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

[bradavon]

Turn me on, Goddammit (Norway, 2011) – 3/5

Is it funny? It looks a bit like American Pie. It looks like it could be funny, although more of a drama.

Norway’s late answer to Fucking Åmol (in the lack of better comparison).

Fucking Amal's a good film. It's dumb English language name of Show me Love is grating though. It's annoying the only English subtitled DVD is a ropey region 1 (which I have). AFAIK it's never been released in The UK, which is odd because Lukas Moodysson has done well critically here.

Lilya 4-Ever is one of my favourite films. A Hole in My Heart I've got on DVD but haven't had the guts to watch it yet. I definitely want to see Mammoth though. No film with Gael García Bernal can be entirely bad.

Potentially slightly touchy in the US, UK, and other sexually under-developed countries

I know you're joking but if you knew anything about The UK you'd not make such a statement. The BBFC doesn't represent the UK "as a whole", the majority of the time. It representatives conservative views but with leanings towards Europe (I hate using such phrases but you instantly know what I mean). You should know by now it's the MPAA who get all upset about nudity, not the BBFC, likewise the BBFC tend to take a stronger opinion on strong violence to the MPAA.

They gave "The End of the Affair" an 18, when it's certainly a 15 rated movie. I remember critics being so surprised it got an 18 rating. Based on the trailer I'd expect "Turn me on, Goddammit" to easily pass uncut at 15. Like I've said before I don't give a fuck if that's possibly too high, it would be uncut.

p.s - Yes I know I bit but you do say some utterly dumb things sometimes.

[HungFist]

For nudity it depends on the context. You can have full frontal in a 'PG' if it's non-sexual.

for that. I assumed full frontal would get at least 15. I stand corrected.

Finland is the same - in non-sexual content full frontal is G. But BBFC certainly seems a lot more strict when it comes to sexual content... The End of the Affair for example is 11 in Finland. American Pie movies (unrated versions) are also 11 in Finland. I think in Sweden they are 7.

And like Brad could tell, of course I'm being a bit provocative on purpose and I don't mean my words to be taken 100% literally, but am still under the expression that Brits aren't that comfortable with nudity. Not like in Finland where we have sauna culture (no, we do not wear towels in sauna, and no, it's not rare for families with children to go to sauna together... or friends of both sexes, although the latter is not exactly common either), or in Japan where they have the onsen culture (same desciption as in the previous brackets applies ).

Turn me on, Goddammit (Norway, 2011) – 3/5

Is it funny? It looks a bit like American Pie. It looks like it could be funny, although more of a drama.

More of a drama (but without "melodrama") but it has plenty of humor in it. Imagine Fucking Åmol with more humor, but without making it comedy.

Fucking Amal's a good film.

It's been ages since I saw it but I have good memories of it. I remember we watched it in junior high school in Swedish class

The English teacher showed us some Martin Lawrence movie

Lilya 4-Ever I loved, too. But I'm always afraid next time I will find it pretentious...

p.s - Yes I know I bit but you do say some utterly dumb things sometimes.

(no comment needed)

[gasteropod]

Paranormal Activity 3 (2011) - 2.5/5

Too many cheap jump-scares, they were successful with the rest of the audience, but I'm immune to them.

[bradavon]

For nudity it depends on the context.

Context is everything. I saw that BBFC documentary last night (agreed 1 hour wasn't long enough) and it made the point a few times that context is key.

But BBFC certainly seems a lot more strict when it comes to sexual content...

Oh they are, especially compared to many Mainland European countries. It's more so "English speaking" countries than The UK in particular, they're strict in Australia too. America is far worse than either country though.

The End of the Affair for example is 11 in Finland. American Pie movies (unrated versions) are also 11 in Finland. I think in Sweden they are 7.

The End of the Affair is an odd one, as mentioned I've never come across a reason why it wasn't 15. All the BBFC says is "Passed '18' for explicit sex scenes", it was last submitted back in 2011. I wonder if it would get 15 now. The American pie films I probably would give 12A. I've not seen them in ages to be able to comment properly.

