Hardest R rated movies

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

Its fine to mention them in the right context but you claimed the were examples of R-rated films which was wrong.

Thanks for pointing that out. I apologize for the error and if anybody's been misled by my oversight.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Will.

It is outrageous that Blue is the Warmest Color and Shame are rated NC-17 for having explicit but consensual sex onscreen, while movies like Girl with the Dragon Tattoo get away with R despite the fact that there is a brutal, violent rape

Big studio movies get away with a lot of stuff that smaller, independent movies often don't.

[dunnbluray]

I'm surprised that some titles have been missed.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by dunnbluray

I'm surprised that some titles have been missed.

I'm surprised you didn't list them.

[Member-275053]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

..which also was a NC-17.

It should be pretty obvious what gets an R-rating and what gets an NC-17 or will be released unrated in the US if you've seen the film and know just a little bit about film ratings. For those who don't, this can easily be checked on IMDB before posting misinformation.

You're absolutely right.



What would be even better is if those of you squabbling over film ratings would make some suggestions of your own instead of dissecting the suggestions made by others.

[WhySoBlu?]

Originally Posted by JWFORD

You're absolutely right.

[Show spoiler]

What would be even better is if those of you squabbling over film ratings would make some suggestions of your own instead of dissecting the suggestions made by others.

Directly from IMDB...

[jimidini]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

With SPR I can understand its historical importance and the need for people to know about WWII, Normandy, etc. (I'd make the same argument about other movies, like 12 Years A Slave). Frankly violence in those kinds of movies arguably SHOULD be seen by people of all ages, as it shows what guns can REALLY do and why that type of violence should be avoided at all costs.

Saving Private Ryan is not 100% historically accurate.
Also Private Ryan himself is a fictional character. He never existed. At least afaik. (*)

And even if it was 100% accurate and entirely historical events, showing such intense violence to literally everyone including 6 year olds is quite frankly disturbing and not okay in my book.

I personally think it's even quite strange, that Spielberg included those scenes with a German soldier, where the US soldiers are so nice and let him go only to later see him again marching against them once more. That basically shows me that it's entirely one-sided. Basically "good vs. evil" cliche instead of showing that war is fully ****ed up and not everyone on both sides really wants to fight. I'm absolutely sure that even if that had actually happened, then it would have been a really rare exception. US soldiers would have killed that other soldier without second thought - and understandably so. US bombed civilian cities in Germany ("bomber harris"), which was simply a war crime and had no problems with it. If the movie was supposed to be real, then why not show that? Or well they could have even just showed that German soldier getting shot by other German troops for running away. That would been also realistic. I don't want to know how many soldiers were shot for doing that.

But nope, I guess the morale of the story is supposed to be "If we would have only shot him back then".

They could have also for example made it so that this German soldier finds them, holds them at gun point, but then let's THEM go because they spared his life earlier. But also nope.

I think most parents also wouldn't show their kids photos from bestgore.org or whatever that site is called. That site actually shows real photos and can show you how terrible the result of shotgun to the face looks, but it's nothing for children.

(*) - http://amankarios1.umwblogs.org/historical-accuracy/

[Canada]

I'm going to have to go with Paul Verhoeven's Robocop (1987)

[jawsfan1975]

Originally Posted by Canada

I'm going to have to go with Paul Verhoeven's Robocop (1987)

Or maybe Starship Troopers.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by jimidini

Saving Private Ryan is not 100% historically accurate.
Also Private Ryan himself is a fictional character. He never existed. At least afaik. (*)

And even if it was 100% accurate and entirely historical events, showing such intense violence to literally everyone including 6 year olds is quite frankly disturbing and not okay in my book.

I personally think it's even quite strange, that Spielberg included those scenes with a German soldier, where the US soldiers are so nice and let him go only to later see him again marching against them once more. That basically shows me that it's entirely one-sided. Basically "good vs. evil" cliche instead of showing that war is fully ****ed up and not everyone on both sides really wants to fight. I'm absolutely sure that even if that had actually happened, then it would have been a really rare exception. US soldiers would have killed that other soldier without second thought - and understandably so. US bombed civilian cities in Germany ("bomber harris"), which was simply a war crime and had no problems with it. If the movie was supposed to be real, then why not show that? Or well they could have even just showed that German soldier getting shot by other German troops for running away. That would been also realistic. I don't want to know how many soldiers were shot for doing that.

