saviourseph: (Filthy)
saviourseph ([personal profile] saviourseph) wrote2009-08-20 02:32 am

*heads to TPB*

And here I thought banning films was just some quaint memory...

The board said the movie’s nonstop scenes of torture — including amputation, eye-gouging, castration and evisceration — make it impossible to edit the film in a way which would make it acceptable for British viewers.


Seriously, BBFC... you made an 18 rating to restrict films for those supposedly able to think for themselves (and a completely pointless R18 one, because porn's special 9_9 ) - shouldn't legal adults be allowed to decide whether something's "acceptable" to them? DIAF, you fucking Whitehouse-zombie twats.

[identity profile] wrongly-amused.livejournal.com 2009-08-20 01:22 pm (UTC)(link)
:| Not my sort of film, but I think the better route is to simply slap it with the highest rating possible and let people make the choices for themselves.

[identity profile] paulnolan.livejournal.com 2009-08-20 08:24 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeah, it doesn't really seem like my type of film either (I didn't think much of Hostel or Saw, and it seems to be along those lines - I prefer a more psychological horror*)- it's just the principle. When our highest rating coincides with the age of majority (which it does) there shouldn't be a reason to ban any films.

*Having said that, psychological + gorn can happen - look at Audition.