What Films Have You Seen Recently?

[bizarre_eye@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by loops

It's complete lack of violence probably has something to do with it.

You're probably right there. It's a shame though, as many tend to see Fulci as a one trick pony i.e. gore. But he did so much more: most of his gialli are excellent and are some of his best films IMO.

[Pete]

True.

Also you only need to look at The Black Cat to see he was much than a 'gore' director.

[42ndStreetFreak]

It's not just lack of gore as far as "Door to Silence" goes...It's lack of pace, energy, worthwhile plot or anything remotely interesting.

I saw it with an audience of Fulci fans, at a film festival, after being personally introduced by Fulci himself...And the thing still died on its arse!
And if it dies in that environment then there is no hope.

At least gore would have given u something to watch.
But even then this is as bad as all his later films that WERE gory actually. Thus proving that gore is not the reason the film stinks...Fulci just couldn't make ANY films worth a damn by this point.
Only "Cat in the Brain" had any kind of value...and that was mostly down to it being just so ****ing insane and amusingly anal as far as Fulci the man goes.

[42ndStreetFreak]

"This Film is not yet Rated"

Firstly, I agree that some of the MPAA decisions are stupid, the appeals system is a total disgrace and their is obvious bias as far as homosexual sex goes compared to hetrosexual sex as far as ratings go.
Also yes, violence gets through where even some of the most basic sex and nudity wont.
And it is silly about members of the MPAA not being known and yes I don't much care for religious people being included (though you don't have to be a priest to have strong, even loony, religious views anyway).

But as far as the actual ratings go I don't see what point the film is trying to make.
If trade mags, newspapers, distributors, stores and cinemas won't take an 'NC-17' film...that has nothing at all to do with the MPAA.
Blame all of the above.

If the argument is that a film got an 'NC-17' in the first place..then that argument only works as far as fairness goes. But if the film was indeed rated 'NC-17' fairly then what has the MPAA done wrong?
One film maker was even happy her film got an 'NC-17'. It was only when she was told about the attitude of the trade mags, newspapers, distributors, stores and cinemas that she became unhappy!

So what, scrap the 'NC-17'?
OOPS! Not too good that, as the very reason the 'NC-17' even exists is because film makers were moaning about their films having to be cut to get an 'R' and/or being hit with a dreaded porno 'X'.
So instead of an 'X' the MPAA created the 'NC-17' to add a legitimate rating chance for a film so it would not have to be cut but also not carry the stigma of a 'porn rating'.

But then, it is absolutely nothing to do with the MPAA if all of the above people and organisations still decided to treat the new 'NC-17' just as badly as an 'X'.
It's not their fault.

So what to do?
Go unrated? Well then you can't blame the MPAA for anything. You avoided them.
But guess what? All the same people and organisations that refuse an 'X' or an 'NC-17' also refuse an unrated film!
So even with the MPAA never being involved and as such are then blameless...you still can't get your movie shown!

So what do the film makers want? For everything to simply get an 'R' and never have to be cut?
Okay...works for me. But it does not work in the real world of business or general society.
If all films of an adult nature get an uncut 'R' then the 'R' will itself become another 'NC-17' and then 'R' rated films won't be accepted by all those same people and organisations either.

The hard fact is...if genuine, fairly rated, 'NC-17' content was simply given an 'R' then that content will be criticised for being in an 'R' film.
And then when more films with genuinely explicit content also get an 'R' then the general public and all the organisations will take against it.
The same mindset, morals, values, beliefs that condemn an 'NC-17' film to the dustbin will still all be there when the exact same 'NC-17' film now gets an 'R'.
Hell, one director even moans about his film getting an 'R', not moaning that it doesn't.
So it seems even getting an 'R' is not always acceptable.
Would an 'R' rated film (still amazingly lenient compared to a UK '18', seeing as any age can go as long as a parent is there too) about real soldiers fighting in Iraq really be hurt by that 'R'?
Would a 'PG-13' really boost the box office where such a film is concerned?
And really, what has this got to do with the MPAA if they gave a rating that other film makers are hoping to have, while others moan about getting it?
Either it's good to get an 'R' (as those hit with an 'NC-17' seem to be saying) or it is not. Make your minds up.

So what next? NO ratings at all on anything? How would that work?
You have to have a guide to a film's content. Or else little Jimmy will be seeing rape and torture for his 10th Birthday trip to the cinema as no one knew what the film contained.
You have to have a guide to content.
And even if you overhaul the MPAA, ditch the secrecy, stop the rampant bias and dubious pulling of strings...You would still have to have someone that rates films. And what rating that film gets will still effect how it is treated.

So yes, aspects of the MPAA need exposing and tackling to change them...But ultimately the war will only ever be won when the real problem is tackled and the real culprits fought...and that is the studios, trade mags, newspapers, TV station and cinemas that are prejudiced against 'NC-17' in particular and certain content in general.

