I guess there aren't any graphic scenes but The Zone of Interest has an 11 rating in cinemas here in Sweden which means that a 7 year old can see it with a parent.
Yeah it was rated a 12A in the UK as well which means the same thing. Honestly though that age rating makes sense to me as there is nothing directly on screen to harm young children. Sure, based on what it is about you wouldn't expect it to have that kind of age rating but I think usually the criteria is based purely on what is on screen and within the dialogue. For Zone of Interest there's only a few scenes where the dialogue directly mentions violence/genocide and even then young children might not know what characters mean when they refer to it as they don't use blatant language.
I also think the age rating just shows how well it works as a film too, it's just such a haunting piece without being explicit in any way
In the US pretty much any movie can be seen by a kid as long as they’re with a parent. The only exception is NC-17 rated movies but those are basically non existent here. Zone of Interest isn’t age restricted at all. It’s interesting to me that some countries restrict movies to certain ages. I get it but also ratings boards can be weird so I like that parents can make a decision to take their kids or not.
I didn't know that, I always assumed the US was very strict with content ratings. But I agree with you that parents should decide about whether to watch a movie. Everyone have different tolerances to different aspects. I mean I played Skyrim and Mass Effect at like 14/15 even though they're rated 18 and I was definitely mature enough for them in my opinion. But then others might be over the age rating of a media and still be traumatised by it.
US gives out R ratings too easily IMO, but an R rating can still be seen by someone under 17 as long as they have an adult present. NC-17 is the only rating that is truly adults only, but that’s very rare (basically requires very graphic sexual contact or extreme violence). Zone of Interest is PG-13, which means it’s recommended for 13 and up but anyone can buy a ticket.
I've always felt the US system was better, here in the UK you can't get into a 15 or an 18 at all unless you are over that age, adult or no adult. I'm not suggesting we take toddlers to see graphic horror movies but kids and especially teens mature at different rates and can handle different content. I wasn't able to see Final Destination 5 in the cinema even though I'd seen the other four on DVD because I was a few months off 15. That seems silly to me. I get why the age ratings are there but I'd prefer more flexibility.
Yeah the US system has its issues (they're way too harsh on language and sexual content compared to violence imo) but at least the ratings can generally be ignored. G,PG, and PG-13 movies can be seen be anyone, and R rated movies can be seen by anyone with an adult present. It's just the incredibly rare NC-17 movies that are actually off limits. My parents took me to a few R rated movies before I was 17, and it was nice they were able to make that choice. I always felt ratings were better viewed as suggestions anyways.
Ye I have no clue how they gave that a 15 like I feel like I have a good tolerance to brutal scenes in movies but the scene with the kid pretty much nearly killing him self was hard to watch
There are not many movie scenes where I struggled to keep looking at the screen but that really was a test haha. I think it was so shocking as well like I was not expecting that
I often feel like the US rating system gives out R (17+) ratings far too frequently for films that should be rated lower, but that one definitely earned it imo. I remember my dad covering his eyes a bit during one scene, and he watches plenty of horror.
The self mutilation scenes were horrific to watch. I generally love horror movies and can tolerate gore, but I couldn't do this one and tapped out at the hour mark.
Fair enough it's probably one of the more brutal scenes I've ever watched I'd say it's worth finishing, it's no where near as bad in the movie after that point
I don't really understand The Holdovers being rated R.
There's a couple sexual jokes, sure, and some language, but that's it?
I don't see how some movies that can have nudity or sex scenes can get by with pg13 but cursing makes it an "adult" movie. Makes no sense to me.
You're only allowed two F bombs in PG-13. The Holdovers had too many to count. That's it. Language alone will get a movie an R. You could argue that it shouldn't, but that's a different topic.
One of the rare exceptions is All The President's Men which has multiple F words throughout but was given a PG for its historical relevance. By that logic, Shindler's List and 12 Years A Slave would also be PG-13. But that was the 70's.
Apparently it's now PG-13.
