as much as I do (ie. the banning of Grotesque) and I live in the UK.

The Grotesque conversation was more than a year ago. This year it was re-started by Brad, who asked me why BBFC bothers me after I had posted news about Media Blasters releasing the film on DVD and BD in the US (see the connection? No? That's because there is none).

And once again, the original conversation was because it's an interesting topic of discussion when an industrial country bans a movie. It wasn't UK related for any other reason than that it happened in the UK. Norway also banned the film, but it's a difficult topic as no one knows anything about Norway except that every time Finland cheats in sports they rat us to the judges... bloody assholes.

I don't see why you keep comparing UK standards with European standards.

I wasn't. You were. I just said the film is 12 by European standards despite the R-rating in the US

Would you therefore say that Betty Blue was mild because in France it's a 'U'?

I haven't seen Betty Blue, and I never referred to France before for the simple reason that we all know the French are a bit crazy and rate Rambo '12'. That's a bit low by anyone's standards

The point was that it's 12 rated stuff by general European standards.

Given that you're probably the only regular poster here who lives in Europe, it's disingenuous to post that Due Date is a mild content film when clearly by UK (and US) standards it isn't. We're all adults on this forum, but those ratings are there as guideance for children. And at present it's deemed that 40 'fucks', masturbation gags, and scenes of dope smoking aren't suitable for under 15s in this country.

Given that we're all adults and movie geeks here, I took the priviledge of not thinking what UK or US parents would think when choosing films for their childred based on BBFC or MPAA guidelines, and went for more universal scale, admittedly generalizing European standards as universal. Arrogance, yes, but I stand behind it. I can't understand how an innocent mainstream comedy with a couple of curse words and off screen masturbation joke could receive the same rating as Severance, which was violent as fuck and felt about as strong as Hostel (slightly less graphic but the same psychological impact).

[gasteropod]

Norway also banned the film, but it's a difficult topic as no one knows anything about Norway except that every time Finland cheats in sports they rat us to the judges... bloody assholes.

[Markgway]

I can't understand how an innocent mainstream comedy with a couple of curse words and off screen masturbation joke could receive the same rating as Severance, which was violent as fuck and felt about as strong as Hostel (slightly less graphic but the same psychological impact).

Lol... you're doing it again.

innocent

Driving whilst under the influence of drugs?

a couple of curse words

40.

the same rating as Severance, which was violent as fuck

I haven't seen Severence. Not sure I could sit thru a film with Danny Dyer in it. But there are many cases where the BBFC have given low ratings for films with sadistic and explicit violence and horror... and for what it's worth on that score I agree that the rating sweep is too broad. It's preposterous that The Expendables has the same rating as The Blues Brothers!

I recall seeing a film called Vacancy on DVD. It was rated '15' but it wasn't the film that shocked me but the extra which showed the uncut version of the 'snuff' video filmed by the psychopathic bad guys. In it a couple are terrorized and murdered in a very realistic fashion (like we're seeing it via hidden CCTV). It's not about hwo graphic the scene is but the strength of the pscyhological horror. Now if it 'upset' me - and I've seen loads of horror films - I can't imagine what a 15 year old would think?

[HungFist]

I can't understand how an innocent mainstream comedy with a couple of curse words and off screen masturbation joke could receive the same rating as Severance, which was violent as fuck and felt about as strong as Hostel (slightly less graphic but the same psychological impact).

Lol... you're doing it again.

yes, after you started the BBFC discussion and told me why Due Date should be 15 in the UK, for which I felt the need to further explain why the idea sounds silly to me. Less silly than R, though, which was my original point before you started discussing BBFC.

Innocent

Driving whilst under the influence of drugs?

Much more innocent than people being killed in PG rated movies. 12 year olds wouldn't be driving under the influence anyway. Bad role model admittedly, but less so than killing the bad guys.

a couple of curse words

40.

I'd be more worried about kids learning '12' rated kung fu fighting from Jackie Chan movies than '15' rated language from Due Date. The dangerous guy in my junior high wasn't the guy who knew all the curse words from Tarantino films, it was the nutcase who thought he was Terminator 2 and was constantly trying to hurt people with sharp objects.

