LATEST NEWS

1

I hope the movie earns a NC-17 rating simply for the fact that this may encourage the MPAA to give out the rating to more films and thereby forcing Cinema owners to show more diverse movies. In the past couple of years, I've seen a lot of R-rated movies that in my opinion should have gotten the NR status (Saw & Hostel come to mind). The few scenes cut to make the R-rating did not lessen the overall impression of the film. This is not to say I am a book burning conservative. However, establishing the correct rating can definitely communicate to movie goers that the content is overly graphic and be prepared. If anything, I think the seldom used rating may serve to attract more people than it shuns.

grendel on Mar 16, 2007

2

You're exactly right grendel. I hate when films have to cut at all for ratings requirements (it's worst going to PG), and some of them you mention could certainly have been much more horrific explorations into the plot and depth of the film if they didn't have to worry about making it fit into R. The problem is just the MPAA and local theater chains. I would be fine with NC-17, but as has been the case for a long time, theaters won't show NC-17 movies at all, meaning it'll completely cut the number of screens it shows in to very little. As much as I agree, the system currently doesn't accept the NC-17 rating very well.

Alex Billington on Mar 16, 2007

3

I might be in the minority on this, but I think an NC-17 rating would be a turn-off for me and possibly others. I am not someone who necessarily cannot handle violence and carnage on screen. I have actually been criticized by family and friends because I can view a violent film and be pretty comfortable about it. Knowing Tarantino and Rodriguez, however, I did have a sense that I would have to psyche myself up a great deal to sit through a two and a half or three hour film that would be ultraviolent. Now hearing that people can't imagine the MPAA giving it anything but NC-17, I'm feeling a bit uneasy. It is not as if it is two or three scenes of strong violence spaced out over a long film. The filmmakers plan two or three hours of nonstop terror, and as much as that gives me a thrill, I don't want to feel uncomfortable the whole movie either. I don't mean to say that I think Taratino or Rodriguez should snip once second of film from this movie. I would rather see a disturbing film of brilliance than one toned down but lacking some of the punch (isn't that why so many people get the unrated Requiem for a Dream DVD over the R-rated cut?) I will see Grindhouse. There is no question about that, even if it does get an NC-17 rating. The only dilemma I have if it does is this: am I good to handle it in the theater (the preferred viewing space for any film) or will I need to see it in a more comfortable atmosphere, like my home where I can pause if anything gets too heavy?

Charlie on Mar 16, 2007

4

I'm guessing everyone involved will see the great marketing potential in this and put out a barely R-rated version to the theaters, to maximize the theater counts which will show it. This will insure that it has a chance of hitting the box office charts, which looks good for all involved. Then when they release the DVD version, they'll put out the original NC-17 version, either as the only version or as a bonus alternate edition. This way the fans get what they want. This will ensure that everyone comes out happy - the theater owners who feel uncomfortable showing an NC-17 film and the movie watchers, who will get to see the original version on DVD, if they want. Not to mention the Weinsteins, who will profit from from all of this controversy surrounding the film. I can see the DVD ads now..."See the version too intense for theaters..." LOL

Michelle on Mar 16, 2007

5

As an addendum to the post above...I'm watching TNT and they just ran a promo for Grindhouse. At the end it had a R-rating tag box. Guess they solved the dilemma.

Michelle on Mar 16, 2007

6

Michelle-- if they had been given an R-Rating, then I imagine their website would be the first to reflect that, but their website still shows, "This film is not yet rated." So either someone jumped the gun with their marketing department or you saw wrong, with all due respect, I'm hoping for the latter.

Hurmoth on Mar 18, 2007

7

Hurmoth - I did not see wrong. I even rewound the Tivo to make sure before I posted. It indeed ended with a R-rating tag box. Don't know what that means in the end run, but it was most certainly there. * shrugs *

Michelle on Mar 19, 2007