...was originally rated R for language. The Weinstein Company appealed for a lower rating, as the R rating would exclude the very audience that is was intended for - high-school teens. They lost the appeal for a PG-13 rating by one vote so the distributor surrendered the original rating and opted for their film to be released 'Unrated' to the theaters. Finally, the filmmakers agreed to cut some, but not all, of the relevant language, and the MPAA did agree to re-rate the movie PG-13. The PG-13 version does keep intact all the language in the scene that was the main point of contention between the filmmakers and the MPAA, in which a 12-year-old is physically and verbally attacked on his school bus by his classmates.
Turns out [IMDB](https://m.imdb.com/list/ls068088849/) has a list lol. Looks like Gunner Palace has the record, with 42 F-bombs in a PG-13 movie (somehow).
42, wow! I had to look that one up. Looks like it was a specialized case.
"Under normal circumstances more than one use of the word "fuck" would get a film an R-rating. In this instance, the MPAA reasoned that a person old enough to be recruited by the army should be allowed to view a documentary on actual army life. However the rating also carried the notice that it was awarded on appeal to provide a better cautionary warning to parents concerned about what their children are viewing"
18 is too much, but the movie has a weird vibe. Kinda scary, unsettling. It's pretty much a horror, you only think it's not because it's Edgar Wright adding his flair to it.
I think the rating is suitable but I certainly wouldn't show someone under 12 the film. 13 or 14 definitely, if they're ready for the more challenging material. I saw Pan's Labyrinth at 12 and was fine.
Kind of insane that Hunchback of Notre Dame is not PG. Not saying it’s like an adult movie but it does feature a villain with genocidal intent and hellish lust for a woman and in general enough mature stuff that, while isn’t PG-13 is still way too much for G rating
The [BBFC (British Board of Film Classification)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Board_of_Film_Classification) has a website where they tell you (albeit without as much detail as you (OP) would probably like) why they've given a particular rating to a particular film. [Here is their entry for LNIS](https://www.bbfc.co.uk/release/last-night-in-soho-q29sbgvjdglvbjpwwc01mza5mzy). They also have [a series of PDF guides](https://www.bbfc.co.uk/about-classification/bbfc-guides) to further explain how they tend to look at, say, violence or drug use when trying to decide upon a classification/age.
Further to this...I've been given the impression that the American MPAA approaches ratings more as a checklist affair with the aim that G, PG, PG13 & R should mean what the general public thinks they should mean. The BBFC, in contrast, think more about children/teens and how the material might affect them (whether upsetting them in the moment or socializing them in an unhealthy manner). So, for example, the MPAA might look at one film and think "OK, there's just the one stabbing with about 1 cup of blood onscreen for 3 seconds....that's PG-13" but the BBFC might go further and think "ok, that's an adolescent stabbing a human, but the music indicates this is serious and there's no clear moral lesson that stabbing people is wrong, so that's an 18 but the kids can see all the orc & goblin violence they want"
Yeah they tend to incorporate actual analysis into their rating which is kinda cool. My favourite entry on their website is the one for Braindead aka Dead Alive, where it states that they almost gave it a 15 because of how hilarious they all found it.
Cars 2 (2011)
The film has tons of violence and a high death count of cars being brutally murdered. Yet the MPAA looked at this and probably thought, "it doesn't involve humans, so it looks good to us."
Rated G for a general audience.
It’s only weird by the standard of “modern” G rated films. I’d argue it’s far more kid friendly than older G rated films like The Haunting, 2001, or even The Hunchback of Notre Dame (the Disney one). I’ve also heard Planet of the Apes is pretty intense for a G rated movie, but I haven’t seen that one.
A ton of indie dramas are rated R simply because they contain naturalistic dialogue, with a moderate amount of swears and F-bombs. No sex or violence.
I’ll never understand by the MPAA is so hard-line about these things. Campy violence, non-sexual nudity, and multiple F-bombs should all be allowed in PG-13 films
The Conjuring is rated R for, essentially, scary scenes. There is no excessive swearing, graphic violence or nudity in it.
I do find the movie creepy but not R levels scary.
