[fhs man 2]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1606378/?ref_=sr_1

Still to be confirmed though, I don't remember seeing the rating there before.

[theonlyweeman]

Not on the BBFC website, so I'd assume it isn't official yet...

[fhs man 2]

Originally Posted by theonlyweeman

Not on the BBFC website, so I'd assume it isn't official yet...

Yes it is not confirmed yet but I have heard they have connections with people on the inside of BBFC.

One theory could be that BBFC have rated it 18 and the company have not decided weather to cut it to 15 or keep it as an 18. This would explain why it is taking them so long to rate this movie.

[theonlyweeman]

Originally Posted by fhs man 2

Yes it is not confirmed yet but I have heard they have connections with people on the inside of BBFC.

One theory could be that BBFC have rated it 18 and the company have not decided weather to cut it to 15 or keep it as an 18. This would explain why it is taking them so long to rate this movie.

Only the US, Netherlands and South Korea have a rating yet, so Fox aren't exactly cutting it close, and they're 17A/16/15 (on appeal) respectively. I very much doubt it's an over the top gross out Tarantino-esque gratuitously violent film...

[fhs man 2]

Originally Posted by theonlyweeman

Only the US, Netherlands and South Korea have a rating yet, so Fox aren't exactly cutting it close, and they're 17A/16/15 (on appeal) respectively. I very much doubt it's an over the top gross out Tarantino-esque gratuitously violent film...

BBFC usually have films rated by now it appears as if there is an issue that has come up during rating.

[theonlyweeman]

Originally Posted by fhs man 2

BBFC usually have films rated by now it appears as if there is an issue that has come up during rating.

It's not uncommon for ratings to appear later on, and Fox haven't rated it in that many countries, so I very much doubt anything's come up, it's probably sat in a "To Watch" pile at the BBFC or a "To Send To BBFC" pile at Fox UK....

[CJClarke]

Originally Posted by fhs man 2

BBFC usually have films rated by now it appears as if there is an issue that has come up during rating.

I've seen films not get rated until the week of release before, that said, with this being a fairly high profile release it does seem a bit unusual for them to have not classified it yet. When I read the Canadian ratings info though it did make me think it could end up with an 18 (it mentions stabbings and mutilation). If the mutilation or stabbings are graphic enough then I could see it getting an 18, and with Fox (and no doubt IMAX too, considering it'll be taking up their screens for 2 weeks) wanting to maximise profits Fox might want cuts for a 15. Of course, that's assuming the Canadian info was accurate.

Watch it end up being a 12A now I've said all that, lol.

[Jonwo]

I imagine FOX will want a 15, as successful as Django Unchained is doing at the moment, an 18 will limit audiences and therefore box office potential. TBH I think it'll be a 15 will little if any cuts.

[JCR]

Originally Posted by fhs man 2

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1606378/?ref_=sr_1

Still to be confirmed though, I don't remember seeing the rating there before.

IMDB can be edited by anyone.

[Theo_Bear]

At a running time of only 97 minutes, I don't think I care anymore what rating it gets. It could be an R18 and I still wouldn't bother with it.

[CJClarke]

Originally Posted by Theo_Bear

At a running time of only 97 minutes, I don't think I care anymore what rating it gets. It could be an R18 and I still wouldn't bother with it.

I really don't get people's horrified reaction to the 97 minute running time, i know that the other ones were over 2 hours, but i'd rather them have a shorter but tight film rather than have it drag just to make it as long as the others. As long as it's long enough to tell the story i don't see a problem with it. I said this in another thread too, but Commando is only 88 minutes and that doesn't stop it being an action classic does it? Just seems like a massive overreaction to something that probably wont have any bearing on your overall enjoyment of the film.

If the film itself turns out to be crap, then fair enough, i'll be getting the knives out as well since Die Hard 1-3 are among my favourite films, but i doubt my complaints will have anything to do with the running time, there's been plenty of 90-100 minute action films that are still really good, it really isn't the end of the world if it's 20-ish minutes shorter...

