I'M SORRY BUT THIS FILM DID NOT HAVE RATED R MATERIAL. IT WAS QUITE INNOCENT AND CHARMING, MAYBE A PG-13 BUT NOT R. I SAW THIS FILM A FEW MONTHS AGO AND ALL I CAN RECALL IS LANGUAGE, AND EVEN THAT WAS PRETTY CLEAN COMPARE TO OTHER MOVIES. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE PEOPLE THOUGHT IN GIVING IT AT R RATING.
sharemaybe the whole theme of the movie was the reason for its R...do u know what i mean??some movies our like that.
shareThere were men kissing, don't want to upset the kiddies.
shareAre you *beep* serious?! I was a gay "kiddie" and it wouldn't upset me, and I'm a simple nice boy FFS.... you people need serious help, it's all about reproduction with you *beep* heartless heteros isn't it? All that and no love, it's about caring for another human being for *beep* sakes, god you humans make me sick!! Gay kiddies are confused enough as it is! If they had more kid shows with that, then I wouldn't have felt so pathetic, *beep* YOU!!!
share[deleted]
You know how annoying it's to read when everything's in CAPS?
shareHomosexuality, that's why.
sharehow *beep* up is that though when the reason a movie is rated r just because its themes are gay oriented. as a gay person that offends me.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
well, a PG-13 movie can only contain one or 2 F words. i think "touch of pink" was rated R because of the language.
shareFor a movie to be rated PG-13 is can only have one use of the F word in a non-sexual sense (i.e. *beep* off' or *beep* that' but not 'I want to *beep* them')even one use of the F word in the latter context earns the film an R (I don't make the rules, I just know 'em)
shareTrue, except I just saw the film last night and do not remember the "F" word being said even once in a sexual context.
In any case, I totally disagree with the "R" rating for this film. It should have been PG-13, and as a gay man am also offended that the MPAA so eagerly slaps the "R" rating on nearly every gay-themed movie, with To Wong Foo, Thanks For Everything, Julie Newmar (1995) and In & Out (1997) and a few others being VERY RARE exceptions!
I think the MPAA needs to begin REVIEWING the CONTENT in gay-themed films before making their rating decisions, not just knee-jerk-reacting with an "R" just because of the theme and a single bare bum!
i agree it's because of the homosexual content. being a mum of a 13 year old, i understand the r rating. being a film fan i do not.
IMHO, there is no content here that i think should have gotten an r especially comparred to the many gore films that laden our screens and deprivating music that bombards our teens' ears on a daily basis. but i understand it.
my 13 year old has seen birdcage, priscilla, and to wong foo. he loves them and laughs. we have gay friends and he knows the lifestyle exsist. we as paernts have watched the movies with him and explained alternate lifestyles of our friends. he is mature enough to understand it. some teens are not. they use the info as amo for their misunderstanding or fear of the lifestyle and this usually results in cruel taunting and sometimes even assult or death. then we end up with adults that spread the hate and misunderstanding. just like racism, this is something not to be taken lightly. teens are going through their own questions on sexuality and the industry doesn't want to be nor should they be resposible for relaying alterante lifestyles to teens. these kinds of questions should be answered by parents not the industry, school, or church. we are too busy to raise our own kids that we tend to let others "raise" them, and when they come out as a different person than what is expected these parents go "oh! where did i go wrong" where? by NOT raising your own kids. the industry has an obligation to entertain and inform but not to raise our kids and teens. the teen years are a time where you are impressionable, easily swayed, or otherwise "talked into" things that you may or maynot otherwise think of or do. this is a time (well all times are) were the parents need to take an active roll in teaching our children about their own choices ans morals. these serious and important questions on sexuality should not be taken lightly. i do NOT believe there is a "gay agenda" in hollywood or anywhere. i just believe that parents are the responsible party as to how well adjusted our children grow up - gay or straight.
live the life you love, use the god you trust,
and don't take it all too seriously...
is homosexuality too risqué for their delicate young ears?
why is it an issue and why should they not be exposed to it until they are "really mature?"
i'm genuinely asking for a response.
The MPAA may forgive a great lot of things in order to assign a PG-13 rating. However, any depiction of gay love (however chaste), transvestism, gender reassignment, male nudity (even rear), etc., is going to get an R rating -- or worse. Then, anything that would get an R rating (if done by a straight couple) gets an NC-17 when done by a gay couple. Period.
If you're curious, find a documentary called "This Film Is Not Yet Rated". Be prepared to be incensed -- and I mean steam-from-the-ears, flames-from-the-eyes infuriated. The filmmakers have done some detective work and documented a number of homophobic inconsistencies in the policies and practices of the MPAA -- and some outright lies in their claims of equity and of the composition of the membership of their ratings personnel*. The filmmakers further describe the board's secrecy (almost to the level of paranoia) and their "appeals" procedure, HEAVILY weighted in favor of the board.
*Among other things, the MPAA claims that their ratings board is made up of parents of young children. [BUZZ!] WRONG! The filmmakers detective work found that only one of the 6 members was the parent of a child under 17; another member had no children at all and the other four had children in their 20s and 30s.
---
"Quis custodet ipso custodes?"