But nope, I guess the morale of the story is supposed to be "If we would have only shot him back then".

They could have also for example made it so that this German soldier finds them, holds them at gun point, but then let's THEM go because they spared his life earlier. But also nope.

I think most parents also wouldn't show their kids photos from bestgore.org or whatever that site is called. That site actually shows real photos and can show you how terrible the result of shotgun to the face looks, but it's nothing for children.

(*) - http://amankarios1.umwblogs.org/historical-accuracy/

No film is 100% historically accurate, but as far as the depiction of D-Day and the general realism of the battle scenes in SPR, it's generally accepted that the movie pretty much nailed those (at least as much as a movie can, given that the actual experience is probably indescribable). I'm not saying I'd take a really young child to see this (or any similar) movie, and frankly every parent has to judge the maturity of their own child for themselves, but I don't think it's too far out there to say most kids 12 and up could probably handle and benefit from seeing movies like SPR, regardless of the R-rating.

[Foggy]

Just for the record, not a big Saving Private Ryan fan. But saying "no one should be allowed to see the violence in the film" is incredibly prudish. Yeah, perhaps too extreme for 6 year old, but WWII actually happened and it wasn't pretty, it was deeply horrible time like any war, but it's also a matter of life and to hide it away entirely is pretty unwise.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Just for the record, not a big Saving Private Ryan fan. But saying "no one should be allowed to see the violence in the film" is incredibly prudish. Yeah, perhaps too extreme for 6 year old, but WWII actually happened and it wasn't pretty, it was deeply horrible time like any war, but it's also a matter of life and to hide it away entirely is pretty unwise.

It's pretty baffling there are so many movie enthusiasts here who seem to dislike R-rated content. Reminds me of the loons who rate Pulp Fiction and movies like it a 1 out of 10 on IMDB because of all the "filthy language." People are weird.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Just for the record, not a big Saving Private Ryan fan. But saying "no one should be allowed to see the violence in the film" is incredibly prudish. Yeah, perhaps too extreme for 6 year old, but WWII actually happened and it wasn't pretty, it was deeply horrible time like any war, but it's also a matter of life and to hide it away entirely is pretty unwise.

Also not a huge fan of SPR (it's an easier film to admire than to openly love and embrace, plus I just generally don't like war movies), but the historical significance of D-Day, Normandy, and the horrors of WWII are something that kids should be exposed to at some point before they're 17 years old.

[stigdu]

I've got an 'extreme movies' folder on my NAS, and I just thumbed through it to see if there were any 'R'-rated films in there. They are all unrated with the exception of one, called Neighbor. You guys in the States must have got an uncut 'R' version, as it was cut here in the UK. That has some very graphic and nasty moments, even if it is all a bit silly.

I still think Rambo is pushing the boundaries for an 'R' (as well as being a cracking film to boot).

Sent from my SM-T705 using Tapatalk

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

..which also was a NC-17.

It should be pretty obvious what gets an R-rating and what gets an NC-17 or will be released unrated in the US if you've seen the film and know just a little bit about film ratings. For those who don't, this can easily be checked on IMDB before posting misinformation.

Well I did look it up on Wiki which usually mentions if a movie was rated NC-17....so I did do a modicum of checking.

Buy ya, IMDB is probably the best bet.

Edit: Or maybe not lol.

Either way, two severely messed up movies.

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by WhySoBlu?

Directly from IMDB...

Well being from Canada, then I was correct to begin with. It is rated R. So there!

Side note - Sweden 15???

[lolwut]

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)
Evil Dead (2013)

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by Pondosinatra

Well I did look it up on Wiki which usually mentions if a movie was rated NC-17....so I did do a modicum of checking.

Buy ya, IMDB is probably the best bet.

Edit: Or maybe not lol.

Either way, two severely messed up movies.

Actually, for anyone wanting to look up MPAA film ratings, the site you should be going to is:

http://www.filmratings.org

Which is the MPAA's official ratings website. Enter the title you want to know about and it'll give the current MPAA rating as well as any previous ratings.

Martyrs is listed as R (which would obviously be the edited version)
There is no listing for Irreversible which indicates it was released in the USA without a rating.

[ScarredLungs]

From a violence perspective, lets not forget this one.

[levcore]

The Fly 2 is pretty gruesome.