Cult Labs

Go Back   Cult Labs > Film Discussions > VHS & Exploitation > Censorship

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #281  
Old 13th July 2010, 03:23 PM
Daemonia's Avatar
Cult Addict
Good Trader
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Oh, I'm not averse to gore in horror movies, far from it - and I'm not even complaining really about the gore in modern horror films. It's just the fact that they seem to offer little else. The 80's wave of splatter movies at least had an uncurrent of sleaziness and depravation that made them unsettling and were, to some degree, fairly believable. But the Saw films...well...we're expected to believe, in the later sequels, that a corrupt cop has the time to front as a bona fide policeman whilst at the same time able to secretly acquire huge derelict buildings, build complex, elaborate traps, and never seems to ever sleep. His technical wizardry must know no bounds! Come on, it's really stretching credibility now. The first couple were good, solid psychological-horror films though.

Hostel I absolutely hated. It's the same old American thing of treating foreign countries as dangerous places to be. Why couldn't it happen in the USA? Why does it have to be some suspicious Eastern European country? And Roth is so fixated on filming 'babes' for the first hour he practically forgets he's supposed to be making a horror film. Hostel 2 was more of the same. And in interviews at the time, Roth seemed more excited that he'd got laid as a result of being successful than he was at having made a film. Shows where his heart is, I suppose.

Of course there are some great films out there and I've enjoyed the new wave of French horror immensely. But overall, it's been a looooong time since a film has truly unnerved me or unsettled me. So please don't think I'm against all modern horror, I'm not. But the likes of Hostel, the later Saw entries and Captivity just tend to bore me rather than thrill me. They just pile on the gore in the absence of coherent and intelligent storytelling.
__________________
Sent from my Hoover using the power of Uri Gellar
Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 13th July 2010, 04:28 PM
nekromantik's Avatar
Cult Acolyte
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Worthing
Send a message via MSN to nekromantik
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Neal View Post
For one reason or another I can't see myself getting tired of the more recent "gore focussed" brand of horror and I would strongly suggest that the modern likes of "Wolf Creek", the first "Saw" (which actually DOES feature characters the audience could care about), the first "Hostel" (to some fair degree), "The Collector", most of the French "gore epics", "The Descent", "Eden Lake" etc DO have their fair share of spooky, scary, unsettling scenes..
I respect your view, deamonia, but your verdict on modern horror movies focussing too much on the gore instead of the scares reminds me of tons of reviews I read about the 70's/80's wave of "splatter movies", which we consider to be classics these days....
While I also like gore movies, I do think the new trend is to focus on it alot and forget about story. Thats why movies like LTROI are such a refreshing change. Collector was good but was not that gory I dont think. Hostel 1 was pretty bad. The 2001 maniacs remake was pretty good I thought as it mixed gore and comedy.
__________________


My DVD Collection
Tumblr
Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 14th July 2010, 04:57 PM
Daemonia's Avatar
Cult Addict
Good Trader
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nekromantik View Post
The 2001 maniacs remake was pretty good I thought as it mixed gore and comedy.
I thoroughly enjoyed it too. The gore was very slapstick and the whole film had a sense of fun about it, which I liked. I thought director Tim Sullivan(?) did a fine job with it and I had a great time.
__________________
Sent from my Hoover using the power of Uri Gellar
Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 12th October 2010, 04:18 PM
RoXX0rz's Avatar
Cultist
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default

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!
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 22nd December 2010, 02:02 PM
Cult Rookie
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Default

I think that the majority of films that I have seen within the horror genre that have the '15' certificate have been generally supernatural / ghost stories. Some of them were pretty effective and didn't really touch on gore. Generally I go for the content of a film rather than look at the certificate.
Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 28th December 2010, 05:28 AM
Cult Rookie
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: East Coast, USA
Default

I think the '15' certificate is simply becoming a bit too broad. Mostly because you still have PG-13 films like True Grit (2010), Date Night and Dinner For Schmucks deemed to risque for 12 certificates. I mean, are those two comedies really as bad as The Strangers or The Shining?
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 3rd December 2011, 04:58 PM
Hawkmonger's Avatar
Cult Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Bolton...The Cursed Earth of Europe
Default

Thread necromancy to the extreme!!!
But anyhow I just wanted to say, why is Dawn of the Dead (original) still an 18? I saw worse levels of gore in Terminator Salvation. /:|
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 3rd December 2011, 11:44 PM
Cult Acolyte
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Chelmsford, Essex
Default

I remember being quite surprised by the BBFC's decision to pass the formerly banned video nasty Contamination completely uncut with a 15 rating.It's not that I disagree with the 15 rating I was just surprised by it, it being on the dreaded list and all.
__________________
From the bowels of the earth they came ... to collect DVDs!
Reply With Quote
Reply  

Like this? Share it using the links below!

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Our goal is to keep Cult Labs friendly. If you feel discouraged from posting by certain members' behaviour then you can e-mail us in complete confidence.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
All forum posts are contributed by members of the site; Cult Labs cannot take responsibility for all content posted on the site. If you have an issue with content posted on the site please click the 'report post' button.
Copyright © 2014 Cult Laboratories Ltd. All rights reserved.