I remember the cast being on British TV at the time saying they're happier it's 15 here than R in America, which is even more strict (not that there is a 15 rating to use).

but am still under the expression that Brits aren't that comfortable with nudity.

More so than America, less so than many other European countries. We're a lot better than we used to be but no we don't have naked saunas (except sexual ones). That wouldn't interest me, for no other reason than I don't want to see an old persons bits or my mates for that matter.

More of a drama (but without "melodrama") but it has plenty of humor in it. Imagine Fucking Åmol with more humor, but without making it comedy.

It sounds like I'd like it too. So a drama with comedic moments.

Lilya 4-Ever I loved, too. But I'm always afraid next time I will find it pretentious...

I didn't find it pretentious at all. It is a very fine line though. I think it's too hard hitting to be pretentious.

[HungFist]

we don't have naked saunas (except sexual ones).

sexual sauna...

That wouldn't interest me, for no other reason than I don't want to see an old persons bits or my mates for that matter.

The idea of sauna is NOT that you stare at each other's dicks

Besides, who says its only men in there

[Markgway]

The UK is the only country in Europe that rates movies based on profanity. But I think it's primarily to do with our immature, unsophisticated culture (see also alcohol consumpion). A more conservative approach is what we're used to. If we suddenly adopted an extremely liberal French system it just wouldn't work. The BBFC have taken large steps toward eliminating compulsory cuts over the last decade, but the liberalisation of content at lower categories often confounds expectations and confuses concerned parents (to wit The Dark Knight). You have to find a sensible balance that suits the nation's majority. I think the American Pie movies are a '15' minimum (by UK standards). Not for the nudity so much (although there's some sexualised) but the levels of vulgarity and crudity inherent in the humour (think oral sex, webcam porn, and semen drinking for starters). The material really isn't suitable (ie. recommendable) for 12 year olds. The BBFC have all but confirmed that The End of the Affair would pass at '15' today. Brad is right about mainstream America's attitude to nudity - it's very uptight and restrictive. You can shoot dead a hundred people in a 'PG-13' but show a nipple and you get an 'R'.

The idea of sauna is NOT that you stare at each other's dicks

Remember it is Brad you're talking to...

[bradavon]

The idea of sauna is NOT that you stare at each other's dicks

They're still there!

Besides, who says its only men in there

Not I. My mates are my mates, female or otherwise. I've obviously fancied some of them but the majority I don't look at in that way.

The UK is the only country in Europe that rates movies based on profanity.

Ireland does too and they can be worse. Are you sure we're the only (including Ireland)? Europe has a hell of a lot countries. Surely all countries do anyway? They're just much more lenient on it. I bet a Norwegian U cannot have sex and violence in it.

but the liberalisation of content at lower categories often confounds expectations and confuses concerned parents (to wit The Dark Knight).

They've only got themselves to blame. The 12A certificate and why it's got this rating covers the entire cinema screen. If you're dumb enough to take an under 12 to see a 12A, you've only got yourself to blame. The parents are at fault for not educating themselves on why a film has been given a particular rating. When I've got kids, I'll be checking the BBFC's website as a matter of routine.

The Dark Knight isn't suitable for under 12s but the BBFC think it's okay for 12 and over, yet plenty of adults took under 12s to see it and "then" complained. The BBFC as "we" know are very clear in stating a 12A is no different to a 12 in that it's not suitable for under 12s but if your child happens to be mature for his/her age, it's up to the parent to decide. The BBFC are still saying it's unsuitable though.

Some 12As are clearly fine for under 12s but their submission for the Dark Knight says (quoting one sentence), "For example, in one of the stronger scenes, Batman repeatedly beats the Joker during an interrogation.". Due to the different nature of cinema to home movies, there's a specific reason the BBFC won't be granting 12A at home.

