I can't see this passing intact (the nipple cutting being the main problem) but there'll be far less cuts than before.

MoJo,

In films like Saw and Hostel, violent as they are, there is no sexual violence and very little in the way of sexualised violence, this is in contrast to what happens in Grotesque. Also in Saw/ Hostel, there are often fairly lengthy gaps between the violence. I know in the first Hostel, there was hardly any violence in the first half. In the case of Grotesque it would appear to be totally unremitting. Also Violence, sadism and sexual sadism for the sake of it. It's not surprising it fell foul of the VRA.

The reason the BBFC passed Irresversible uncut in 2002 was because there was nothing to cut. The rape scene did not focus on the woman's naked body like it clearly did in Tombs of the Blind Dead.

I'm glad that the general public are not suportive of the ban although I wonder how many of them have actually seen it.

To have passed Grotesque uncut would have put the BBFC in a difficult position as it would mean they would not be able to justify the cuts or bans to numerous other films in recent years which were all cut and banned for the same reason.

Thanks for the reply, angel. You have a good insight into the BBFC's workings and I always enjoy reading your posts.

I personally have been a big supporter of the BBFC in recent years and I understand why certain ( very few ) titles can run into problems. It really is unusual for a film to be cut, let alone banned these days, so maybe this is why this has caused such a stir.

I haven't seen Grotesque and I'm sure I can happily live my life without it, but I guess the public rejection of this is more based on the principle of being told which movie an adult can and cannot watch, which, let's be honest, has always bugged fans of the horror genre!

The BBFC's worry about justifying other cuts is interesting. My only worry is this could work the other way round and those advocating more censorship could point to Grotesque and argue why the BBFC could'nt have cut / banned other similar movies.

I applaud the BBFC for the way they have treated horror movies in recent years. I just hope this doesn't inadvertently lead to backward steps in future releases of films which, up until this point, would have remained uncut.

Excellent post Mojo. :coolblue:

Thanks, Mojo :)

Nice to hear that you have been a supporter of the BBFC. It's not often you hear somebdoy saying that on these forums. When Ferman was around they used to ban so many films that people were probably just getting used to it but because the Board have now become so lenient it is true whenever they reject anything it tends to cause shockwaves.

Well they could but the BBFC could answer that question if it was addressed to them quite easily.

I'm pretty sure that it won't. Prior to the rejection of Grotesque there has been no evidence that the BBFC have been getting stricter again. Just the opposite really. They really do seem to be making an effort to pass whatever they can.

I always watch whatever I can regarding what the BBFC cut and ban just to see if the cuts really are justifed. So far from what I have seen they all seem to check out. So I am looking forward to seeing Grotesque for this reason.

Cheers, vincenzo :)

To be perfectly honest, the reason I have applauded the BBFC recently is mainly because of the way they are ( by and large ) treating people who watch 18 rated movies as responsible adults, rather than the patronising attitude of the Ferman era. I used to feel sorry for innovative companies such as Redemption back then, tracking down these rare cult movies, only to see Ferman & Co charge his extortionate fees and then hack them to pieces because he didn't like them. Thankfully, the present board seem to be a million miles from this nonsense.

In more recent times, I still don't agree with the cutting of Tombs Of The Blind Dead, for example. I think the UK would have survived without descending into chaos if it had remained intact. And anyway, everybody just went out and bought the uncut R1 release, making the cuts pointless and robbing ABUK of much needed income.

But, again, that was a few years ago and it's been pretty good form from the BBFC since then to say the least. So here's hoping they keep moving things forward in the way they have been and ignore the whingings of the likes of the Daily Mail, who rarely ( if ever ) watch any of the films they complain about. :crazy:

Fully agree here. I didn't agree with the cuts to Tombs either though I could see why the BBFC made them. Without doubt though UK industry does suffer as a result of this. Thankfully the BBFC adopt these kind of policies only when they have to and, unlike the ghastly Ferman years, today they look for reasons NOT to cut films.

Oh yes, please don't think I'm unhappy with the BBFC, by and large I think they do an excellent job in this day and age. Things are pretty much as they should be - I also think they have a decent attitude to horror and its fanbase, unlike under Ferman. They now realise we're not salivating maniacs (well, most of us aren't, anyway LOL) and understand that the gore in horror is purely of the fantasy variety. It's just that when they do cut or ban a film, I like to know the rationale behind such decisions. In this case, I'd like to know who they think will be harmed by a work such as Grotesque.

Just fin watching grotesque.. not into these type of films in any sense
Imo i dont see the need for this type and style of film but each to there own.
Deffo not my cup of tea

Having recently caught up with asain gore films, can anyone recommend me some titles that i may have missed out on like Grotesque, Meat Grinder, Invitation Only, I am familiar with most of the recent jap splat.:confused: