why is this rated R?
I think they went a bit over the top with the rating. Seriously, the sexual content isn't even explict.
shareIt was probably only R because of the scene in the beginning where he and the nun are having sex and moving up and down a lot. Other than that, the rest of the sexual content was mostly just implied. (When Charlie Cox's character was at the brothel, you don't really see anything, just all of them in bed laughing) I agree that the R rating was a bit silly- the MPAA is on crack sometimes.
"Everything I do, I do it for you."
Yeah. They just go overboard on ratings. PG-13 has worse sex scenes than in this.
I found the Fountain of Youth! It's the toilet!
I agree! Some movies are so very overrated. Then, there are movies that should be rated NC-17 or more and are only R. I don't understand the inner workings of the people who rate movies, but they have preview audiences right? To test certain aspects of the movie? I think they should ask these audiences their opinions on what rating to give the movie.
shareWhat does an R rating equal in Australia? I'm very confused, isn't R higher than a 17+? G PG M MA15+ R18+ is what we have, can someone explain this other rating system?
-The eyes are open, the mouth is moving, but mr brain has long since departed-
I think it's like MA15+, only hard core explicit movies like Body of Evidence get R ratings here.
shareAgreed... ratings are a sick joke.
Our culture is so insane when it comes to this, that mothers would rather have their kids take a shot gun and blow off someone's head when playing a video game, than see a topless woman in a NON-sexual situation on screen
Sex is the most evil thing in America i guess? It defies all logic?. I blame religion.
What can ya do? I'll have to move to Europe i guess.
I was wondering the same thing. That's why I didn't go see it in theatres. Not that I'm a prude, but I'm always apprehensive about seeing R movies in theatres.
The rating was way over the top, but I still enjoyed the movie.
Life comes at you fast, but you can't cry about it.
"Dan Otto"
well there is one scene when there are three people in bed... and the woman is obviously getting it from both sides... nothing graphic, but little johnny might be asking mommy why two men are hugging the same woman... this scene may have been chopped from different releases though
shareThe MPAA apparently think Amélie and the Hostel and Saw films deserve the same rating...
"The mango cream pudding...it's...an interesting topping..."
yeah in my opinion it really didn't deserve R. WAY more PG-13's have content that is sooooo much worse than this. ridiculous...
R.I.P. Heath
The whole time I was thinking how was this as bad as House of 1000 Corpses and Hostel......sex was implied, We didn't even see Heath with his shirt off.
shareImplied Sex is still something A LOT of parents are trying to steer their kids away from... Hence the Programable TV's... I mean c'mon, he had sex with ALL the NUNs... He, as it was noted later, was a pig. And my hero... >;)
R-rated didn't bother me... and if I had kids, they could have watched it...
It's a Parental issue... See it and if you think it's ok... let the kids watch it...
If I had young kids, I wouldn't let them see SAW. Or anything on CineMax past 7pm...
-E
Um since when have violent video games not been hated by mothers, are you crazy? Thats WAY more talked about than movies. And honestly how many women in non sexual situations are topless on screen?(think youre kidding yourself there) Hardly any, and the ones that arent being sexual (in terms of the plot of the movie)i havent heard any complaints from, even though most of THOSE times its obvious the director put it in for the audience to get a sexual kick. Seriously, when will the world learn you dont need to show graphic sex in detail to get the point of the plot across? You dont need to show graphic torture for 10 minutes to get the point across of how much pain theyre feeling, the audience gets WAY more out of movies that DONT show that, because god forbid someone uses their imagination and common sense to put the obvious pieces together
shareMy kids are not to allowed to watch any violence whatsoever (movies or games) but implied sex is ok -- nothing explicit, no nudity. Nothing "R". As they get to be older teenagers I am sure they will watch whatever they want, just like I did. But it's called "parental guidance" while they are younger. It's also called "the rules of our house" ;-)
I think it was just a PG-13 film too; don't get the "R" designation. Maybe something was deleted in the US release?
G is for General Audiences (anyone admitted)
PG means Parental Guidance is suggested (anyone still admitted)
PG-13 means that viewers under 13 are recommended to be accompanied by a parent or guardian (but still, anyone admitted)
R means no one under 17 is admitted without an accompanying parent or guardian (in practice, any adult will do)
NC-17 means that no one under 17 is admitted at all
The PG rating replaced M (for Mature) almost as soon as the ratings system was devised.
The PG-13 was created after a parental outcry over the movies Gremlins and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom which got PG ratings; they were clearly not bad enough for R, so a new, in-between rating was created for like films.
The MPAA rating NC-17 replaced the previous self-ratable X designation in the late '80s. I believe the first Hollywood film to get rated NC-17 was Henry & June. When it was originally released, Midnight Cowboy was assigned an X, but today, the same film, uncut, got an R for DVD issue.
That last is an example of ratings creep: over time, we accept as normal more and more profanity, nudity, or violence, at earlier and earlier ages, until it's mainstream; an NC-17 movie today might merit an R two decades from now, and what used to be allowed only in R now occurs at PG-13, plus some elements of a film that used to automatically get PG-13 now are in films only rated PG.