The BBFC have all but confirmed that The End of the Affair would pass at '15' today.

Any source link? I bet the reason it's not been resubmitted by Sony is simply because it's a subject matter few under 18s would pay to see, so why go to the expense of resubmitting?

Brad is right about mainstream America's attitude to nudity - it's very uptight and restrictive. You can shoot dead a hundred people in a 'PG-13' but show a nipple and you get an 'R'.

Shown genitalia and it gets NC-17. There's been a few cases of this. That simply wouldn't happen here (R18 or cuts).

[saltysam]

The Ward 2/5 Carpenter's first film in years is an ok ghost story set in a psychiatric unit for teenage girls.nothing special but a passable 85 minutes.

[HungFist]

The idea of sauna is NOT that you stare at each other's dicks

They're still there!

You're obsessed! Just like I predicted Brits would be

[bradavon]

touché.

[bradavon]

We need to talk about Kevin - 8 out of 10

Well, that was a difficult and (sometimes) uncomfortable watch. It was bloody brilliant . Tilda Swinton is excellent. They did seem to be deliberately showing one bad thing after another though, maybe that's how it is in the book?

The reason for the 15 rating are odd: "Contains strong language, once very strong, strong sex & sexualised nudity" Fair enough on the strong language but the "once very strong, strong sex" is Kevin masturbating. The strong aspect being he doesn't stop when his mother catches him and even enjoys seeing her shocked, but nothing is shown.

The sexualised nudity focuses around "the mother loading a DVD into a computer, revealing brief but clear images of several naked women". They'ee blink and you'll miss them shots of naked women, technically they're sexualised nudity but it's so brief. If The Dark Knight's level of violence can get through at 12A, these should be able to. Comparatively they're at the same level.

I'd still give it 15 though for the overall tone of dread, than the reasons the BBFC gave it but I don't believe the BBFC rate on this. Do they?

[gasteropod]

Katalin Varga (2009) - 3/5

I'd been recommended this by a friend, but it didn't do that much for me. I prefer films to have more to them, this was too minimalistic and sparse.

[Markgway]

The UK is the only country in Europe that rates movies based on profanity.

Ireland does too and they can be worse. Are you sure we're the only (including Ireland)? Europe has a hell of a lot countries. Surely all countries do anyway? They're just much more lenient on it. I bet a Norwegian U cannot have sex and violence in it.

Ireland doesn't rate movies for profanity. Frost/Nixon and A Fish Called Wanda are rated 'PG'. Both are '15' in the UK. I never said anything about Norway with regards to sex and violence.

They've only got themselves to blame. The 12A certificate and why it's got this rating covers the entire cinema screen. If you're dumb enough to take an under 12 to see a 12A, you've only got yourself to blame. The parents are at fault for not educating themselves on why a film has been given a particular rating. When I've got kids, I'll be checking the BBFC's website as a matter of routine.

Most parents don't know about the BBFC website and not all who do will bother checking. I haven't seen a '12A' that I would recommend for under 12s and I don't trust parental judgement (which I wish wasn't the case). Just yesterday I saw a dad in a video store tell a kid no more than 5 or 6 that he'll really enjoy the '15' rated 'Paul'. Now there's obviously nothing the BBFC can do about that - but let's not pretend parents are the sharpest tools in the box and better arbiters of suitability than a professional censor. "I know my own child" usually means "I haven't a fucking clue".

The Dark Knight isn't suitable for under 12s but the BBFC think it's okay for 12 and over, yet plenty of adults took under 12s to see it and "then" complained.

So why create the option? If the BBFC recognise the film is unsuitable for under 12s (and I would argue under 15s) why bother with an advisory that allows parents to take younger children knowing that it will be abused.

Any source link? I bet the reason it's not been resubmitted by Sony is simply because it's a subject matter few under 18s would pay to see, so why go to the expense of resubmitting?

