1 use of GD and 1 use of S***. Or that's what I remember from just now watching it for the first time. Sure there was some violence but nothing that should have gave it a R rating. It should have gotten a very weak PG-13.
Now having said that, I really liked this movie. My brain had a hard time wrapping its self around it all but it was pretty darn good.
There have been other topics on this but it is such a travesty that this received an "R" rating and probably kept it from a wider audience. I watched it with my daughter when she was 10 and she loved it.
There is a "sex scene" which I wasn't even aware of until I read the parental warning page here on IMDB. I guess the suicide story also could be considered as part of the reason for the rating. But when Transformers 2 and it's talk about week and sex or a movie like Die Hard 4 where about a hundred people get killed an hour get PG-13 it just shows what a joke the ratings system is.
If you have the blu-ray or dvd make sure to check out the extra feature that shows how all the actors thought the lead really was a paraplegic and the big reveal when they all find out the truth.
<<< There is a "sex scene" >>>
What sex scene? When the little girl hears someone groaning? Since the movie does take place in a hospital, and nothing was seen, I thought the groaning could have been a patient in pain. The groans/moans really didn't seem all that passionate.
My guess is that it's mainly because of the violence (dead bodies hanging from the ceiling, killings of the four guys, fight in the pool, sword through the chest, etc.). Though I don't necessarily think that PG-13 wouldn't have been sufficient.
shareSimple: because it has very violent scenes.
----------------------
http://mulhollandcinelog.wordpress.com/
I find it funny that movies like LoTR can have flying decapitated heads of humans and many other crazy violent acts but this movie got a R for some volent images. Ridiculous.
shareIt's because there are some frames of violence that have blood in them. Compare R-rated violence to PG-13 violence. PG-13 can be as violent as all get out--grotesque, even--as long as there's little to no blood. Meanwhile, some R-rated movies have very little violence, but the violence it does have shows more blood. It's the stupidest thing in the world, but the MPAA seems to judge violence by how much realistic blood is shown in the frame.
Proud member of SHREWS (Society for the Honor Required of Eyes Wide Shut)
The violence in The Fall is more explicit than in an average PG-13 movie. The scene where it shows three people flayed hanging from the ceiling is extremely violent. They also show a child dead after being bitten by rattlesnakes. During the entire movie the main character is trying to commit suicide. Are those the types of things a 13 year old child should be watching?
shareThe violence in The Fall is more explicit than in an average PG-13 movie. The scene where it shows three people flayed hanging from the ceiling is extremely violent. They also show a child dead after being bitten by rattlesnakes. During the entire movie the main character is trying to commit suicide. Are those the types of things a 13 year old child should be watching?
You must have seen a cut version? There's no way this is a weak PG-13. It's a soft R through and through. There's way too much blood for a PG-13 film. If you've seen a lot of PG-13 films you'll notice that when people get shot and stabbed it's usually bloodless. Not the case in this film.
share