It takes a lot of effort to get banned these days
well done that man.
Still haven't seen the first film, the trailer alone near made me sick
(
VampireMonkeyOnSpeed a super sexy sexual sex terrorist sex, Mon 6 Jun 2011, 22:41,
Reply)
^this
And i'm lost for words on the description for the second one. I also feel slightly disturbed anyone could actually sit in a cinema and watch it, let alone make it
(
Jahled Three shades of black, Mon 6 Jun 2011, 22:52,
Reply)
Remember reading a bit of an interview with a BBFC reviewer once
99% of what they review is pure trash for straight-to-DVD, and a lot of it is horrific garbage. Only rarely do they actually get to review a nice art film or a blockbuster. Because they see graphic uncut violence and depravity day in day out they have to have regular counselling sessions.
Nice. Maybe a career in movies isn't for me.
(, Mon 6 Jun 2011, 23:12, Reply)
Hahaha!
Nicely put; if they have regular counselling sessions then job done. Gore lust like this is simply a bit lost on me personally
(
Jahled Three shades of black, Mon 6 Jun 2011, 23:16,
Reply)
But they know they are watching special effects.
If I see someone punched in the street, I feel sick - I mean it really does my head in, and it'll stay with me. But if I see someone graphically murdered in a film, it doesn't bother me at all, apart from maybe a wince as it happens.
(
mookay immune to icons since, Mon 6 Jun 2011, 23:17,
Reply)
I think it's the depravity of the idea
rather than the realism of the violence which has the most horrific lasting effect.
I was going to put his here as an example but the more I read about this the more it actually sounds like quite a good film:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antichrist_(film)#Plot
(, Tue 7 Jun 2011, 0:02, Reply)
Antichrist is a genius piece of cinema.
It looks beautiful and makes you think quite deeply about some pretty heavy issues. But yeah, there are some unsettling images.
edit: also, depraved ideas are nothing new, and have had a hugely important role to play in popular fiction, theatre, films and art throughout history. With dark, disturbing themes often comes truth and insight. Your pals at the BBFC should probably stay away from Marquis De Sade writings, Bosche paintings, any Grand-Guignol theatre, modern writers like Palahniuk, and even old poets like Poe. Much depravity to be had. I love it.
(
mookay immune to icons since, Tue 7 Jun 2011, 1:23,
Reply)
Oh, bullshit.
Its easy to become desensitised to special-effects gore. It's also easy to differentiate between real violence and SFX. It takes a serious amount of budget and skill to make on-screen ultra-violence seem even remotely realistic. If an onscreen special-effect causes you to need counselling in this day and age, then you're a fucking infant.
(, Tue 7 Jun 2011, 0:49, Reply)
Remember, these are the same people who gave the first Spider-Man movie a 12 rating, meaning that kids couldn't watch a movie that was clearly aimed at kids. I was working as a cinema usher at the time; my job became "bouncer" as a result of that absurd ruling. The 12 rating was given because of the big fight at the end, in which Spidey gets battered a bit and some blood is shown. Oh, noes! Who will think of the childrens!
This would have been at least faintly supportable, had there not been a Star Wars movie showing at the same time in which people got their fucking arms cut off, and died through stab-wounds and being FUCKING CUT IN HALF . . . and yet the Phantom Menace was given a PG rating. The so-called "rules" were insupportable bullshit.
I personally complained to the BBFC, because I was fed up with having to physically defend my female, teenaged co-workers from actual violence by parents who thought that it was their decision to smuggle their toddlers into the film, laws be damned, and would turn nasty - i.e., physically violent - whenever we pointed out that precious little Alfie (they're always called Alfie) was barely twelve inches tall, let alone twelve years old.
People have a bizarre notion that cinemas should bend to their will, and that they are completely in charge once they've bought their tickets, regardless of the law.
(, Tue 7 Jun 2011, 1:33, Reply)
Did you think about turning a blind eye?
If you don't agree with the rating system, then don't blindly uphold it's rulings
(, Tue 7 Jun 2011, 3:01, Reply)
To be fair, it's not just about gore and violence
And watching a film about people being forced to shit into each others mouths wouldn't be a pleasant experience, regardless of how easily you can 'differentiate between real violence and SFX.' If you can't grasp that, then you're worse than a fucking infant (not really, I just felt it appropriate to respond in kind)
(, Tue 7 Jun 2011, 2:59, Reply)
As a medic, this movie really pissed me off
"100% medically accurate!".
Yes. It is possible to take a stitch and sew someone's mouth to someone else's arsehole.
Plus: Where was his evil sidekick Anaesthetist? And his evil sidekick recovery room nurse?
Grrr.
(, Mon 6 Jun 2011, 23:03, Reply)
What pissed me off about that film the most was that they apparently hired Junji Ito as a consultant. Junji Ito has produced some of the most horrifying, and original, ideas of this century or the last. A second-rate movie like this just sullies his name.
Seriously, look up his name and read his manga (I'm not a fan of manga myself, but for crying out loud, read his stuff and you won't sleep for a week).
(, Tue 7 Jun 2011, 0:53, Reply)