Films which you think were give the wrong rating

giratalkialgagiratalkialga Posts: 240
Forum Member
It's interesting to see how times change and that as we become more desensitized to violence, sex and swearing, the ratings criteria for films at a certain age category is becoming less strict (rightly so IMO; I'm glad that we're being treated like adults again after Ferman left around 15 years back).

Older films are having their ratings dropped quite frequently and I can think of quite a few films that which in the past were passed (or even cut) at 18 being downgraded to 15 uncut; some cases of the latter (formerly being cut at 18) include Evil Dead 2, Mad Max and Lethal Weapon 2.
However, some feel that the ratings being assigned these days are too lenient and in other cases, too strict.

Share your opinions on which films you think were given too high or low ratings and why (using spoiler tags if needed)
«13456

Comments

  • giratalkialgagiratalkialga Posts: 240
    Forum Member
    I think that Gone Girl was very tame for an 18 and could have instead been a strong 15. It fell right between 15 and 18 for me and a 16 rating, like Ireland has, would've been perfect for it. Yes, there were a few c-words but contrary to what the BBFC thinks, that wouldn't traumatize a modern 15 year old.
    The only other 18-ish part I could think of was the box cutter scene, but I've seen far bloodier violence in 15 rated films (Kingsman and The Last Stand come to mind)

    I was very surprised that Ireland gave it a 15 on DVD b/c I can think of a lot of films that are the other way around:
    Kick-Ass (UK 15, IE 18)
    Dark Knight (UK 12, IE 15)
    Cheap Thrills (UK 15, IE 18)
    Anaconda (UK 15, IE 18)

    Here are a few with lower IE ratings than UK ones:
    The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (UK 18 on video, IE 15) - it got a BBFC 15 for the 2008 cinema release
    Die Hard 2 (UK 18 on video, IE 15) - the uncut version got a BBFC 15 for the 2013 cinema release.
    Curse of Chucky (UK 18, IE 15)
  • giratalkialgagiratalkialga Posts: 240
    Forum Member
    I think that the Dark Knight should have been a straight-up 12 in cinemas instead of a 12A. I don't see a problem with 12-14 year olds seeing it.

    Giving it a 15 would be going a little bit too far
  • rfonzorfonzo Posts: 11,771
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The Alfred Hitchcock Collection is rated as an 18, but I can only think of Psycho having a "gory" scene but when you buy the film individually it is a 15. I can't of any other films he did with Universal Studios that are rated as 18?
  • GortGort Posts: 7,460
    Forum Member
    rfonzo wrote: »
    The Alfred Hitchcock Collection is rated as an 18, but I can only think of Psycho having a "gory" scene but when you buy the film individually it is a 15. I can't of any other films he did with Universal Studios that are rated as 18?

    Does it contain Frenzy? If so, that'd explain it. Graphic sexual violence tends to warrant such a rating.
  • stripedcatstripedcat Posts: 6,689
    Forum Member
    I think that Gone Girl was very tame for an 18 and could have instead been a strong 15. It fell right between 15 and 18 for me and a 16 rating, like Ireland has, would've been perfect for it. Yes, there were a few c-words but contrary to what the BBFC thinks, that wouldn't traumatize a modern 15 year old.
    The only other 18-ish part I could think of was the box cutter scene, but I've seen far bloodier violence in 15 rated films (Kingsman and The Last Stand come to mind)

    As you pointed out in your spoiler - I think that is the reason that it is an 18. Albeit, a film that I would say is a lower end 18.

    Going on to other films, I think "Last of the Mohicans" being a 12 is wrong. The violence in it is too strong for that kind of rating - especially
    the head scalping scenes
    . It should have been rated 15 when it was first out(yeah, and I know it was when it got released on video - but that was before the 12 was allowed on video).

    I'm not entirely sure that the first Godfather should be a 15 nowadays. There is some pretty strong bloody violence in it - namely, the two scenes that I can say
    Michael killing the guys at the table in the restaurant - headshots and lots of blood, and Sonny being killed at the crossing in the "Bonnie and Clyde" homage - loads of blood and bullet holes
    .
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 411
    Forum Member
    I am constantly amazed at how violent the 12A has become. I watched the latest Wolverine and was shocked as to what now passes as okay for kids to view. Lots of killing, bloodshed, stabbing, slashing and all topped off by a guy being stabbed in the neck with a pen. Now for 12 years and up this is all probably fine, but for all those parents taking their little kids (under 10s) to see a superhero movie I think it's too much violence and killing.