I recall seeing a film called Vacancy on DVD. It was rated '15' but it wasn't the film that shocked me but the extra which showed the uncut version of the 'snuff' video filmed by the psychopathic bad guys. In it a couple are terrorized and murdered in a very realistic fashion (like we're seeing it via hidden CCTV). It's not about hwo graphic the scene is but the strength of the pscyhological horror. Now if it 'upset' me - and I've seen loads of horror films - I can't imagine what a 15 year old would think?

In all honesty, 15 year olds today can take quite a bit (more than I could when I was 15). They've seen all kind of things... in the internet, and out in the city on Friday night. But yes, sounds like something that could justify an 18 rating.

[Markgway]

Less silly than R, though, which was my original point before you started discussing BBFC.

The MPAA don't give you any real info on their classification. That's why I went to the BBFC where you can access a report summary.

Bad role model admittedly, but less so than killing the bad guys.

The problem is likely to be one of glamourisation. I would expect (and correct me if I'm wrong) the dope smoking to portrayed with a nudge wink 'isn't it cool?' quality. I'm sure most of the cast and crew are stoners or have at one time partaken and unlikely to condemn illegal drug use.

I'd be more worried about kids learning '12' rated kung fu fighting from Jackie Chan movies than '15' rated language from Due Date.

The Jackie films that are '12s' don't (or shouldn't) contain detailed, imitible violence. Things like neck breaks, ear claps, throat chops, etc are usually relegated to higher categories.

the nutcase who thought he was Terminator 2 and was constantly trying to hurt people with sharp objects.

Is that an actual person? Was he locked up?

In all honesty, 15 year olds today can take quite a bit (more than I could when I was 15). They've seen all kind of things... in the internet, and out in the city on Friday night. But yes, sounds like something that could justify an 18 rating.

I know times have changed... and kids know that gore is all fake... it's the sadism and psychology behind the horror that concerns me. That the SAW series is Rated R in the US (suitable for any kid to go see with an irresponsible adult) is disgraceful. These films border on the torture porn but the MPAA have basically said 'no problem' as long as there's no thrusting buttocks. I'm not trashing the Saw films. I've seen the first four of them and there are elements I like - the mystery aspect, the puzzles, the intricacies of the plot - but find the sadism overkill. The films would be just as good (or bad) if the filmmakers showed some restraint in dwelling on the nastiness.

[HungFist]

Bad role model admittedly, but less so than killing the bad guys.

The problem is likely to be one of glamourisation. I would expect (and correct me if I'm wrong) the dope smoking to portrayed with a nudge wink 'isn't it cool?' quality. I'm sure most of the cast and crew are stoners or have at one time partaken and unlikely to condemn illegal drug use.

Good point here actually, as I only now really came to think of cultural difference here (not that I didn't know it, just kinda forgot to take it into consideration). In Finland and Japan alcohol is relatively easily available to kids and young people, but there's no dope. No one's smoking anything but cigarettes in Finland... well, at least I have never seen anyone using "soft drugs". Japan has probably the strictest anti-drug legislation of all developed nations. So, to me the use of some dope in Due Date felt similar to use of heroin, in other words, so over the top that even a kid would understand it's a joke. But you're right, in the US (I don't know about UK) it's not a joke but actually very common reality (and comparable to alcohol in almost every way).

I'd be more worried about kids learning '12' rated kung fu fighting from Jackie Chan movies than '15' rated language from Due Date.

The Jackie films that are '12s' don't (or shouldn't) contain detailed, imitible violence. Things like neck breaks, ear claps, throat chops, etc are usually relegated to higher categories.

It's the "harmess" happy-go-lucky violence that worries me most. Graphic violence at least has the shock effect. But Jackie's films can easily make a kid believe you can kick someone in the head without any consiquences.

the nutcase who thought he was Terminator 2 and was constantly trying to hurt people with sharp objects.

Is that an actual person? Was he locked up?