Who watches the watchers?
---
This movie is "too gay" for people. The rating system in America is so conservative.
shareI don't really see why this movie is R rated, I didn't even notice cussing in it. I think it should have been pg- 13, Simon Birch had more cussing, then this movie.
But the ratings are stupid.
"yea babe when i die, you're not invited to my funeral *kiss* "
[deleted]
Actually, "When Night is Falling" was going to be rated NC-17 just because it dealt with homosexuality and films that are about gay relationships usually get judged more harshly.
As for the F-word, it is a bit messed up when a word is used as a curse word, it is judged better than when it is used accurately. You would think that an expletive would be worse than a synonym for sex.
[deleted]
I was raised differently where an expletive, whether it be 'darn' or 'f*ing' were banned. I would rather someone use a perfectly fine word that means having sex than curse.
[deleted]
rent had *beep* 2x, and two lesbians kiss and two gays kiss and it had provacative songs...PG-13...Didn't even hav to make an appeal
share[deleted]
This movie is rated R for: Extreme Unchristian Morals uncluding Pervasive Rampant Homosexuality-MPAA
share[deleted]
Well, I'm gay and I disagree with you.
Enough said.
The MPAA may forgive a great lot of things in order to assign a PG-13 rating. However, any depiction of gay love (however chaste), transvestism, gender reassignment, male nudity (even rear), etc., is going to get an R rating. Then, anything that would get an R rating (if done by a straight couple) gets an NC-17 when done by a gay couple. Period.
If you're curious, rent a copy of a documentary called "This Film Is Not Yet Rated". Be prepared to be incensed — and I mean steam-from-the-ears, flames-from-the-eyes infuriated. The filmmakers have done some detective work and documented a number of homophobic inconsistencies in the policies and practices of the MPAA — and some outright lies in their claims of equity and of the composition of the membership of their ratings personnel*. The filmmakers further describe the board's secrecy (almost to the level of paranoia) and their "appeals" procedure, HEAVILY weighted in favor of the board.
*Among other things, the MPAA claims that their ratings board is made up of parents of young children. [BUZZ!] WRONG! The filmmakers detective work found that only one of the 6 members was the parent of a child under 17; another member had no children at all and the other four had children in their 20s and 30s.
***
Sic transit gloria mundi, sometimes Tuesday is worse.
***
That is one of the "few others" that are "very rare exceptions" to which I referred in my Feb 8, 2007 post.
I'll even quote it here: "In any case, I totally disagree with the "R" rating for this film. It should have been PG-13, and as a gay man am also offended that the MPAA so eagerly slaps the "R" rating on nearly every gay-themed movie, with To Wong Foo, Thanks For Everything, Julie Newmar (1995) and In & Out (1997) and a few others being VERY RARE exceptions!"
why is everyone else here complaining about the fact that she used caps, when they should be irritated that this movie was rated R, probably only for the fact that it hate gay content. Someones I hate our pretentious society. Anyway, these days with our rating system, i have seen worse languege and more sexual content in some pg movies. I would say tame pg-13, but NOT R. Definetly not. This was exactly what I was thinking when I say the rating and am glad others have voiced similar comments
shareIt is R rated because of MacLachlan's bad Cary Grant impersonation. They know that the only people that would be able to tell that it is bad don't watch R rated movies.
shareI also thought the language was sufficient for an R rating. I don't know how the MPAA does the rating, but I thought that some of the innuendo was good enough for an R. The movie wasn't crude by any means, but there was some sexual language, so I figured an R made sense just in case.
In any case, I don't see why anyone should get irritated because it was rated R. So what? An R rating isn't exactly the kiss of death; as was pointed out, there are many people who will buy an R rated movie before they buy a PG-13 one.
Perhaps my copy of the movie was edited. I don't recall any language that I wouldn't want my sister's grandchildren to hear.
---
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things,"
Of atoms, stars and nebulæ, of entropy and genes.
---
Totally agree. One of the BEST romantic comedies I've seen in years.
Having seen "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" last night though, I quite understand how the MPAA "ratings board" would be challenged by someone who DARED to show alternative cultures AND sexualities in *gasp* the SAME FILM.
About time the smaller producers got together to SUE the MPAA for the damage their arbitrary ratings cause. Can I donate somewhere?
Here, in Denmark, it's allowed for EVERYONE. Even kids under 10 could watch it if they wanted to.
sharePhilthee, I also saw that documentary (in fact, right around the time that you did!), and I absolutely agree with you. It reinforced everything I had suspected about the MPAA and it really showed me about how secretive it is. I mean, like creepily secretive. Not to mention learning the fact that some of the appointees to the ratings board actually fall outside of their own standards added a fresh new layer of hypocrisy to this definitely-not-above-reproach organization.
You know, when you think about it, the MPAA's requirements that members of this board should be "family men/women" is implicitly offensive. Consider the fact that NONE of the board members are gay, and you see what I'm getting at. This shows that so many straight people don't get the fact that many gays and lesbians ARE, in fact, family men & women. I may not have kids myself, but I know many who do! It's too bad that the MPAA still doesn't get it, and is therefore in dire need of a massive update/overhaul.