Dunno if it was posted here, but film reviewer Kim Newman put this up on facebook:
He also pointed out the Crown Prosecution Service always see shit eating as being in breach of the obscene publications act. (Which does rather raise the question of why Salo was passed; I guess the scene in HC2 must be more graphic than the one in Salo.)
Shit eating would normally only be OPA material if it was real and usually in a porn movie.
Salo clearly isn't but I'm guessing that HC2 isn't either in which case the ban is still nonsense.
why dont they ban all these forigen films too..if people are saying they are worse than Hollywood films, what is the difference..they should ban them then
I think it should be banned. They're not banning it for being a horror film with too much horror, it's for the way the horror is presented - as being for sexual purposes and for showing too much detail of the extreme horror. At least that's what I gather from what I've read since I obviously haven't seen it myself. But they've given reasons that make sense to me. Banning it in the UK isn't about stopping people from watching it completely exactly (because I'm sure they're aware that people can still watch it other ways), it's about showing that the UK doesn't allow films that could potentially be harmful for some viewers to be readily available. I wouldn't want to watch it either way so I don't care too much.
Depends if you class over four minutes of cuts to a one hundred minute film as 'very minimal'.
Considering what was left in the movie, yes.
I meant minimal in the senxse of content rather than percentage, 4% is quite large for a cutting room floor.
Here is the article explaining in more detail as to why it is banned
Call me boring, call me part of the 'nanny state', but I read the statement, and frankly, yeah, ban it! Its not gonna enrich my life one iota.:yawn::yawn::yawn::sleep:
So tired of torture porn. How many ways/times do you want to watch a woman die...? What great artistic 'statement' am I missing? Please tell me!!!
I think it should be banned. They're not banning it for being a horror film with too much horror, it's for the way the horror is presented - as being for sexual purposes and for showing too much detail of the extreme horror. At least that's what I gather from what I've read since I obviously haven't seen it myself. But they've given reasons that make sense to me. Banning it in the UK isn't about stopping people from watching it completely exactly (because I'm sure they're aware that people can still watch it other ways), it's about showing that the UK doesn't allow films that could potentially be harmful for some viewers to be readily available. I wouldn't want to watch it either way so I don't care too much.
This last point is something I feel has got rather lost in this thread. Nevermind about whether we should have the right to watch it, does anybody really want to watch it? If not then it doesn't really matter if they ban it, and if so WHY?? :eek:
For a long time i've been vehemently anti-censorship, but i think based on some things i've experienced and some films i've seen, I do think something is needed.
When I worked in a video shop i'd invariably have parents trying to rent horror films for their kids, sometimes with the kid even there urging them to get it.
You've also got certain corners of society where teenagers think nothing of 'stabbing someone up' and appear completely desensitized to violence and horror.
I've even seen a comment on DS from someone who watched 'a serbian film' and said it wasn't very horrific. And it makes you wonder that if a person can't find baby rape horrific in any context then what exactly do they find horrific?
So i wonder if having something in place that prevents certain people from seeing certain things wouldn't be a good thing?
this. And dont get me wrong, I loves me some Fulci/giallo/Argento, but....
This last point is something I feel has got rather lost in this thread. Nevermind about whether we should have the right to watch it, does anybody really want to watch it? If not then it doesn't really matter if they ban it, and if so WHY?? :eek:
I'll be watching it, if only for curiosity's sake to be honest.
I didn't mind the first film and actually quite enjoyed it. It wasn't sick like a lot of people were saying - people who probably never watched the whole movie through (like my other half who turned off at the presentation section of it).
I'll be watching it, if only for curiosity's sake to be honest.
I didn't mind the first film and actually quite enjoyed it. It wasn't sick like a lot of people were saying - people who probably never watched the whole movie through (like my other half who turned off at the presentation section of it).
That is the point at which I left the room, my other half turned off when he realised they wouldn't escape
That's actually the worst part of teh movie tbh, you don't see anything really bad after that. That's the exact point that most people I know turned off - I'm a moderator for a very open minded forum and so..... I've seen some nasty stuff, my curiosity pushed me on lol
Something interesting i've noticed in this thread is that the majority of the posters who seem to think that the film is "ban-worthy" and "utterly foul and disgusting" (despite having not seen the film) are posters who have rarely, or never, posted in the Movies section of DS before. I think it's quite telling.
