Well, I've seen this movie over 30 times (no lie - horror movies are my life) and there are some disturbing scenes that might affect some younger viewers. There is the beheading of the drunk on the railroad track, the murder of the young woman considering abortion, the drunken uncle and his antics (granted, not violent, but something that still might affect a younger viewer,) the firework that Marty shoots into the werewolf's eye, Marty being chased down in his wheelchair by the Reverand, the murders with the Peacemaker (I love that bat's name!). I guess I'm trying to say this movie is pretty intense emotionally (like the funeral scenes, for instance.) Sometimes it's not what you see (like bad makeup) but what you don't see that sets the mood, that makes something disturbing, especially to one who is still trying to figure out what fright is real and what fright is imagined.
I adore H.P. Lovecraft.
reply
share
bryntilly
15 years ago
Hi scarlet,
yeah, but all those murders weren't of a high impact violence enough to warrant an R rating (which in Australia means no one under 18 is allowed to view the movie), perhaps an MA (15 and over can watch it alone, but under 15 requires parental guidance). I've seen MA rated movies much more violent that Silver Bullet. Plus, Silver Bullet is a kind of comedy, so the tone isn't as serious. I'm still in the dark here, but thanks for your comment.
"Almost nobody dances sober, unless they happen to be insane."
H. P. Lovecraft
reply
share
scarletclaw
15 years ago
You're welcome. One of the most frightening movies I have ever see is The Thing From Another World (1951), and that has practically zero violence in it. It's the atmosphere that sets the tone of the movie. They sure don't make movies like that anymore. Yeah, I know, old person flashback alert, but it is true. Today's movies are almost expected to contain violence and mayhem to pull in the money. For instance, I live in a city nicknamed "Killadelphia" and believe me we have at least one, often more, shooting/stabbing/murders almost every day and frankly I don't give a rat's a** about them anymore. Immunity to violence perhaps? Maybe it happens in movies too.
Take care!
reply
share
AussieEighties
15 years ago
you guys are forgetting something, the R rating the dvd has got would be the original rating when released in 85. the dvd has no features so the OFLC has no reason to re-rate it for todays audience. other releases have the same thing happen like - Motel Hell, Crawlspace, Funhouse etc. those 3 have an R rating on the dvd but don't deserve the rating as they are quite tame compared to movies today. so whatever the old rating was, gets printed on the dvd release. although, Funhouse has features so I don't know why they never re-rated it. if a dvd has no features but has commentary, it gets rated like Cujo. they should really take the time to re-rate some movies, you see a dvd with an R rating and you expect it to be violent but when you watch it, it ends up being very tame!
reply
share
scarletclaw
15 years ago
Yeah, you're right. When I was a kid (I say that a lot) movies didn't even have ratings. My parents used to subscribe to some Catholic newspaper (I forget the name) that would list movies that were "appropriate" and those that were "banned." It's kind of funny now that I think about it now that we know Catholic priests (and probably nuns) have been acting all human like the rest of us all along.
Anyway, I find ratings kind of useless these days. I usually read a couple reviews and if something in them red flags a movie for me I won't go see it. Simple as that. But I guess ratings give some kind of guidance, however scewered, to parents and moviegoers.
reply
share
rascal67
12 years ago
The film was released in Australia about 9 years before the MA15+ rating was established. Some of the violence may have been deemed too graphic to be accommodated at a M' classification of the time, so the only other option was an R18+ rather than cut the film to accommodate an M' rating. I would say that the baseball bat to the head murder was the determining factor. The film is fantastical and nostalgic in nature and the violence is rather cheesy and fake looking even for it's time and could have probably scraped by with an M'.
The Australian classification board was being rather stringent considering other movies of the era that got away with an M rating. There were also quite a few films cut in Australia during the 80's and early 90's to get the lower rating—mostly horror films—and the MA15+ should have been legislated much earlier around mid 80's when they started cutting the Elm St. series. This was quite deceitful considering many US R' rated films had already undergone censorship issues and these versions ended up being cut even more to suit the Australian ratings board. Patrons were't really getting their money's worth due to greedy distributors and a slack commonwealth censorship board for not lobbying hard enough for changes to the Australian film classification system. New Zealand would sometimes end up with the cut Australian prints as well and they had their own ratings system that allowed a much broader range of ratings. This film was rated RP13 in NZ—restricted to over 13 unless acommpanied by a parent or guardian—with consumer advise that 'some content may disturb'.
Since it costs money for the distributor to resubmit a film for reclassification which goes out for rent\sale, it was probably deemed not worth it for a film that has a limited following and appeal so the original R18+' rating has been stuck with the film.
reply
share
scarletclaw
12 years ago
You make a lot of sense. Most people on these message boards don't (not particularly this one - other ones, but a few on this board.)
And I just realized I spelled skewered wrong in my last comment. I've got to stop drinken wen I anser peeples kwestions.
reply
share