I haven't read all the posts in this thread so, I apologise in advance if something I say is just a repeat of another member's opinion. This reply is solely related to VIPCO's question and my opinions on it.
There's no doubt over the past few years since 2005 (and before) the BBFC's '15' certificate has become more liberal, and more and more stuff that was passed '18' in the 90's is now being passed at '15'. "The Shining" being one example, and another being "People Under the Stairs" which was rated '18' but now is downgraded to '15'. Do I think that their judgements are always right when it comes to giving a movie a '15' rating? Not always. I think sometimes it's too high and sometimes it's too low. I guess it's pretty hard for them to please everyone though, but on the whole I agree with most of the decisions. Don't get me wrong, I don't support censorship at the '18' category but I do believe younger kids shouldn't be watching extremely gory or violent films. For adults it's upto them.
I'll take "The Strangers" (I actually like this movie! It was good) for one example where my opinions differed from the BBFC. I know most people will disagree with me here, but it's what I think anyway. In Ireland this was passed at '18', but in the UK it was given a '15' certificate. In my opinion, this time around the Irish film censors was correct. I believe "The Strangers" should have been given an '18' instead of a '15'. I think in the 90's the BBFC would have given this movie an '18'. Why? The movie doesn't contain graphic violence and that's obvious. Infact, the violence shown is relatively mild and very little is shown onscreen, more is implied than shown. The language in it is fitting in the '15' category perfectly. It's more the fact that it's the whole tone of the film and showing a mid-teen audience a young couple being terrorised for what apparently is just for fun, and there is no real bad outcome for the bad guys in it. It is even said at the end of the film, they will do this act again. So basically, although the violence in this film was mild, the whole psychological tone was about terrorising a couple for no apparent reason at all, other than just for fun and then killing them. It's just my opnion but I think it would have been at the lower end of '18' rather than high end '15'. So my overall opinion on the BBFC's liberal '15' is split, sometimes I'll agree with a movie's rating at '1'5 and other times I think it's too low or too high, with most of the time when I disagree with it because it is too low.
When I buy a DVD the ratings on them don't affect my judgement on buying them, unless something has been cut or removed from the film then I won't bother with it, unless it's very minor, like say under 5 seconds of cuts or so. I guess if a person's judging the movie by its rating, they're seeking out the most goriest & violent films they can find so they'd skip the 15 and go for something rated 18. With me, aslong as the movie's uncut and untampered, the rating doesn't bother me because it's the movie I've been after all along.
Anyway, my rant is over!
