Rated R?!?! - Everyone Says I Love You (1997) Discussion

[–] tmcpherrin89 21 years ago

Every One Says I Love You is R because it says MOTHER F U C K E R, you can not say that in PG-13, also Beetlejuice came out in what, 1988? The MPAA was a lot less strict than. Sixteen Candels was PG came out in the 80's and it had female nudity and 2 F's.

reply

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] madcapellan 21 years ago

This and Manhattan are the two weakest rated R movies I have ever seen. It's hard to say that these two belong in the same class as Goodfellas or Pulp Fiction (or how about South Park?), where the F word is said almost 300 times, not to mention the violence. The rating system could use an overhaul if it considers all of these movies in the same class, since it's not exactly what it's intended for.

reply

[–] hooper-xxx 16 years ago

i think that woody might of also wanted it to be R, seeing as if he didnt he could of easily had that f word removed.

Philistine! Why would an artist compromise their artistic vision in order to placate a bunch of religious nut-bags? With that cavalier attitude toward artists and their art, it's no wonder that you hold Gattaca in such high esteem.

reply

[–] LittleMiso 21 years ago

"Sixteen Candles" was actually originally rated R, but then rated PG on appeal. Yeah, a few F-words and female nudity.
"Beetlejuice" isn't the only PG movie to get away with the F-word. "Big" and "Spaceballs" got away with it, too.

Is it true you can't use the F-word that way in a PG-13 movie? I thought you could. So long as it isn't used more than three times.

It's given a "12" by the BBFC (equivalent to PG-13, but restricted). These are from people whose standards are either the same, or are stricter than ours. The BBFC, at the time, allowed only one F-word in "12" films, which is what it had.

To rate a movie R for one F-word is just plain silly.

"What we've got here is a failure to communicate."

reply

[–] BartenderAmber 21 years ago

they use the f owrd in italian job and it's PG-13. another ed movie. ba dum ba ching. keep on truckin

It'll be funnier than a penguin playing a banjo.Dom Monaghan
http://www.therainforestsite.com

reply

[–] monkipottumus 21 years ago

So tacking "mother" to the front of the "f word" makes it that much worse?

And by the way, they use the "f word" about 10 times in the movie Guilty by Suspicion, which has a PG-13 rating.

reply

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eunce 21 years ago

Everyone Says I Love You is M 15+ in Australia which is not restricted (just "recommended" for mature audiences) so basically anyone can see it, but I still think that is too harsh a rating considering that Deconstructing Harry is also M 15+ but features a whole bunch of f-words AND the c-word.

reply

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] drosse67 20 years ago

I will copy & paste a message I wrote in the AIRPLANE! boards---I think it applies here as well:

The MPAA was a less restrictive in the '70s and early '80s, especially about comedies. Which is somewhat ironic now, because nowadays, all a character has to do is REFER TO a drug (like pot) or drink a lot, and the comedy gets an instant "PG-13" or even "R." The School of Rock was rated PG-13 because of a MILD REFERENCE to drugs....what drugs? I must have missed that. That movie was perfect for my 10 year old niece.

I remember seeing The Bad News Bears in 1976, and was shocked at the level of profanity. PG-13 was not around then, but that movie surely would get slapped with that rating today--it's a movie about kids, and kids do swear a lot.
Breaking Away is another movie that got a PG, and is full of profanity (I think the dreaded F word is used a few times!)
In Foul Play, two old ladies play "dirty Scrabble" and spell out that "F" word, and add -er and mother- to it.....I guess Scrabble usage of the F word still gives a PG. Plus that movie had similar scenes involving blow up dolls.

I could go on and on, but the point is clear--kids could see a lot in the '70s and early '80s in a PG movie, but now, movies containing this material would get a PG-13, or even an R--but if they turn on TV at 8 pm, they can see things kids could only see in an R rated movie in the '70s (anything on "Fear Factor," and the shenanigans during the Super Bowl halftime show would have merited an R rating, for sure).

"Basically I put out fires"

reply

[–] longlivesimpsons 20 years ago

I noticed the R rating too, that's a bit extreme, it's rated 12 in England and I'd say that's about right, also how come Beetlejuice gets away with a PG in America(It's 15 rated here) and this gets an R, both are supposed to be rated 12 or PG-13 surely, both rating boards are a bit weird.