Nah, no link. But it's been said in an interview. Sony have no insentive to resubmit the film at this point. Maybe if they put it out on BD.

Shown genitalia and it gets NC-17

Mostly if it's a dick.

[Shingster]

And like Brad could tell, of course I'm being a bit provocative on purpose and I don't mean my words to be taken 100% literally, but am still under the expression that Brits aren't that comfortable with nudity. Not like in Finland where we have sauna culture (no, we do not wear towels in sauna, and no, it's not rare for families with children to go to sauna together... or friends of both sexes, although the latter is not exactly common either), or in Japan where they have the onsen culture (same desciption as in the previous brackets applies ).

Societal attitudes towards nudity doesn't necessarily correlate to their attitudes towards nudity in art though, for instance the Japanese do indeed have that onsen culture but their censorship of full frontal nudity in film/TV is stricter than us prudish Brits.

Another point I'd like to make is that while I'd agree with Hung that Finns and Scandinavians in general as one big "populace" are much more mature with regards to their sexuality (and sexual content) than your average UK resident, a film like Turn me on, Goddammit would probably only draw the arthouse crowds over here, who are as highly sophisticated an audience as you'll find anywhere in the world (imo). A scummy, chav-friendly reactionary tabloid like The Daily Mail might have a moan, but other than that I think its release wouldn't raise an eyebrow.

[Markgway]

I'm comfortable with nudity... as long as she's attractive.

[Shingster]

Ireland doesn't rate movies for profanity. Frost/Nixon and A Fish Called Wanda are rated 'PG'. Both are '15' in the UK.

They sure do, they're just more sensible about it!

[bradavon]

Ireland doesn't rate movies for profanity. Frost/Nixon and A Fish Called Wanda are rated 'PG'. Both are '15' in the UK. I never said anything about Norway with regards to sex and violence.

I don't the know reasoning (they're British DVDs) but I've seen many films with a higher Irish than British rating on the DVD.

Most parents don't know about the BBFC website and not all who do will bother checking.

As I imagine you'll agree, that's no excuse.

Just yesterday I saw a dad in a video store tell a kid no more than 5 or 6 that he'll really enjoy the '15' rated 'Paul'.

Likewise is there anything in Paul that will traumatise a 6 year old? I'd let a 8-9 year old watch X-Men 2, which is a 12. It's fantasy.

but let's not pretend parents are the sharpest tools in the box and better arbiters of suitability than a professional censor. "I know my own child" usually means "I haven't a fucking clue".

A professional censor is a better judge on how mature your kid is than you, the parent? . Obviously plenty of parents lets kids watch unsuitable films (e.g - many 15 rated movies) but films like Paul are pretty much harmless. I bet you'll change your opinion when you have kids. The notion that one person (the head BBFC censor for instance) knows what's best for an entire society at best is illogical.

So why create the option? If the BBFC recognise the film is unsuitable for under 12s (and I would argue under 15s) why bother with an advisory that allows parents to take younger children knowing that it will be abused.

If you remember, they weren't given much choice. Local councils were showing Spider-man against their wishes. They've also got to try and stay in line (some what) with other EU countries, who're more lenient. I think for the most part it works, well it would if parents knew what 12A actually meant. That's not the BBFC's fault.

The Dark Knight I'm never sure what rating I'd give it. 15 is definitely too high (it's not "that" bad) but 12 seems to low. If I had to pick 12 or 15, I'd go with 12 though but it's definitely a "hard 12". Casino Royale should be 15.

Mostly if it's a dick.

More so yes but don't forget Basic Instinct (they had to release it later unrated to get it released uncut) and The Cooler.

Societal attitudes towards nudity doesn't necessarily correlate to their attitudes towards nudity in art though, for instance the Japanese do indeed have that onsen culture but their censorship of full frontal nudity in film/TV is stricter than us prudish Brits.

Far stricter. You cannot even show genitalia in porn, it's always pixelated.

