The only reason this is rated R is because of the F-word. Otherwise, I don't think there's anything too objectional or anything that a ten year old couldn't handle. Sure, it gets tense and a little gross (chicken eating scene), but similar films like The Goonies and Monster Squad got pretty crazy and they weren't rated R. Once again proof that the ratings system sucks.
Don't talk back to Darth Vader. He'll getcha.
agreed, no reason for a R rating
shareIt's completely ridiculous. The film is rated PG in Canada, & 11 in Denmark & Sweden.
How the does the US justify rating this movie as R?
My IMDb vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur5998197/ratings
You see, Americans, (and I speak as an American from North Carolina), as a culture find profanity and nudity to be insanely offensive.
This is a hypocritical stance as we all curse in our private lives and did so at the same ages as the characters of this film.
None the less. You can show gore galore, but cursing or semi-nudity will get you an R rating to "protect our innocent Godly children."
You are right. It is ridiculous that you have to be over 17 to see a movie like this, but graphic war films often get away with PG-13.
You see, Americans, (and I speak as an American from North Carolina), as a culture find profanity and nudity to be insanely offensive.
I agree that the R rating is ridiculous. Having taught middle school aged kids for many years I could assure the Ratings Board that the "bad words" used by the children in The Substitute are commonly used by American kids of that age group. Our children hear them everyday on U.S. playgrounds, but they can't hear them in a theatre? Too bad because I think a lot of tweeners would greatly enjoy this film.
share