Rated X - Blood Freak Discussion

[–] cconner 19 years ago

Honestly, I think if it were made today, it would be straight-to-video, and we might get an R-rated version as well as an unrated one.
The drug use is pretty average (no worse than any FRIDAY THE 13TH) and the gore is so amateurish, well, I don't see it being taken seriously by the MPAA.
I highly recommend you do whatever is necessary to get a copy, though.
Words cannot express the joy I get out of watching it time and again.
I only have a lowly cheap VHS copy, but I'll soon be upgrading to the SOMETHING WEIRD DVD.
If you like the 60's monster movie genre, check out SCREAM, BABY, SCREAM, too!

***

Who will survive and what will be left of them?

reply

[–] jonschaper 19 years ago

Since it is an indie, and the MPAA always is tougher with indies than with the major studios (who founded the MPAA), then they might use the chicken beheading as an excuse for an R. But otherwise, if it were made today, it'd definitely only get a PG-13 rating at the most. There's no swearing, no nudity, and sex with the turkey monster is only hinted at. The MPAA, with its strange priorities, is less concerned with violent content than sex. And it has a strong moral message. After all it's cinema's first anti-hippie, pro-Jesus, anti-pot, pro-FDA, turkey-monster gore film. Hallelujah.

reply

[–] alcope2000 18 years ago

No way!!! It would be rated "R" for sure! It has a very bloody throat slashing and leg amputation scene that is filmed in continous take, yes these scenes are pretty funny, but they are, for the time and budget, very convincing. They would not even consider this for a "PG13"! But I do question the original "X" rating, does anyone know if it was self imposed?? Was it an official "X"? I could see the Gore-Gore Girls, also from 1972 getting an "X", but this film???

reply

[–] jonschaper 18 years ago

It was probably self-imposed. I think it cost a fair bit of money to get an official rating (they'd have to send it in for a screening, etc.), and, in contrast to something like a K. Gordon Murray imported Mexican kids film, theatres wouldn't want to show something like that unrated, so a self-imposed x likely made sense. They'd probably get an x anyways since, unlike the major studios, they didn't have the ratings boards stacked with their own employees. And I doubt an x would frighten away the type of audience that would watch it. In fact, it might attract more people.

I still think Blood Freak would only get a PG13 today. There's far worse on the average episode of CSI and many other shows on TV. But Gore Gore Girls is another matter entirely.

You are looking for what I am.

reply

[–] jerkface2k 16 years ago

blood freak could be pulled off with a PG13. however... there is a quick flash of some tits and ass and allot of blood, bright red blood. true, the blood dosn't work on a realistic level and looks a bit like tempura paint, but the MPAA is really touchy about bright red blood. i could site several examples of movies from the 70's to now where the MPAA got uptight about blood and what color it was... do we really need these guys anymore? i love blood freak and think its one of the most interesting moves i have ever seen.

reply

[–] alcope2000 12 years ago

I just got done watching it again, and there is no way it is "PG13" there is LOTS of pot smoking and one shoot up scene. Plus I have NEVER seen a "PG13" film with explicit gore like you see here. The scene were the dealer has his leg amputated by saw is very explict. There is blood gushing out and the Blood Freak is drinking it! It would be definately rated "R".

reply

[–] cs_cyberstorm 11 years ago

The turkey beheading alone would still get this an X rating.

I can just see the Humane Society and PETA foaming at the mouth over that scene. All they had to do was take that scene out and it would get an R rating. PG-13 wouldn't exist for another eight years at least. If it was re-rated today without the turkey beheading, then it would get PG-13.

"Fate takes all the fun out of free will."

reply

[–] alcope2000 11 years ago

The throat slicing and leg dismemberment scenes are too graphic for PG13. Plus you have the subject matter of drug use.

reply

[–] AceRoccola 9 years ago

The throat slicing scenes couldn't be less graphic. He hangs someone upside down, then waves his hand and bright red blood sprays all over their face and up their nose while the same scream is played over and again. It's a joke.

This film should be rated PG. It's no more "graphic" than a film like Beastmaster, which had actual nudity to boot, and still grabbed a PG.

reply

[–] alcope2000 9 years ago

"PG" rated films today are very mild. The leg cutting scene is filmed without editing. This film would be rated "R" today. It doesn't matter how cheezy the film is. Plus there is drug content.

reply

[–] Slurrysback 8 years ago

Yep, no question it would get an R.

reply

[–] freakofnurture 15 years ago

actually i'm pretty sure this information wasn't present five years ago when i asked.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]