[HungFist]

Societal attitudes towards nudity doesn't necessarily correlate to their attitudes towards nudity in art though, for instance the Japanese do indeed have that onsen culture but their censorship of full frontal nudity in film/TV is stricter than us prudish Brits.

Fair stricter. You cannot even show genitalia in porn, it's always pixelated.

That's a dumb thing indeed, although in non-sex content full frontal is actually allowed these days (in other words, the scene can be of sexual nature, but it cannot show full frontal and explicit sex in the same frame) - any censorship would be voluntary or even intended by the filmmakers. For example recent films by Takashi Ishii are full of (female) full frontal nudity. The Hangover Part II (which I haven't seen) also played uncensored with full frontal male nudity (although for some reason it did cause an official complaint, which however was overruled).

[Markgway]

Ireland doesn't rate movies for profanity. Frost/Nixon and A Fish Called Wanda are rated 'PG'. Both are '15' in the UK.

They sure do, they're just more sensible about it!

So how can Frost/Nixon be a '15' with its three uses of 'fuck' and one use of 'motherfucker' and A Fish Called Wanda with multiple uses (some sexual) of 'fuck' be passed as 'PG'? That tells me that 'fuck' and its variants are OK at 'PG'.

[Markgway]

A professional censor is a better judge on how mature your kid is than you, the parent? .

In general terms... not each individual child. You can't rate films for individuals.

I bet you'll change your opinion when you have kids.

I do my homework though and wouldn't let my kids watch just anything they wanted to.

The notion that one person (the head BBFC censor for instance) knows what's best for an entire society at best is illogical.

No censor can speak for everyone... true enough. But they have plenty experience at suggesting what material is suitable for any given age group. I don't always agree with them but I'd imagine they're more accurate than the average parent who really knows nothing about the issue.

[Markgway]

Mesrine - Killer Instinct (2008-France-Canada-Italy) **½

Plague of the Zombies (1966-UK) **

[gasteropod]

The House of the Devil (2009) - 4/5

A very pleasant surprise, kept me in suspense all the way through.

[bradavon]

STAR TREK would be a 4/10

. Why rate it so low? Thanks btw.

You can't rate films for individuals.

Of course but your point was that censors know better than their own parents at what a child can stomach. They don't.

[Shingster]

So how can Frost/Nixon be a '15' with its three uses of 'fuck' and one use of 'motherfucker' and A Fish Called Wanda with multiple uses (some sexual) of 'fuck' be passed as 'PG'? That tells me that 'fuck' and its variants are OK at 'PG'.

You should know from BBFC policy that film rating boards have a tendency to be massively inconsistent, so I don't know why you're using examples of film rating to make a statement of Irish film censorship policy. To contrast your argument I could point out that a film like Clerks (in which the only profane content is the swearing) got slapped with an 18 rating.

The IFCO Website lists the rules with regards to language at each rating, the general gist seems to be that at 12A exclamatory "fucks" are ok, but sexual/violent "fucks" aren't. I don't know why Frost/Nixon and FCW were rated PG based on those guidlines, perhaps they've tightened up the rules on swearing since their release, perhaps it's a case of the newer 12A rating "cleaning up" the PG rating a little (so bad language goes into the higher category now), or perhaps it's just down to good old fashioned rating inconsistency.

[Markgway]

STAR TREK would be a 4/10

. Why rate it so low? Thanks btw.

It just didn't do anything for me... to be honest I enjoyed the other Trek films more.

Didn't like the characters at all and the villains were weak.

Of course but your point was that censors know better than their own parents at what a child can stomach. They don't.

Yes, but a censor has to grant a certificate that reflects the majority (which is why they got The Dark Knight wrong). Do most parents take their under-12s to 12A films because they feel they can handle them or because the kid just wants to see them and it's better than a babysitter? I really don't think the average parent puts as much thought into their decisions as the censors would like them to. I know that's a cynical viewpoint... but that's me...