why is it rated R
Sounds like a good film to watch. So why did it get a R rating?
share
r for reds dummy.
and you thought the classification board had no sense of humour.
... yeah i haven't actually seen it.
Actually, the movie was in fact PG. I should know - I saw it on opening day. It only caused a slight stir because the "F" word was only used once or twice I think - it was during an argument scene. But it was most definitely a PG. Not that it mattered, even with the PG rating, it still didn't do that well at the box office. But hey, I'm glad someone out there had the guts to make it.
shareI think I remember Henry Miller saying during one of the interview sequences, something like, "Oh yeah, there was a lot of *beep* going on back then...a lot of *beep*
shareWell, I must correct a poster.
REDS didn't "didn't do well". Hell, it at least broke even.
Of course, according to that splendid VARIETY article from earlier in 2006, Paramount basically was able to tie REDS into a tax-bond scheme with a company, which meant that even before it went to theaters, the sucker still made its $32 million back...and for a 190+ minute epic about Commies in the Reagan Revolution decade, it actually did surprisingly good.
Mind you, REDS was like several big-budget historical-period movies of the late 1970s where every news article mentioned about how the production was chaotic and way over budget. Coppola's APOCALYPSE NOW, Scorsese's NEW YORK NEW YORK, Michael Cimino's fateful HEAVEN'S GATE, and Beatty's REDS really collective help kill the directors-run era of Hollywood.
Of course, APOCALYPSE NOW had very good reviews, and it made a profit in theaters. NEW YORK, NEW YORK tanked. Well, we know the fate about HEAVEN'S GATE, now don't we?
In other words, Paramount learned from United Artist's problems with HG, and was able to catch itself in a security net.