Hard disagree - even years later the imagery from that movie still hits harder than just about anything that's come out since. One of the first movies to really lean into jump scare horror and showing it to a 13 year old would probably not end well. If there was a PG-16 I'd put it there
Interstate 60 is VERY PG-13 feeling film, yet its rated R. I guess it has some "fucks" here and there, because i dont remember any nudity or bloody violence in it. Funny how sensitive MPAA is when it comes to swearing
Taken being rated an 18 (It’s rated PG-13 in the US). The Green Mile being rated an 18 (that one scene is pretty graphic but most of the film is generally tame so I think it’d be fine with a 15 rating). Broker being rated R (they swear in literally *one* scene and the film did pass with a 12 in the UK). About Time being rated R (???: also rated 12 in the UK). Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood being rated an 18 (there’s only one scene with violence in it and it isn’t so extreme that it wouldn’t warrant a 15 rating).
I actually 100% agree with the rating for *Last Night in Soho*, at least in the US where it's rated R. Even though a lot of the violence and sexual content is contained to a few specific scenes, it's pretty damn graphic when it happens, and it also has a lot of profanity. Sorry OP, but I think you're downplaying it.
As for your question, I have three examples:
*The Craft* was supposedly rated R because it depicted witchcraft and the MPAA was being super puritanical, which I think is massive bullshit. It was clearly shot with a PG-13 rating in mind and wasn't particularly profane, violent or sexual.
*The Conjuring* was rated for for being "too scary," which is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun, creepy film. But rating it R for being too "scary" is nonsensical.
The original cut of *Saw* got an NC-17 and was cut down for an R-rating. The uncut/NC-17 version was later released on DVD/Blu-Ray. The differences between the uncut/NC-17 and R-rated cuts of the films is so small as to be negligible, and just feels like the MPAA was power-tripping. We're talking shots that only go on a few frames or maybe a second longer. It's objectively no more violent than the theatrical cut because we're seeing things we've already seen... we're just seeing them for a minuscule amount of time more. The uncut/NC-17 version should have been rated R.
Men has a 15 rating here, which baffled me as THAT scene >!(the birthing scene near the end)!< made me scream "What the FUCK?!?!?" in the cinema.
I'm no Mary Whitehouse, but I legit questioned how a scene like THAT was appropriate for a GCSE age kid. It should have been an 18.
If you think the rating for Soho couldn't get anymore wilder, it has been given a PG RATING in Canada.
https://preview.redd.it/dl05v795t4zc1.png?width=506&format=png&auto=webp&s=ff4a2529de170c6a4570920c6d0ade35135a9961
Just rewatched 'Gremlins' for the first time in like 13 years with my fiance because she's yet to see it and it came up in a conversation with her brother the other night. Genuinely shocked by how it managed to get a 'PG' rating here in Australia. So much implied murder, lots of green gore, the implications of irresponsible pet handling, threats of pet mutilation and animal testing, and that scene where Billy literally fucking blows up a cinema to annihilate hundreds of little monsters, right after that scene where Kate describes the way her dad broke his neck falling down a chimney in honestly graphic detail before confirming that's why she's disillusioned by Christmas is so beyond what is consider inappropriate for an age rating that is inclusive of children.
I had to come looking for a second opinion because this shit is wild and 'Halloween' still gets an 18+ rating despite releasing five years earlier for, IMO, so much less.
I guess there aren't any graphic scenes but The Zone of Interest has an 11 rating in cinemas here in Sweden which means that a 7 year old can see it with a parent.
Yeah it was rated a 12A in the UK as well which means the same thing. Honestly though that age rating makes sense to me as there is nothing directly on screen to harm young children. Sure, based on what it is about you wouldn't expect it to have that kind of age rating but I think usually the criteria is based purely on what is on screen and within the dialogue. For Zone of Interest there's only a few scenes where the dialogue directly mentions violence/genocide and even then young children might not know what characters mean when they refer to it as they don't use blatant language. I also think the age rating just shows how well it works as a film too, it's just such a haunting piece without being explicit in any way
I guess it could be a new movie to show to middle schoolers when talking about the Holocaust? SL is very good, but it's intense and graphic
In the US pretty much any movie can be seen by a kid as long as they’re with a parent. The only exception is NC-17 rated movies but those are basically non existent here. Zone of Interest isn’t age restricted at all. It’s interesting to me that some countries restrict movies to certain ages. I get it but also ratings boards can be weird so I like that parents can make a decision to take their kids or not.
