Or am I missing something?
-
OnlyRocknRoll — 12 years ago(April 05, 2013 11:17 PM)
20'S and 30'slots of bare breasts and clingy dresses without any underwear. That was before the Hayes office and all of its censorship that stultified film in the 50's. Of course, for the past 20's years it's been the oppositegratuitous nudity and there must be a sex scene in every film (ho hum, snore)
"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!"
Maximus Decimus Meridius -
kawada_shougo — 12 years ago(October 17, 2013 04:47 PM)
I don't understand why it's not PG. Nudity shouldn't give a movie any rating higher than PG except it has a strong sexual content and this movie has almost zero sexual content. MPAA is too much oversensitive in rating films with nudity.
-
nielw — 12 years ago(November 05, 2013 10:26 PM)
I agree. Never seen so many boobs in a PG-13 movie. I thought Titanic was too gratuitous for the MPAAnot realizing this had already been released by then. What other PG/PG-13 movies have this many boobs? I can't think of any.
Mirror inspector is a job I could really see myself doing. -
CitizenCairParavel — 11 years ago(July 14, 2014 09:18 PM)
The MPAA was thinking, "Must be great because it's directed by Attenborough the director of Gandhi," failing to appreciate that RA was a mediocre director who was fortunate to make boring movies about the greats who were so fascinating they made up for his mediocrity
-
TheChamCham — 10 years ago(January 14, 2016 05:06 AM)
I can only think of one reason why you would all be complaining about this, but I am not going to say it.
When I was in grade school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down HAPPY.