Lol... I may be one of the people that has not posted many times but it does not mean I have not been here. I don't post much but I do read the forums. I have enough films to open up a branch of Block Busters and I love my movies. In fact I love horror films but I am more of a person that likes to be scared rather than sickened... And I don't hunt out obscure directors (obscure to me) like Fuci or whatever his name is... I only ever heard of A Serbian Movie through here. Not that I will watch that either as it sounds like the wrong kind of elements that attract me to a horror. I like my Elm Street, Halloween, Poltergeist, Rec kind of films. And am partial to anything Guillermo del Toro does. More mainstream I guess
Seriously? what has the bbfc come to when something that has passed uncensored in Australia - A country well renouned for it's excessively strict censorships - is banned in the UK?
And to top it all off, 'A Serbian Movie' was passed in the UK with very minimal cuts.
This is a movie that is claimed to be a portrayal of Serbia as a nation and a how people in power can make the people in need do unthinkable acts........... really it's about a man who is paid and drugged into brutally raping and murdering (whilst raping) and also
anally raping his young son, oh and in another scene sees a masked man deliver a new born baby and then have sex with it :eek:
i'd say that sand paper wanking and barbed wire, poop eating rape is nothing compared to that movie.
There is also a British film called Mum & Dad where the Dad Matsurbates into
a piece of flesh cut from a murder victim
That was given an 18. Why is sandpaper more disgusting?
This is why I'm thinking, and as other posters have said, that this is some sort of publicity stunt to draw people in, and its working.
Something interesting i've noticed in this thread is that the majority of the posters who seem to think that the film is "ban-worthy" and "utterly foul and disgusting" (despite having not seen the film) are posters who have rarely, or never, posted in the Movies section of DS before. I think it's quite telling.
Not as telling as someone rooting through people's post history for fodder to negate their comments in a separate thread.
Something interesting i've noticed in this thread is that the majority of the posters who seem to think that the film is "ban-worthy" and "utterly foul and disgusting" (despite having not seen the film) are posters who have rarely, or never, posted in the Movies section of DS before. I think it's quite telling.
Yeah, 'cos people who don't post in the Movie section of an internet forum are completely ignorant and narrow minded when it comes to movies, innit. :rolleyes:
I do think that the BBFC have made the right decision in deciding not to certify this film. I am a broad minded person, and I can understand people saying that this action may make some people want to watch it. But this film does not appear to have been made with any kind of artistic merit to it, only to shock, offend and outrage. I am neither shocked, offended or outraged, I actually find it quite pathetic really.
I am saddened though, by the portrayal of human beings being degraded by another person in this film, and of women in particular. I don't expect every movie to be all happy and fluffy and rainbows and unicorns, but this film appears to be unnecessarily gratuitous. I can almost imagine the director going, "Ooooh look at me, aren't I shocking and provocative!!", which instantly puts me off.
BBFC: "There is little attempt to portray any of the victims in the film as anything other than objects to be brutalised, degraded and mutilated for the amusement and arousal of the central character, as well as for the pleasure of the audience."
There's the crux of the issue, for those who may have missed it.
I rather admire the BBFC for sticking to their guns, but given that sniggering at the genuine humiliation of real people seems to be the draw of much of television these days, you wonder if they're somewhat behind the times with regards to what's deemed acceptable in the mainstream now.
Something interesting i've noticed in this thread is that the majority of the posters who seem to think that the film is "ban-worthy" and "utterly foul and disgusting" (despite having not seen the film) are posters who have rarely, or never, posted in the Movies section of DS before. I think it's quite telling.
This thread was merged with one that appeared in the General Discussion section for a while which may explain that.
Absolutely mind boggling how a film containing prosthetics and mash potato or peanut butter and chocolate sauce or whatever they use to make fake faeces can cause such debate. Unless by some advance in surgery Tom Six has found a way to actually insert barbed wires into vaginas without damaging the tissue and discovered a way to surgically attach an oesophagus to a rectum, dodgy f/x will be used.
People say its purpose is to cause offence, shock and outrage. Hasn't this been the driving aim for many endeavours throughout history?
Your dads right as your his child and that the end of the day it up to the Parents in what they let the there kids see.