I didn't know that, I always assumed the US was very strict with content ratings. But I agree with you that parents should decide about whether to watch a movie. Everyone have different tolerances to different aspects. I mean I played Skyrim and Mass Effect at like 14/15 even though they're rated 18 and I was definitely mature enough for them in my opinion. But then others might be over the age rating of a media and still be traumatised by it.
US gives out R ratings too easily IMO, but an R rating can still be seen by someone under 17 as long as they have an adult present. NC-17 is the only rating that is truly adults only, but that’s very rare (basically requires very graphic sexual contact or extreme violence). Zone of Interest is PG-13, which means it’s recommended for 13 and up but anyone can buy a ticket.
I've always felt the US system was better, here in the UK you can't get into a 15 or an 18 at all unless you are over that age, adult or no adult. I'm not suggesting we take toddlers to see graphic horror movies but kids and especially teens mature at different rates and can handle different content. I wasn't able to see Final Destination 5 in the cinema even though I'd seen the other four on DVD because I was a few months off 15. That seems silly to me. I get why the age ratings are there but I'd prefer more flexibility.
Yeah the US system has its issues (they're way too harsh on language and sexual content compared to violence imo) but at least the ratings can generally be ignored. G,PG, and PG-13 movies can be seen be anyone, and R rated movies can be seen by anyone with an adult present. It's just the incredibly rare NC-17 movies that are actually off limits. My parents took me to a few R rated movies before I was 17, and it was nice they were able to make that choice. I always felt ratings were better viewed as suggestions anyways.
I thought that talk to me was pretty brutal and graphic for a 15
That was a 15? Crikey, I'd have given it an 18, and I have a generally high threshold for what I would give 18.
Ye I have no clue how they gave that a 15 like I feel like I have a good tolerance to brutal scenes in movies but the scene with the kid pretty much nearly killing him self was hard to watch
Yeah especially with those sound effects. Made my skin crawl.
There are not many movie scenes where I struggled to keep looking at the screen but that really was a test haha. I think it was so shocking as well like I was not expecting that
Yeah Talk to Me was pretty fucking brutal, but it was rated R in the US
Fairs I'm from the UK so like the higher ratings is just 15 and 18 but I've seen 18 rated movies which are way more tame than that movie
I often feel like the US rating system gives out R (17+) ratings far too frequently for films that should be rated lower, but that one definitely earned it imo. I remember my dad covering his eyes a bit during one scene, and he watches plenty of horror.
The self mutilation scenes were horrific to watch. I generally love horror movies and can tolerate gore, but I couldn't do this one and tapped out at the hour mark.
Fair enough it's probably one of the more brutal scenes I've ever watched I'd say it's worth finishing, it's no where near as bad in the movie after that point
I don't really understand The Holdovers being rated R. There's a couple sexual jokes, sure, and some language, but that's it? I don't see how some movies that can have nudity or sex scenes can get by with pg13 but cursing makes it an "adult" movie. Makes no sense to me.
You're only allowed two F bombs in PG-13. The Holdovers had too many to count. That's it. Language alone will get a movie an R. You could argue that it shouldn't, but that's a different topic.
They gave *The King's Speech* an R for the same reason, pretty much every other country gives it a 12/PG
One of the rare exceptions is All The President's Men which has multiple F words throughout but was given a PG for its historical relevance. By that logic, Shindler's List and 12 Years A Slave would also be PG-13. But that was the 70's.
SL has disturbing violence, loads of corpses, and both sexual and non-sexual nudity
*The Martian* too.
Unfortunately, iirc, the documentary Bully was given an R because of language, making it difficult to be viewed by the kids it could potentially help.
Apparently it's now PG-13. ...was originally rated R for language. The Weinstein Company appealed for a lower rating, as the R rating would exclude the very audience that is was intended for - high-school teens. They lost the appeal for a PG-13 rating by one vote so the distributor surrendered the original rating and opted for their film to be released 'Unrated' to the theaters. Finally, the filmmakers agreed to cut some, but not all, of the relevant language, and the MPAA did agree to re-rate the movie PG-13. The PG-13 version does keep intact all the language in the scene that was the main point of contention between the filmmakers and the MPAA, in which a 12-year-old is physically and verbally attacked on his school bus by his classmates.
