Bullets 'n' Babes

I've just noticed on the BBFC site that it's cut by 25 seconds in the UK in order to get a 12A rating:

Distributor chose to make cuts to achieve a 12A classification, removing: focus on knives as a group of hoodlums surround and threaten a woman; sight of the hero mounting his foe on the ground and repeatedly punching him in the head; sight of a severed finger flying towards the camera; and part of a man's rib-cage embedded in the ground. A 15 certificate without cuts was available.

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classifie ... enDocument

I bet it 's uncut on BD/DVD.

It's supposed to be an utterly dreadful film.

Can't wait to see and decide for myself.

Trailers all look superb. I hate it when this happens, lucky it's not too often.

If it's as good as Sin City - A big PASS!

Hey,

Really? I loved Sin City.

Sin City was all style zero substance.

Agreed. Style over substance indeed.

Markgway wrote:Sin City was all style zero substance.

I'd prefer to say it was:

SHITE

But Yes agreed. It was also heavily misogynistic too.

bradavon wrote: It was also heavily misogynistic too.

What makes it misogynistic?

HungFist wrote:

bradavon wrote: It was also heavily misogynistic too.

What makes it misogynistic?

He means how the women were portrayed/treated. Nothing new in the Noir film genre, too bad that Brad doesn't know what Noir is.

He does and I know, regardless it was still misogynistic. I was going to add, many films have elements of misogyny (if you break them down) but it was particularly bad here.

I wrote a review of Sin City awhile ago: http://www.alexmccaffrey.com/Reviews/Sin%20City.htm

So, they should have raped a couple of guys, too. To make it even.

Reminds me of the South Park episode where the city emblem was considered racist as black people were being hanged in it. So, they solve the problem by adding a white and yellow man into the picture, all with ropes around their head. Logic.

HungFist wrote:So, they should have raped a couple of guys, too. To make it even.

Yes .

Seriously, Sin City was rubbish. It looked clever but that appeal quickly disppears.

HungFist wrote:Reminds me of the South Park episode where the city emblem was considered racist as black people were being hanged in it. So, they solve the problem by adding a white and yellow man into the picture, all with ropes around their head. Logic.

Really? That's hilarious.

bradavon wrote: It looked clever but that appeal quickly disppears.

I agree to certain degree. I quite liked it in cinema, but the dvd went to sales pile after one viewing. But I think that's Rodriguez's fault. There's just something wrong with his directing. Always. His directing is interlaced. There's three good frames followed by two frames that are seemingly ok but don't feel quite right. The scenes - and the films - always turn out slightly worse than they could.

HungFist wrote:But I think that's Rodriguez's fault. There's just something wrong with his directing. Always. His directing is interlaced. There's three good frames followed by two frames that are seemingly ok but don't feel quite right. The scenes - and the films - always turn out slightly worse than they could.

I'm inclined to agree, except when I watched Planet Terror I really enjoyed it and thought it was very well done.

I've only seen one good Rodriguez film: Desperado. I loved that. El Mariachi is okay and I'm willing to forgive Rodriguez a lot for that one but Once Upon a Time in Mexico was awful.

From Dusk til Dawn (except for Salma Hayek) was also rubbish. All style no substance, that's Rodriguez for you.

bradavon wrote:From Dusk til Dawn (except for Salma Hayek) was also rubbish. All style no substance, that's Rodriguez for you.

He's not an art film Director though, From Dusk til Dawn did what it said on the can - it was just a corny action horror comedy.

Only films of his I own are Desperado are Planet Terror (both are excellent fun), and Sin City which I think is superb.

Neither is Michael Bay but that doesn't stop him making "some" decent movies. I wasn't expecting art.