    More the fault of the parents in this case, but I think what used to be a 15 has now become the new 12A. Personally I think the 12A is the worst thing to happen in censorship. I would prefer a 12A to mean 12 upwards only, the whole thing of 5 year olds being able to watch stuff like the Dark Knight is just ridiculous.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member
    dbob wrote: »
    I am constantly amazed at how violent the 12A has become. I watched the latest Wolverine and was shocked as to what now passes as okay for kids to view. Lots of killing, bloodshed, stabbing, slashing and all topped off by a guy being stabbed in the neck with a pen. Now for 12 years and up this is all probably fine, but for all those parents taking their little kids (under 10s) to see a superhero movie I think it's too much violence and killing.

    More the fault of the parents in this case, but I think what used to be a 15 has now become the new 12A. Personally I think the 12A is the worst thing to happen in censorship. I would prefer a 12A to mean 12 upwards only, the whole thing of 5 year olds being able to watch stuff like the Dark Knight is just ridiculous.

    Did you see the extended cut? Because that's a lot bloodier than the cinema version. And the DVD certificate is a 12 (12A is the theatrical certificate, it does not exist on home video), so nobody below the age of 12 should be watching...
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member
    I think that the Dark Knight should have been a straight-up 12 in cinemas instead of a 12A. I don't see a problem with 12-14 year olds seeing it.

    Giving it a 15 would be going a little bit too far

    The 12 doesn't exist as a theatrical certificate, only on home video.

    It surprises me how much controversy that caused, given Batman Begins was basically a horror movie, and I personally thought BB was far more disturbing. Worth noting that it got the equivalent to a 12A in most of the world, and the UK is the only country where it really caused any controversy.
  • AsarualimAsarualim Posts: 3,884
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    dbob wrote: »
    I am constantly amazed at how violent the 12A has become. I watched the latest Wolverine and was shocked as to what now passes as okay for kids to view. Lots of killing, bloodshed, stabbing, slashing and all topped off by a guy being stabbed in the neck with a pen. Now for 12 years and up this is all probably fine, but for all those parents taking their little kids (under 10s) to see a superhero movie I think it's too much violence and killing.

    More the fault of the parents in this case, but I think what used to be a 15 has now become the new 12A. Personally I think the 12A is the worst thing to happen in censorship. I would prefer a 12A to mean 12 upwards only, the whole thing of 5 year olds being able to watch stuff like the Dark Knight is just ridiculous.

    I thought exactly the same about the recent Robocop remake. it was a 12A and there were small children with their parents in the screening I was at. One of them had their hands covering their eyes for most of it, the other was quite visibly upset by some of the scenes. I think it should have been a 15,.

    I agree we do need a 12 certificate at cinemas rather than a 12A, to stop bad parents taking their kids to see such movies.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 411
    Forum Member
    Asarualim wrote: »
    I thought exactly the same about the recent Robocop remake. it was a 12A and there were small children with their parents in the screening I was at. One of them had their hands covering their eyes for most of it, the other was quite visibly upset by some of the scenes. I think it should have been a 15,.

    I agree we do need a 12 certificate at cinemas rather than a 12A, to stop bad parents taking their kids to see such movies.

    Agreed, some parents are just too stupid to be trusted. I saw Edge of Tomorrow last year which although comic book in style with a bit of humour, it's still pretty violent and quite intense. Someone had thought it was okay to bring what looked like 6-7 old boy with them!
  • grazey1985grazey1985 Posts: 1,480
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I remember going to see snow white and the huntsman. It was a 12a. Full of really young kids there about 4-5 year old (probably because of Kirsten Stewart and Chris hemsworth). The amount of kids that was screaming and crying really ruined the experience. Biggest laugh I got was when parents complained about the rating to cinema staff and demanded refunds because it was too distressing for their kids.
  • NamiraNamira Posts: 3,099
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Can't believe Jaws was only rated PG! Also surprised Titanic was only rated 12 because of subject matter.....and boobs.
  • Dalekbuster523Dalekbuster523 Posts: 4,596
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part 2 should have been a 15.