Absolutely. I find it sad that people allow themselves to pass moral judgements on others by calling their parents idiots. Personally speaking, my 10 year old twins are too young for the Exorcist. They would find it boring at most and would definately snigger at the crucifix scene and the peasoup scene. Would I insult my neighbour if he let his kids watch it? Absolutely not.
Not as telling as someone rooting through people's post history for fodder to negate their comments in a separate thread.
I didn't root through people's post histories, and nor am i trying to negate people's comments, you're entitled to your opinions. I post in the Movies section a lot (infact, it's the forum i post the most in), and a lot of the names in this thread are names i don't recognise from nearly 5 years of posting here. Although if the thread was merged with one which was originally in GD then i guess that may be why i don't recognise the names. My apologies if i seemed arrogant in any way.
Yeah, 'cos people who don't post in the Movie section of an internet forum are completely ignorant and narrow minded when it comes to movies, innit. :rolleyes:
I'm not saying that at all, but i can't imagine anyone who is truly a fan of movies actually agreeing with censorship and bannings (at least in terms of a dramatised and entirely fictional film), that was my point. Sure, people might not like the content of this film, but in that case they shouldn't watch it. Just because it makes some people feel uncomfortable doesn't mean that it should be banned (in my opinion anyway). I'm sure the BBFC wont have made this decision lightly, but let's just remember that none of us have seen this film yet, so are we really capable of saying whether it should be banned or not? Everyone is making snap judgements based on the brief descriptions of two scenes, which in all likelihood wont be anywhere near as graphic as you are imagining in your mind. If the notoriously ban-happy Australians have passed it uncut, it really can't be THAT bad.
I'm not saying that at all, but i can't imagine anyone who is truly a fan of movies actually agreeing with censorship and bannings (at least in terms of a dramatised and entirely fictional film), that was my point. Sure, people might not like the content of this film, but in that case they shouldn't watch it. Just because it makes some people feel uncomfortable doesn't mean that it should be banned (in my opinion anyway). I'm sure the BBFC wont have made this decision lightly, but let's just remember that none of us have seen this film yet, so are we really capable of saying whether it should be banned or not? Everyone is making snap judgements based on the brief descriptions of two scenes, which in all likelihood wont be anywhere near as graphic as you are imagining in your mind. If the notoriously ban-happy Australians have passed it uncut, it really can't be THAT bad.
THIS!
I know people are upset about the barbed wire rape thing but it's hardly a new concept for a scene is it, or has everyone forgotten about about the 'Lust murder' in Se7en?
It's not like you're going to see it inserted and tearing the poor girl apart.
At most I assume you'll see some maniacal excitedness on the part of the perpetraitor and some hysterical crying from the victim, probably some blood hitting the floor.....
As with the first movie, I'm sure that what you see in your mind will be far worse than what's on the screen.
lol, I don't remember that scene.......are you talking the original or the remake?
I have to say that guy in the anal rape scene of the original made it so funny that I felt bad for laughing.
(it's the one time anal rape is funny)
I'll be watching it, if only for curiosity's sake to be honest.
I didn't mind the first film and actually quite enjoyed it. It wasn't sick like a lot of people were saying - people who probably never watched the whole movie through (like my other half who turned off at the presentation section of it).
Me to and like you in a whats all the fuss about kind of way, i just ordrered the first one i only heard about it because this was in the news i love a good sick shocker this passed me by totaly unnoticed
Comments
Shit eating would normally only be OPA material if it was real and usually in a porn movie.
Salo clearly isn't but I'm guessing that HC2 isn't either in which case the ban is still nonsense.
Depends if you class over four minutes of cuts to a one hundred minute film as 'very minimal'.
Considering what was left in the movie, yes.
I meant minimal in the senxse of content rather than percentage, 4% is quite large for a cutting room floor.
Call me boring, call me part of the 'nanny state', but I read the statement, and frankly, yeah, ban it! Its not gonna enrich my life one iota.:yawn::yawn::yawn::sleep:
So tired of torture porn. How many ways/times do you want to watch a woman die...? What great artistic 'statement' am I missing? Please tell me!!!