[roger_50]

It's true. There's endless action films that outstay their welcome and should have been tightened up. Anything around the 90-100 minute mark is perfect.

It's an action flick, not War & Peace.

[Theo_Bear]

I like a bit of characterisation, plot and motive in my action films. That's why Die Hard is still so damn good after nearly 25 years. You won't get that in a movie which looks little more than 90 minutes of "let's blow some shit up."

[roger_50]

Nah, 97 minutes can still have plenty of efficient characterisation and story-telling. If it's done well.

Time isn't the issue with these things normally - it's the script/direction/acting that usually defines whether it succeeds in that area or not.

[DeelyBopper]

I can't imagine it ending up in theatres with an 18 though I pray that it is.

[CJClarke]

Originally Posted by Theo_Bear

I like a bit of characterisation, plot and motive in my action films. That's why Die Hard is still so damn good after nearly 25 years. You won't get that in a movie which looks little more than 90 minutes of "let's blow some shit up."

And you're basing that on a 2 minute trailer which is designed to show exciting action packed bits rather than slower character building moments. All the Die Hard movies have had "lets blow shit up" style trailers, this is no different.

When i watched Die Hard 4.0/Live Free or Die Hard again the other week i really felt that the film could have been a fair bit shorter, essentially chopping out the diversion to Kevin Smith's basement which would have saved a good ten or fifteen minutes (i like Kevin Smith, love his films, but his character here was utterly pointless). The characterization in DH4 left a lot to be desired too, particularly when it came to Timothy Olyphant's bland bad guy and his collection of faceless henchmen/women who had all the personality of a piece of cardboard, and that film lasted well over 2 hours. The length of the film isn't indicative of how good/bad a film is.

Originally Posted by roger_50

Nah, 97 minutes can still have plenty of efficient characterisation and story-telling. If it's done well.

Time isn't the issue with these things normally - it's the script/direction/acting that usually defines whether it succeeds in that area or not.

Completely agree.

[Theo_Bear]

OK, just to point out the script comes from the guy who wrote The A-Team. Enough said really.

[-GONZO-]

The Carlton Cinema in Westgate-On-Sea are saying its a 12A.

[roger_50]

deleted

[CLL Dodge]

Originally Posted by -GONZO-

The Carlton Cinema in Westgate-On-Sea are saying its a 12A.

If the trailer is a 12A you'd expect the film to be harder.

[Stansfield]

Originally Posted by roger_50

It's true. There's endless action films that outstay their welcome and should have been tightened up. Anything around the 90-100 minute mark is perfect.

It's an action flick, not War & Peace.

Did anyone see, Shoot 'Em Up '18'......86 minutes.
9/10....it can be done, it is a Mad Action film.

[CJClarke]

Originally Posted by -GONZO-

The Carlton Cinema in Westgate-On-Sea are saying its a 12A.

So is VUE, but I very strongly doubt that they've got accurate info there though considering that there are now numerous sources that claim the film has a fair amount of swearing and violence. It'll be a 15 at the very least.

[theonlyweeman]

Originally Posted by CJClarke

So is VUE, but I very strongly doubt that they've got accurate info there though considering that there are now numerous sources that claim the film has a fair amount of swearing and violence. It'll be a 15 at the very least.

I read somewhere the info we have is "42 uses of coarse language", it could be 40 uses of shit and 2 uses of the f word. And you may very well be able to scrape that through at a 12....

The Canadians tend to be stronger on sex and language than us, but weaker on violence. You're probably right about it being a 15 though

[Paddy C]

Coarse language is the MF and C words, anything else is strong (F) or moderate (W) and the rest is mild. There is no way that any censors in the world think that 'shit' is course language. Perhaps you read or picked it up wrong somewhere and they said 42 uses of strong language? That would count for 42 F words (par for the course in the first 3 Die Hards) with plenty of other swearwords and the big MF at the very end.

[dbob]

Get real people, this will never be an 18. 15 if you're lucky but more than likely a 12A. Something tells me the film is c*** so they have probably re-cut to maximise the audience with a 12A. However bad the reviews are a large number of teens will still go and see it.