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] derekaxe 20 years ago

Another movie that would have been given a PG-13 is Annie Hall.

reply

[–] piperian396 17 years ago

I would agree with the fact that things were less strict in the 70's and 80's, but Manhattan was rated R. That is ridiculous.

reply

[–] bobwoods 19 years ago

Million Dollar Baby had that word too, but it got the PG-13 rating! It doesn't make any sense!

reply

[–] walrus29 19 years ago

That's true. Stealing Home has like, what, three sex scenes and several uses of the F word. But it's rated PG. Came out in late 80s or early 90s...

reply

[–] WhySoSeriously 16 years ago

The Visitor (2008) had MOTHER *beep* E R in it yet it was rated PG-13.

In the UK, even a single use of MOTHER *beep* E R will get the film slapped with an 15.

If Everyone Says I Love You was submitted to the BBFC today, it would have been classified 15! That happened with The Visitor!

reply

[–] derekaxe 20 years ago

I believe that rating something R solely on language is a violation of the first amedsment.

reply

[–] ruthierocks 20 years ago

I think it's sick. 1 F word and it's rated R. Benny and Joon is rated PG and it has 1 F word, several other curse words, and implied sex. It's a cute little film, but if that's rated PG, this should be.

I think about 10 or 15 F words should merit an R rating. And to the person who said that it should not me put into a group with the rougher films- I completely agree. Anyone who puts the same rating on this as they do Pulp Fiction (I think I read 272 F words) is messed up in the head.

:~)

reply

[–] Spartan_234 20 years ago

Well, Pulp Fiction is actually what many call a "hard R", with material that will obviously (I mean, -obviously-) get a movie into the R category. Such material is stuff like full frontal nudity, extreme amounts of gore and pervasive use of the F-bomb, but isn't enough for an NC-17 rating.

Movies like Everyone Says I Love You are what are called "soft Rs", movies that require small cuts to get into the PG-13 category. The R rating really is a long range. You can have as much language as you want (with more than 3 F-words usually being an automatic R -- are you guys all sure about the few PG-13 movies with at least 10 F-bombs?), and your other content can range from feet of splattering blood and long shots of titties to explicit depictions of the mutilation of internal body parts and scenes of oral sex in the NC-17 category.

I agree with you guys that even though they use the MotherF-bomb in this movie, it shouldn't be rated R. Although Air Force One was rated R, it was only rated R for violence and the terrorist in that movie (played by Gary Oldman) used the MotherF-bomb.(From my point of view, I didn't think that Air Force One deserved the R rating because most of the blood was pretty brief.)

Now, you guys that are protesting against the MPAA should realize that 1. they actually are being less strict than they were in the 90's because movies like Daredevil are getting rated PG-13, but Daredevil contains more blood than most PG-13 movies and has depictions of stabbing (the most graphic stabbing sequence is when it shows a dagger going through Elektra's hand). 2. A PG-13 rating did not exist until 1984, 3. with the other 2 rules in mind you'll find out that the MPAA 80's standards are almost the exact same as the 90's standards. "My Best Friend's Wedding" also got the PG-13 rating on appeal (it was originally rated R).

Instead of protesting the MPAA,

Stop The ESRB Rating System Now - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399128/board/nest/10107434

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] derekaxe 20 years ago

In "My Best Friend's Wedding" it's used sexually, and in "The Kids are Alright" and "Look Who's Talking Too", it's used twice. MBFW and LWTT are PG-13, TKAA is PG.

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] derekaxe 20 years ago

MBFW is a year after ESILY, of course, I also heard it twice in "Anger Management"

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] derekaxe 20 years ago

Of course, it's used twice in Chaplin, and sexually in In and Out.

reply

[–] rko_281 19 years ago

The rule is that one use of "the f word" will get a film at least a PG-13 and if it's used in a sexual context it is an automatic R. If used only once in a sexual context a film can be appealed for a PG-13 as with The Evening Star, My Best Friend's Wedding, and The Company. More than three uses will give it an R. Most people think the limit is either one or two, but it's not. It is uncommon, but the limit is three. The American President, As Good as it Gets, A Civil Action, To Gillian On Her 37th Birthday, The Last of the Blonde Bombshells, Antwone Fisher, and Moonlight Mile are among the films that have three uses.

The rules are more strict now. The PG-13 rating was introduced in November 1984, so they could still get away with a lot in a PG movie at the time. The "f word" was allowed, nudity was allowed, as well as harsher violence, intense situations, and even some sexual content. PG films like Beetlejuice, Nothing in Common, and Big all had one use and Adventures in Babysitting had two. PG-13 films like a Cry in the Dark and Running on Empty each had seven uses, and 1996s A Family Thing had four.