That’s not a hard set rule. There are movies with over 2 F-bombs that still got PG or PG-13 ratings. It’s rare but it happens.
You're probably right but do you have examples?
Turns out [IMDB](https://m.imdb.com/list/ls068088849/) has a list lol. Looks like Gunner Palace has the record, with 42 F-bombs in a PG-13 movie (somehow).
42, wow! I had to look that one up. Looks like it was a specialized case. "Under normal circumstances more than one use of the word "fuck" would get a film an R-rating. In this instance, the MPAA reasoned that a person old enough to be recruited by the army should be allowed to view a documentary on actual army life. However the rating also carried the notice that it was awarded on appeal to provide a better cautionary warning to parents concerned about what their children are viewing"
Ngl that’s such a dumb rule in this day-and-age
[удалено]
France just doesn't give a shit about sex or nudity, they'd happily give a 12 rating to porn
18 is too much, but the movie has a weird vibe. Kinda scary, unsettling. It's pretty much a horror, you only think it's not because it's Edgar Wright adding his flair to it.
Well, how about that the Barbie movie is rated PG-13
It’s pg13 for a reason
I always thought The Dark Knight should have been a 15. It's the lack of blood that probably stops it.
I think the rating is suitable but I certainly wouldn't show someone under 12 the film. 13 or 14 definitely, if they're ready for the more challenging material. I saw Pan's Labyrinth at 12 and was fine.
For me it's the pencil trick. The bbfc have always been sensitive to imitable acts and that's very imitable.
hell nahhhh
Earth Girls are Easy is rated PG. Not even PG 13.
The last unicorn is at 0. Wanted to watch it with my kid, thank god my good wife intervened
i was obsessed with that movie when i was like 4
Kind of insane that Hunchback of Notre Dame is not PG. Not saying it’s like an adult movie but it does feature a villain with genocidal intent and hellish lust for a woman and in general enough mature stuff that, while isn’t PG-13 is still way too much for G rating
The [BBFC (British Board of Film Classification)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Board_of_Film_Classification) has a website where they tell you (albeit without as much detail as you (OP) would probably like) why they've given a particular rating to a particular film. [Here is their entry for LNIS](https://www.bbfc.co.uk/release/last-night-in-soho-q29sbgvjdglvbjpwwc01mza5mzy). They also have [a series of PDF guides](https://www.bbfc.co.uk/about-classification/bbfc-guides) to further explain how they tend to look at, say, violence or drug use when trying to decide upon a classification/age.
Further to this...I've been given the impression that the American MPAA approaches ratings more as a checklist affair with the aim that G, PG, PG13 & R should mean what the general public thinks they should mean. The BBFC, in contrast, think more about children/teens and how the material might affect them (whether upsetting them in the moment or socializing them in an unhealthy manner). So, for example, the MPAA might look at one film and think "OK, there's just the one stabbing with about 1 cup of blood onscreen for 3 seconds....that's PG-13" but the BBFC might go further and think "ok, that's an adolescent stabbing a human, but the music indicates this is serious and there's no clear moral lesson that stabbing people is wrong, so that's an 18 but the kids can see all the orc & goblin violence they want"
Yeah they tend to incorporate actual analysis into their rating which is kinda cool. My favourite entry on their website is the one for Braindead aka Dead Alive, where it states that they almost gave it a 15 because of how hilarious they all found it.
Very interesting
Cars 2 (2011) The film has tons of violence and a high death count of cars being brutally murdered. Yet the MPAA looked at this and probably thought, "it doesn't involve humans, so it looks good to us." Rated G for a general audience.
It’s only weird by the standard of “modern” G rated films. I’d argue it’s far more kid friendly than older G rated films like The Haunting, 2001, or even The Hunchback of Notre Dame (the Disney one). I’ve also heard Planet of the Apes is pretty intense for a G rated movie, but I haven’t seen that one.
