THis movie should have been rated R
-
-
mlanoue — 18 years ago(February 25, 2008 10:53 AM)
I'm sure it WOULD be rated R today, but it shouldn't be. We need to scale back the ratings to that family stuff gets a G instead of PG, and PG-13 actually means there is mature content. I was just old enough to see this when it first came out and it didn't warp me at all.
Believe it or not, ratings in the early 80's made more sense than they do now. We're a bunch of freaks now. -
brtd — 17 years ago(June 23, 2008 01:32 PM)
The thing that surprises me is they left the obvious shot that everyone's referring to that would've given this an R today in since it was pretty clearly an accident (or at least unintentional.) I can think of two explanations: Either they didn't want to go through the trouble of reshooting and Kelly LeBrock didn't think it was that big of a deal, or Kelly LeBrock developed an exhibitionist streak and WANTED to leave it in (and possibly even let it happen on purpose.)
-
unclejay73 — 17 years ago(February 06, 2009 11:57 PM)
"Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" and "Gremlins" were the films that proposed the PG-13 rating. They were released PG with disclaimers saying "This film may be too intense for younger children." A few months later, "The Flamingo Kid" was indeed the first film to be rated PG-13, but the film got shelved and wasn't released until December '84. So, "Red Dawn" was the first PG-13 film to be released.
But actually, "Return of the Jedi" was what really sparked the MPAA into thinking about another rating. "Jedi" also carried that "too intense" disclaimer. And I remember some news shows saying that "Jedi" was more violent this time around.
-UJ
http://www.swapadvd.com/index.php?n=1&r_by=JJC
SWAP YOUR DVDS at swapadvd.com. -
preppy-3 — 15 years ago(November 12, 2010 07:43 PM)
Actually "Poltergeist" and "Gremlins" got the MPAA thinking about the PG-13. In fact I heard "Poltergeist" WAS R rated but Spielberg appealed the rating and won. "Indiana Jones" WAS way too extreme for the PG but not strong enough for an R. The same applies to this movie. Reallywas the quick female nudity at the enough to give this an R? I don't think so. My sister saw it when she was 12 and she didn't grow up to be a sex addict or homicidal maniac! In fact she found the film "silly" and "stupid". She never even commented on the nudity.
-
rams_lakers — 15 years ago(April 10, 2010 11:17 AM)
It was the pulling out of the heart that inspired the PG-13 rating in Indiana Jones.
I think movie ratings are a joke. But even worse is when they try to list why with all the lame reasoning. Mild Violence? Yawn. That just means there's fighting. What f* *king prude needs to know that???? -
sweiland75 — 15 years ago(June 26, 2010 09:18 AM)
What f* *king prude needs to know that????
Americans
http://learnyourdamnhomophones.com/
Learn your damn homophones. -
JasonIK75 — 9 years ago(January 11, 2017 04:15 PM)
Saw IV (2007)
:
Rated R for sequences of grisly bloody violence and torture throughout, and for language
I haven't seen any of the
Saw
movies, but, it's the "and for language" part that amuses me. So, the MPAA were surprised that people being subjected to
"grisly bloody violence and torture"
might not be so polite about it
?
But then, as Sheila Broflovski said in
South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999)
:
Remember what the MPAA says; Horrific, Deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty woids! That's what this war is all about!
"May the Force be with you."
http://www.angelfire.com/fl3/jasonsite/gsteele.html -
krautdoggg — 14 years ago(April 10, 2011 06:11 AM)
This IS the first film, even with R-rated films, as far as I can recall, that did show full frontal female nudity. Maybe I missed one. And I'm not talking adult films aka porn so don't post your "Romancing the Bone" titles please.