Films with important subject matter pertaining to history can receive special treatment. All the President's Men has ten "f words" and was granted a PG on appeal due to the subject of the Watergate scandal. Guilty By Suspicion, which was given special consideration for it's depiction of the Hollywood blacklist, also has ten and the recent documentary Gunner Palace contains forty-three "f words." Gunner Palace's R rating was successfully appealed on the basis that because the film is documenting the lives of a group of soldiers in Iraq, the strong language was appropriate for those under seventeen to hear unaccompanied by their parents.

Apparently, the "f word" is not allowed in a PG-13 at all with the attached prefix "mother." This is what I thought until I saw John Q. It has two "f words," one with the prefix "mother." Million Dollar Baby had quite a few "f" phrases, as well as one with the prefix "mother."

The MPAA rating system is very tricky. They will allow something in one film, but it's a no-no in another. Anything Else, for example, is the third Woody Allen film to feature a comic scene involving cocaine-and the only one rated R. I once heard the process compared to basketball. With basketball you know where the lines are so you don't go out of bounds, but with the MPAA there are no boundary lines so you don't know when you've gone out of bounds until you are told. You can tell them it was fine yesterday and they will tell you that yesterday was yesterday, but today you're out of bounds.

reply

[–] jackrabbit83 19 years ago

They could easily cut out the rap scene and make it a lower rating. That scene was unnecessary.

reply

[–] in-reverie 19 years ago

usually you get one F word for a pg-13 movie. look at bruce almighty, anchorman, armageddon, etc.

the PG movies you are citing from the 80s were because there was no pg-13 rating at the time.

perfect baby, perfect.

AIM: its an easy beat
email: [email protected]

reply

[–] ryanswartz-2 19 years ago

But in the past, films were submitted and got the rating the MPAA slapped on them.

The reason you see so many PG-13 movies with ONE use of the f-word these days is that directors and writers put it in intentionally -- especially with action films and horror flicks -- so they'll be basically guaranteed a PG-13 -- not a PG (cuz that's kiddie fare) and not an R (cuz that means no high schoolers).

It's funny, because the ratings system has basically reversed itself, and now a single word is often the determining factor between a PG-13 and an R, or a PG and a PG-13, for an awful lot of movies.

I have many leather-bound books, and my apartment smells of rich mahogany.

reply

[–] rko_281 19 years ago

usually you get one F word for a pg-13 movie. look at bruce almighty, anchorman, armageddon, etc.

If you look at The American President, As Good as it Gets, A Civil Action, To Gillian On Her 37th Birthday, The Last of the Blonde Bombshells, Antwone Fisher, and Moonlight Mile you will see that the limit is three.

the PG movies you are citing from the 80s were because there was no pg-13 rating at the time.

I know:

The PG-13 rating was introduced in November 1984, so they could still get away with a lot in a PG movie at the time. The "f word" was allowed, nudity was allowed, as well as harsher violence, intense situations, and even some sexual content.

reply

[–] pez_is_tasty 19 years ago

Waiting for Guffman says the F-word twice and nothing else and its R.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] And3ww 19 years ago

Running on Empty uses the F-word nearly seven times yet it only recieved a 'PG-13' rating.

Terms of Endearment uses the F-word twice (partly in reference to sex) yet it only recieved a 'PG' rating.

Doc Hollywood featured female nudity yet only recieved a 'PG-13' rating (the film also drops the F-bomb).

Something's Gotta Give also feature the same discriptors as Doc Hollywood yet it too also recieved a 'PG-13' rating.

Then there is The Clearing which only uses the F-word twice yet is rated 'R'.

About Smidt featured nearly the same amount of nudity as Doc Hollywood and Somethings Gotta Give yet it recieved an 'R' rating.

I ran all the way home

-TheMovieFreak

reply

[–] rko_281 19 years ago

Waiting for Guffman uses the "f word" twice in a sexual context. If the "f word" is used in a sexual context it receives an automatic R. If it is used in a sexual context only once, a film can be appealed for a PG-13.

Running on Empty was originally rated R. It was re-rated on appeal. Seven uses in a PG-13 is unusual, but the filmmakers must have given a very convincing argument.

Terms of Endearment was originally rated R. It was re-rated on appeal. It was given a PG because it was released before the PG-13 rating was introduced in 1984.

Doc Hollywood and Something's Gotta Give are not the only PG-13 films that contain nudity. Nell, Titanic, The Cider House Rules, Calendar Girls, and The Muse are other PG-13 films with nudity.