He wasn't locked up but, well, I know when everyone else graduated he didn't. I have no idea what happened to him. I don't think he ever seriously hurt anyone... he wasn't seriously dangerous (and he didn't really think he was a Terminator, that was just one of the tricks he pulled) but more like a bully type of person who didn't quite understand that getting kicked or hit actually hurts.

[Markgway]

Good point here actually, as I only now really came to think of cultural difference here (not that I didn't know it, just kinda forgot to take it into consideration). In Finland and Japan alcohol is relatively easily available to kids and young people, but there's no dope. No one's smoking anything but cigarettes in Finland... well, at least I have never seen anyone using "soft drugs". Japan has probably the strictest anti-drug legislation of all developed nations. So, to me the use of some dope in Due Date felt similar to use of heroin, in other words, so over the top that even a kid would understand it's a joke. But you're right, in the US (I don't know about UK) it's not a joke but actually very common reality (and comparable to alcohol in almost every way).

Interesting. That's how it used to be in the UK. But now drugs (soft and hard) are so prevelant (not least among children) that it's no longer far-fetched or funny (at least not to me).

It's the "harmess" happy-go-lucky violence that worries me most. Graphic violence at least has the shock effect. But Jackie's films can easily make a kid believe you can kick someone in the head without any consiquences.

I know what you're saying... but I can't really think of any examples to be honest of jackie films that are low rated that contain dangerous violence. If someone is kicked in the face or head it's usually quite acrobatic and tricky to copy rather than someone being stamped on when they're on the ground injured. That's why I'd give Project A a '12' but Police Story a '15'.

more like a bully type of person who didn't quite understand that getting kicked or hit actually hurts.

I hate fuckheads like that.

[grim_tales]

Some Jackie films are 18s though - from the understandable (Dragons Forever) to the ludicrous (Dragon Lord). IMO Heart of Dragon should have been a 15 not 18. Project S is an 18 too.
I havent seen Shinjuku Incident yet though.

[Markgway]

Dragon Lord is more like a 'PG'.

[bradavon]

Given that you're probably the only regular poster here who lives in Europe.

As far as I'm aware, most of Bullets regulars live in Europe. Keep saying you're not European, doesn't change the fact you are.

[Marshall]

Just dropping by to say that I am not European. Carry on.

[bradavon]

Ha ha . I said most, not all .

[Markgway]

As far as I'm aware, most of Bullets regulars live in Europe. Keep saying you're not European, doesn't change the fact you are.

[bradavon]

[gasteropod]

Two Evil Eyes: Lame
Thirst: Great
Fermat's Room: Decent

[romerojpg]

Thirst: Great

THE WORST FILM OF THE YEAR dog shit from beginning to end for me, I sold it in a few hours

[gasteropod]

It had the same quirkiness and sense of humour as the rest of his films, so maybe he's not for you!

[saltysam]

Alien 5/5

Simply one of my favourite films,one i never tire of watching.Suspenseful & creepy,brilliantly acted and directed by a man who despite making this and Gladiator has never really made the amount of great films his talent is capable of.The BD transfer looks superb to my eyes.

Aliens 4.5/5

One of the greatest sequels ever made,this goes off in an action-led direction and is just riveting stuff.Not a lot to criticise here,superb film making.The BD transfer is a stunner and after many years of inadequate home video transfers the film finally gets the release it's status deserves.

Alien 3 2.5/5

Not a disaster but nowhere near the calibre of the first two even in it's longer version.Bleak with mainly unlikeable characters shouting at each other for 2 1/2 hours,this still has some good moments. i thought the Charles Dance character was interesting,then they kill him off in the first hour!.Transfer is ok.

Alien Resurrection 2/5

As a low rent sci-fi actioner this works well enough but as an Alien film it's left badly wanting.not awful but a disappointing ending to the saga nonetheless.Transfer looks a bit weak,possibly down to the source material.

[gasteropod]

directed by a man who despite making this and Gladiator has never really made the amount of great films his talent is capable of.

I see what you did there. *cough*Blade Runner*cough*