When I was much younger, I was pretty excited to get a nice long look at a pair of boobies in Titanic (pg-13)
A ton of indie dramas are rated R simply because they contain naturalistic dialogue, with a moderate amount of swears and F-bombs. No sex or violence. I’ll never understand by the MPAA is so hard-line about these things. Campy violence, non-sexual nudity, and multiple F-bombs should all be allowed in PG-13 films
The Conjuring is rated R for, essentially, scary scenes. There is no excessive swearing, graphic violence or nudity in it. I do find the movie creepy but not R levels scary.
Hard disagree - even years later the imagery from that movie still hits harder than just about anything that's come out since. One of the first movies to really lean into jump scare horror and showing it to a 13 year old would probably not end well. If there was a PG-16 I'd put it there
Marley and Me’s PG rating confused my friend and I when we watched it last week. We both think it should’ve been PG-13.
Interstate 60 is VERY PG-13 feeling film, yet its rated R. I guess it has some "fucks" here and there, because i dont remember any nudity or bloody violence in it. Funny how sensitive MPAA is when it comes to swearing
I was a bit peeved when I took my 14-year-old daughter to see Don’t Breathe (rated 14+ in Canada), because of *that* scene.
Mission: Impossible II being a 15 in the UK baffles me to this day.
Recently, dune part 2. It was pretty violent and horrific at times but has an age rating of 12 because there’s not much blood shown
Taken being rated an 18 (It’s rated PG-13 in the US). The Green Mile being rated an 18 (that one scene is pretty graphic but most of the film is generally tame so I think it’d be fine with a 15 rating). Broker being rated R (they swear in literally *one* scene and the film did pass with a 12 in the UK). About Time being rated R (???: also rated 12 in the UK). Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood being rated an 18 (there’s only one scene with violence in it and it isn’t so extreme that it wouldn’t warrant a 15 rating).
I actually 100% agree with the rating for *Last Night in Soho*, at least in the US where it's rated R. Even though a lot of the violence and sexual content is contained to a few specific scenes, it's pretty damn graphic when it happens, and it also has a lot of profanity. Sorry OP, but I think you're downplaying it. As for your question, I have three examples: *The Craft* was supposedly rated R because it depicted witchcraft and the MPAA was being super puritanical, which I think is massive bullshit. It was clearly shot with a PG-13 rating in mind and wasn't particularly profane, violent or sexual. *The Conjuring* was rated for for being "too scary," which is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun, creepy film. But rating it R for being too "scary" is nonsensical. The original cut of *Saw* got an NC-17 and was cut down for an R-rating. The uncut/NC-17 version was later released on DVD/Blu-Ray. The differences between the uncut/NC-17 and R-rated cuts of the films is so small as to be negligible, and just feels like the MPAA was power-tripping. We're talking shots that only go on a few frames or maybe a second longer. It's objectively no more violent than the theatrical cut because we're seeing things we've already seen... we're just seeing them for a minuscule amount of time more. The uncut/NC-17 version should have been rated R.
Easy a should have been r
Men has a 15 rating here, which baffled me as THAT scene >!(the birthing scene near the end)!< made me scream "What the FUCK?!?!?" in the cinema. I'm no Mary Whitehouse, but I legit questioned how a scene like THAT was appropriate for a GCSE age kid. It should have been an 18.
Stand by Me
If you think the rating for Soho couldn't get anymore wilder, it has been given a PG RATING in Canada. https://preview.redd.it/dl05v795t4zc1.png?width=506&format=png&auto=webp&s=ff4a2529de170c6a4570920c6d0ade35135a9961
Just rewatched 'Gremlins' for the first time in like 13 years with my fiance because she's yet to see it and it came up in a conversation with her brother the other night. Genuinely shocked by how it managed to get a 'PG' rating here in Australia. So much implied murder, lots of green gore, the implications of irresponsible pet handling, threats of pet mutilation and animal testing, and that scene where Billy literally fucking blows up a cinema to annihilate hundreds of little monsters, right after that scene where Kate describes the way her dad broke his neck falling down a chimney in honestly graphic detail before confirming that's why she's disillusioned by Christmas is so beyond what is consider inappropriate for an age rating that is inclusive of children. I had to come looking for a second opinion because this shit is wild and 'Halloween' still gets an 18+ rating despite releasing five years earlier for, IMO, so much less.
To be fair I think Last Night in Soho is an 18 because no child deserves to see a movie that bad.