HOME TRAILERS RELEASE DATES PODCAST REVIEWS POSTERS INTERVIEWS MOVIE NEWS ABOUT US APPS FSnetwork

EDITORIALS

Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire Slapped With an R Rating?!

by Alex Billington
October 22, 2008
Source: MPAA

The MPAA released another batch of ratings today and include amongst them was Danny Boyle's fantastic film Slumdog Millionaire. But instead of the announcement being forgettable as always, Slumdog was slapped with an R rating! Not only is this a bit confusing given it really is a PG-13 film, but it might hurt its eventual theatrical performance, especially given it was on track to becoming Fox Searchlight's next huge hit. The MPAA cites "some violence, disturbing images and language" as the reasons it was given an R rating, all of which it does have, but none of which ever extended into the R realm. This is blasphemy!

I recall a conversation with a friend who asked, after seeing Slumdog Millionaire, whether it would end up being a PG-13 film (since at film festivals there are no ratings). My immediate answer - it was made to be PG-13, no question. The scenes with excessive violence were always cut in order to not push the boundaries of the R rating and stay within the PG-13 realm. So how the heck did this end up getting rated R? Who knows the real answer, given the MPAA is run by a group of wackos, but let's just hope it doesn't hurt the film. I'm worried that this rating will cause uniformed moviegoers to take a second look.

No matter what happens with the rating, be sure you see Slumdog Millionaire sometime this year. It won't hit theaters until December, but it's one of the best films all year long. I've seen it twice already and plan on seeing it a few more times by year's end. It's just that good! Danny Boyle has made one of the must enduring, entertaining, and fascinating films in a long time and it deserves to be seen by everyone.

Pin It

Related categories: Editorials, Indies, Movie News, Opinions

JL

Uh-oh. The MPAA is tightening their rating restrictions. It's the beginning of the end.
Janny

let me be the first one to call... SHINANIGANS!!! fox will probably appeal... there will be more news, it will probably get lowered to PG13 and it will all be free-ish publicity
OAKside

Wow. Just ... wow. Wackos indeed, this is pretty nutty.
Red Buttons

Hey, they rated the spongebob movie with a pg. I haven't ever taken them seriously.
Q

Is this based on the book Q & A by Vikas Swarup?
http://movieguyreviews4u.blogspot.com Ryan

I saw this too on Boxofficemojo.com and was surprised at the rating, thinking it would be PG-13, but who knows, maybe they changed the final cut with some more violence or language.
Jojo

Yes Q It is based on his book. Very good book. Oh and MPAA is full of racist assholes. This is a movie based on a book written by an Indian and the movie stars bunch of indian actors so mpaa slapped it with R rating. Die you ppaa people.
Blue Buttons

I thought this was a brilliant film but I see no problem with an R rating. I'm not knowledgeable about MPAA ratings system or the MPAA board but I thought the film I watched in the theater was violent enough that it should be restricted to those under 17. I'm of the perhaps naive opinion that children (aged 13-16) shouldn't be watching torture, men being set on fire in religious riots, children getting their eyes burned out with lye, and people getting shot in the head? I'm not saying you ought to shield kids forever, but not all at that age are mature enough to sift through such violence to appreciate the deep thematic elements of a film. If they are, their parents can take them to the theater or rent the DVD for them when it comes out. It's a judgment call for parents, go on about teenagers' rights if you will but I think restricting this from teens who might unequipped to deal with its content was more important than exposing it to the adults who are prudish enough to turn away from a quality film simply because of its rating.