This last point is something I feel has got rather lost in this thread. Nevermind about whether we should have the right to watch it, does anybody really want to watch it? If not then it doesn't really matter if they ban it, and if so WHY?? :eek:
this. And dont get me wrong, I loves me some Fulci/giallo/Argento, but....
I'll be watching it, if only for curiosity's sake to be honest.
I didn't mind the first film and actually quite enjoyed it. It wasn't sick like a lot of people were saying - people who probably never watched the whole movie through (like my other half who turned off at the presentation section of it).
That is the point at which I left the room, my other half turned off when he realised they wouldn't escape
There is also a British film called Mum & Dad where the Dad Matsurbates into
That was given an 18. Why is sandpaper more disgusting?
This is why I'm thinking, and as other posters have said, that this is some sort of publicity stunt to draw people in, and its working.
Not as telling as someone rooting through people's post history for fodder to negate their comments in a separate thread.
Yeah, 'cos people who don't post in the Movie section of an internet forum are completely ignorant and narrow minded when it comes to movies, innit. :rolleyes:
I do think that the BBFC have made the right decision in deciding not to certify this film. I am a broad minded person, and I can understand people saying that this action may make some people want to watch it. But this film does not appear to have been made with any kind of artistic merit to it, only to shock, offend and outrage. I am neither shocked, offended or outraged, I actually find it quite pathetic really.
I am saddened though, by the portrayal of human beings being degraded by another person in this film, and of women in particular. I don't expect every movie to be all happy and fluffy and rainbows and unicorns, but this film appears to be unnecessarily gratuitous. I can almost imagine the director going, "Ooooh look at me, aren't I shocking and provocative!!", which instantly puts me off.
There's the crux of the issue, for those who may have missed it.
I rather admire the BBFC for sticking to their guns, but given that sniggering at the genuine humiliation of real people seems to be the draw of much of television these days, you wonder if they're somewhat behind the times with regards to what's deemed acceptable in the mainstream now.
This thread was merged with one that appeared in the General Discussion section for a while which may explain that.
People say its purpose is to cause offence, shock and outrage. Hasn't this been the driving aim for many endeavours throughout history?
Absolutely. I find it sad that people allow themselves to pass moral judgements on others by calling their parents idiots. Personally speaking, my 10 year old twins are too young for the Exorcist. They would find it boring at most and would definately snigger at the crucifix scene and the peasoup scene. Would I insult my neighbour if he let his kids watch it? Absolutely not.
I didn't root through people's post histories, and nor am i trying to negate people's comments, you're entitled to your opinions. I post in the Movies section a lot (infact, it's the forum i post the most in), and a lot of the names in this thread are names i don't recognise from nearly 5 years of posting here. Although if the thread was merged with one which was originally in GD then i guess that may be why i don't recognise the names. My apologies if i seemed arrogant in any way.
I'm not saying that at all, but i can't imagine anyone who is truly a fan of movies actually agreeing with censorship and bannings (at least in terms of a dramatised and entirely fictional film), that was my point. Sure, people might not like the content of this film, but in that case they shouldn't watch it. Just because it makes some people feel uncomfortable doesn't mean that it should be banned (in my opinion anyway). I'm sure the BBFC wont have made this decision lightly, but let's just remember that none of us have seen this film yet, so are we really capable of saying whether it should be banned or not? Everyone is making snap judgements based on the brief descriptions of two scenes, which in all likelihood wont be anywhere near as graphic as you are imagining in your mind. If the notoriously ban-happy Australians have passed it uncut, it really can't be THAT bad.
THIS!
I know people are upset about the barbed wire rape thing but it's hardly a new concept for a scene is it, or has everyone forgotten about about the 'Lust murder' in Se7en?
It's not like you're going to see it inserted and tearing the poor girl apart.
At most I assume you'll see some maniacal excitedness on the part of the perpetraitor and some hysterical crying from the victim, probably some blood hitting the floor.....
As with the first movie, I'm sure that what you see in your mind will be far worse than what's on the screen.
Can't believe I saw this on TV the other week, I didn't imagine that did I.
I have to say that guy in the anal rape scene of the original made it so funny that I felt bad for laughing.
(it's the one time anal rape is funny)
Me to and like you in a whats all the fuss about kind of way, i just ordrered the first one i only heard about it because this was in the news i love a good sick shocker this passed me by totaly unnoticed