And at least America has (especially vital now in the Internet shopping age) something the UK does not (as all DVD's must also be rated like all cinema films)...and that is getting the fully uncut version of the film out there and seen via 'unrated' DVD's.
It matters little if stuffy 'Blockbuster' won't take unrated DVD's as there are now plenty of other stores that do...and the massive choice of Internet stores (that take all and everything) means that it is as easy as breathing to get your film seen by millions of people in its uncut form at good prices.

And let's face it..Today a cinema release is quite simply not that important to a great many films. And many film makers themselves know this.
Where even if they did get an 'R' the appeal of the movie is limited or cult in nature and so it would only get small cinema showing anyway. Probably costing more to put on than would be taken at the box office.

Nowadays most films (unless a huge blockbuster hit) make their money on home market DVD sales/pre-sales and worldwide DVD sales.
And they make FAR more than any small cinema release ever could, and they can make it via an 'unrated', MPAA free, release.
And as bigger TV's, better home sound systems and higher quality transfer technology gets cheaper and more common the real value of an MPAA approved cinema release dwindles away anyway.

I also dislike the way the film seems to go as 'moral' and judgmental as those it is critical of as far as violence goes.
Yes, I agree that it is stupid and wrong not giving a film an 'R' because it showed pubic hair while a film that showed a guy getting his brains blown out does get an 'R'
But I get a nasty taste in my mouth when the violent scene itself is looked down on, maligned and has dubious 'it's dangerous to society' accusations thrown at it!
It seems personal bias against some things is as much part of the makers of this film as it is with the MPAA.

As such, in 2009 at least, I just can't find the enthusiasm the makers of "This Film is not yet Rated" get at following some middle-aged Mother or Father down the road to a diner, to catch a glimpse of their face and learn their name, as they feverishly declare..."I THINK WE'VE FOUND A RATER"!
And quite frankly I'm even less interested in the personal life of the PI following them in the car, while they act like they're in "The French Connection" and about to find out who the head of the crime syndicate is.
And no amount of stupid 'action music' can make footage of a lesbian Private Investigator, who made the mistake of getting married to a guy once (I need to know any of this why?), following someone as they go to eat some chicken for lunch remotely interesting, let alone exciting.

We have some good points made, we have some interesting visual comparisons where gross bias has been displayed and it's always interesting to hear from the likes of John Waters, Matt Stone and Kevin Smith, but quite frankly much of this film is uninvolving, unimportant and dated terribly by DVD, Internet and home viewing technology that relies not one tiny bit on the people in the MPAA, or where they go for lunch.

[42ndStreetFreak]

Oh yes...Despite that long-winded waffle about "This Film is not yet Rated" I actually forgot to mention the most annoying and biggest flaw in the thing...The sensationalist theories and general nutters they use to put them forward.

The main culprits here are the accusation that the MPAA are behind the U.S. Army not giving help to films that are critical of the U.S. Army!
Please!
I think we can in fact assume that the U.S. Army itself is quite capable of saying 'we're not going to help you slag us off'.
MPAA or not!

The most farcical, indeed utterly mad, point that is made (these supposedly enlightened film makers find people to use and arguments to make that make them sound as bad as the nutty "This film is to blame" and 'Marilyn Manson is Satan" brigade) is that because the MPAA supposedly have a hand in the Military not helping out with movies critical of the Military...AMERICANS HAVE BECOME MORE WAR-LIKE!
What drivel is this? What utterly unproven by any fact at all in the film drivel IS this?

And not only is this basic point (is it even worthy of being called a point!?) garbage but the most basic of movie knowledge, old and new, shows this point to be made on completely false theories.

Since Vietnam there have been COUNTLESS Hollywood/American anti-War, anti-American, anti-Military, anti-Pentagon movies.
Bar "The Green Berets" you'd be hard pushed to find a 'Nam film that isn't indeed some or all of these!

So where is this non-stop pro-Military wave of movies since the 70's that have, according to the loonies in "This Film is not yet Rated", warped Americans into being war like animals?

And as for now...Again film makers have had no problem getting made a few dozen utterly anti-war, generally anti-American Military, movies concerning Iraq!
In fact the sheer amount of them makes it look more like a Saddam backed propaganda campaign.
All got funded, equipped, made, rated and released...Despite the shadowy MPAA having fingers in shadowy pies.

Such blatantly false, generally mad, content does this film no good...And finding out that a 'RATER' is called Joan, is married with 2 kids and hides a spare dildo under the wash basin... does not change that.

[Kyle]

i just watched two early short films by JAUME BALAGUERÓ the director of [REC]

extremely strange and i loved them, sort of a mix between begotten and tetsuo the iron man

[bizarre_eye@Cult Labs]

Just finished watching the Code Red release of Messiah of Evil. I love this film, and it's nice to see it cleaned up a bit at last.

[Kyle]

just finished watching this, it should of been great but it was quite slow and dull.

[bizarre_eye@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by bitchslicer

just finished watching this, it should of been great but it was quite slow and dull.

With a title like that you'd want to see it!

BTW those Binomo Oscuro shorts above look interesting BS...

[Kyle]

yeah they are, lolita was so disappointing but i also thought that about schoolgirls in cementtoo, both films drag on with the same thing for too long