    Wall.E should have been a U.
  • Daniel DareDaniel Dare Posts: 3,503
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Namira wrote: »
    Can't believe Jaws was only rated PG! Also surprised Titanic was only rated 12 because of subject matter.....and boobs.

    Has it really? Blimey, that's a bit of a come down from an 'X'.
  • roger_50roger_50 Posts: 6,884
    Forum Member
    I agree about Last of the Mohicans. One of the more ridiculous ratings by the BBFC.

    Not just the graphic scalpings and bloodletting earlier in the film, but the final scene where Magua dies and you see a close-up shot of that giant axe bursting through his spine and out his bare back. With grisly sound effects. It's a 15-rated scene in a 12-rated film. Why?

    But again - the BBFC seem to have some weird alternate rating system with historical films. I've never really understood it, all it does is breed confusion - especially for parents trying to judge whether a film might be suitable for their children.
  • ÆnimaÆnima Posts: 38,548
    Forum Member
    Their highest rating in Sweden is 15, my girlfriend's always telling me she thinks we are oversensitive here :p I agree.
  • Will_BennettsWill_Bennetts Posts: 3,054
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Rambo (2008) should have been an 18
  • grazey1985grazey1985 Posts: 1,480
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part 2 should have been a 15.

    Wall.E should have been a U.

    Wall e was a u. There is absolutely nothing that would qualify a15 rating for deathly hallows.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 411
    Forum Member
    Rambo (2008) should have been an 18
    It was an 18
  • giratalkialgagiratalkialga Posts: 240
    Forum Member
    I think that the original Carrie could be a 15 these days (it last got rated in 2001).

    *spoilers for both the 1976 and 2013 versions below*
    I know that there is some violence, such as when her teacher gets cut in half by the basketball board, but it's not bloody at all and is very tame compared to the 15-rated remake which has the face in the windscreen, the bleacher crush and the girls being held on the floor and stomped to death which was pretty brutal and is all very bloody. There's also the climactic knife/sharp utensil scene but again, that scene was in the remake too.

    I'm not saying that the remake should be an 18 but the prom scene in the original is quite a bit tamer so the higher rating for it doesn't make any sense.

    I think the main problem would be the nudity in the opening shower scene. Not the nudity itself which isn't sexual but the gratuitous close-ups are a little dodgy (but then again that's in the remake too, so that shouldn't matter too much)
  • giratalkialgagiratalkialga Posts: 240
    Forum Member
    rfonzo wrote: »
    The Alfred Hitchcock Collection is rated as an 18, but I can only think of Psycho having a "gory" scene but when you buy the film individually it is a 15. I can't of any other films he did with Universal Studios that are rated as 18?
    Frenzy is the reason for the overall 18 rating.
  • Dalekbuster523Dalekbuster523 Posts: 4,596
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    grazey1985 wrote: »
    Wall e was a u. There is absolutely nothing that would qualify a15 rating for deathly hallows.

    I thought it was a PG.

    I think Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part 2 should be a 15 because of all the deaths in it.
  • grazey1985grazey1985 Posts: 1,480
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I thought it was a PG.

    I think Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part 2 should be a 15 because of all the deaths in it.

    There is plenty of deaths in 12 certificate films. None of the deaths in hallows are too graphic for a 15.
  • InkblotInkblot Posts: 26,889
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Went to see French drama The New Girlfriend yesterday. Was surprised to see the 15 cert at the start. Afterwards, looked it up on BBFC and amongst other things:

    "There are some strong images of nudity, including brief sight of an erect penis and full frontal female nudity."

    Which would probably have earned it an 18 and/or cuts in the past. But as a story it's no more than a 12A. In France it's a U.
  • giratalkialgagiratalkialga Posts: 240
    Forum Member
    The 12 doesn't exist as a theatrical certificate, only on home video.

    I know; what I'm saying is that I wish it did.
Sign In or Register to comment.