Why a R rating
It only recall The F word used once, not much violence at all, I don't understand why this movie is rated R, with that said this is a great. Movie
shareThe graphic cannibalism scenes arguably constitute gore, regardless of the context in which the cannibalism occurred (i.e. self preservation). I would have given this movie a PG rating though.
shareThe graphic cannibalism scenes arguably constitute gore, regardless of the context in which the cannibalism occurred (i.e. self preservation). I would have given this movie a PG rating though.
Seriously kid. Did you even watch the movie? Or do you just have really weird misgivings about necro-cannibalism in survival situations? There was no 'graphic cannibalism' to speak of. 'Gore' my foot. share
First, I particularly said that I would have given the movie a PG rating. I merely offered what I thought was the MPAA's reason for the R-rating (viz. the cannibalism)
You say:
There was no 'graphic cannibalism' to speak of.
They cut a dead person's body with a piece of glass, and we visibly see people place human flesh into their mouths for consumption. Is that not "graphic cannibalism"? Do we need to see a X-Ray photo of human flesh being digested in the stomach and excreted in the colon before it meets your standard of "graphic"?
As for 'Gore' my foot, do you know the meaning of "gore"? It means "gruesomeness," which means "the quality of inspiring intense dread or dismay." The vivid cannibalism rendered in this movie would reasonably "arouse intense dread or dismay" because consuming human flesh repulses people, regardless of the context.
The cannibalism probably motivated the MPAA.
Oh grow some skin for Christ's sake. You wanna see some REAL gore I'll show you some.
Day of the Dead - THAT is GORE! The couple of scenes in Alive that dealt with the consumption of human flesh was not negatively 'graphic' in any way. What makes the inside of the human body unpleasant to people is blood, and fluids, and moisture. The meat that was taken was frozen solid. Much easier on the eyes than a nice warm, slimy kidney plopped on a table and devoured by a ravenous starve-crazed maniac. Nothing of that sort, nothing even remotely close, was on display in this film. This is a problem that you have an VERY few others do. Don't mislead others who may not have seen the film that way. It's not right. The act itself may make some people a bit disturbed, but it was done with REMARKABLE sensitivity in that regard. It was not 'graphic cannibalism'. That is GROSSLY misleading, and heartily dishonest. Though I would not expect anything else from you based on our discussions so far.
Anybody else want to chime in on whether the scenes discussed in 'Alive' constituted 'graphic cannibalism'?
Oh, and before Lil' Red comes at me with his 'consistency' garbage, would anybody else care to attest to the difference between a warm, fresh, bloody internal organ, and a bit of long dead meat, frozen solid and dry. Which is more disgusting to see? Which constitutes 'gore' and 'graphic cannibalism'?
According to the MPAA, the R rating was given because of the extremely vivid crash scene, which they considered too intense for children.
That seems FAR more likely Lil' Red. Care to scrounge up a bit of honesty and agree with him/her. Somebody who clearly prides himself on logic, consistency and good moral fiber would surely set aside their misgivings about little old me and yield to the logic and reason of the situation. What will you do? Take the road of honesty, or the road of blatant hypocrisy. share
Macho, macho man........
I hear the I-95 song was written about you.
Wow. Clutch pearls much, lady?
share