The Clearing uses the "f-word" once in a sexual context and once as an expletive. If the "f word" is used in a sexual context it receives an automatic R. Since it is used in a sexual context only once, the filmmakers could have appealed the decision. They would have won easily but they either chose not to, or didn't think to.

About Schmidt is rated R primarily for uses of the "f-word." There are four uses. The PG-13 limit is three.

reply

[–] bobwoods 19 years ago

Gunner Palace is PG-13 and had over 40 f-bombs in it! 4 of them used with mother. That's bullcrap! If that movie is PG-13, this movie should be rated PG-13 too.

reply

[–] rko_281 19 years ago

Gunner Palace was originally rated R. It was successfully appealed on the basis that because the film is documenting the lives of a group of soldiers in Iraq, the strong language was appropriate for those under seventeen to hear unaccompanied by their parents. Films with important subject matter tend to receive special treatment. All the President's Men has ten "f words" and was granted a PG on appeal due to the subject of the Watergate scandal. Guilty By Suspicion, which was given special consideration for it's depiction of the Hollywood blacklist, also has ten.

I don't agree with the MPAA's policy on language. The "f word" limit for a PG-13 is three, but once the "f word" is used it's used. It shouldn't matter how it is said, or whether it's used three times or thirty-three times because when you've heard that word once, you've heard it.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bobwoods 19 years ago

Million Dollar Baby wasn't originally rated R. It had a f word used with mother. The MPAA were too harsh on this movie.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] insanemansam5 18 years ago

I think the reason this was rated-R is bottom-line because Woody wanted it that way; why exactly I don't know this film seems like it has the most commercial upside of any of Allen's films with the exception Annie Hall. What I heard anyways about the F-word and ratings is this; three strikes and your out. I don't remember that rapper saying the F-word three+ times but he must have. By the way that scene could have easily been cut and it wouldn't have affected the movie. I can't help but wondering if maybe it was there because Allen was being pressured to put a minority in this film. I know that sounds like a bit of a conspiracy but here's the thing I think it's very uncharacteristic for Allen to put rap music or even a rapper into one of his films and that sequence didn't really fit into the rest of the movie.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] insanemansam5 18 years ago

Look I'm not really sure whether it's right or wrong but the fact is that there are groups such as the NAACP who pressure people to put minorities in films. I actually had a very liberal black professor who talked extensively about minorities being casted in 'token' roles for appeasment. I couldn't help but wondering if that's what was going on here. Would that really be entirely out of the realm of possibility when you consider A) the scene really had no place in the movie B)There were no other racial minorities in the entire film C)There is absolutely nothing from hip-hop culture in any other Allen film. Furthermore am I racist for suggesting a possibility as to why a director would have casted someone in a certain role no matter how absurd you consider my reasoning to be. Personally I think you are for more paranoid than I'am for going on message boards and attacking people you have never met and know nothing about as racist based on one comment they made that had nothing to do with their personal beliefs and background.

reply

[–] Kinski_Twist 18 years ago

Hi insanemansam. You bring up some very good points on a very pertinent issue. However, whilst this may happen in other films, I can assure you that it doesn't in Allen's. Allen chooses the extras himself and would never cast people from minorities unless it was thematically right for that film. A good example of this is in Hannah and Her Sisters. At the time of its release it received a lot of flak because it used a black woman for one of the maids in the household. Allen rightly replied that it was a correct (and not token) representation, because an upper middle class family in this are was very likely to have a black maid.

The scene had a massive place in the film if you are familiar with Woody's views on rock music and rap music. In Manhattan he rants about how rock music is incomprehensible and only for angry people. Again, in Hannah and Her Sisters he is taken to a punk rock concert and is very bemused. It's a common theme in his work. Because he's made fun of rock music so much, he's just updating the theme and modernising his distaste for music other than jazz and classical. This is clearly shown by the rappers using the same lyrics as everyone else but with profanity. It's a very, very Woody Allen type joke.

As for point B. There didn't need to be any other minorities in the film (unless you count Venetians, who certainly number less than African Americans). After all, the film was about an upper class white family. The fact that there isn't anything else from hip-hop culture in any of his other films is the whole point of the joke. Apart from Hannah and Her Sisters there isn't anything else from rock culture, which was what made the joke for that also.

Your certainly not racist for suggesting this possibility, because I'm certain that it has happened in many films. Conversely though, Woody Allen wouldn't token cast even an extra if hell freezed over! He simply wouldn't and couldn't be pressured into it. Couldn't because he has final cut on all his films and has been known to reshoot parts of films or even whole films with different actors.

Hopefully this is more rational than what the previous poster said to you.

reply