HORRENDOUS artwork! This really bothers me. I loved the original artwork. Why in the world are they destroying it and using this? My god! It's an abomination. Bring back the originl artwork. They're obviously trying to sell it as just a sex movie and not art like the original cover art would have suggested. I wouldn't have minded had they been able to come up with some nice artwork but this is truly appalling.

Awful final artwork. Universal should be smacked upside the head for this monstrosity. A lack of extras and bad artwork -- I can only imagine what they'll do next.

Did a blind, deaf dumb mute ok those? That's ATROCIOUS. And Focus has produced some atrocious art before.

God, I miss the original art.

Umm, no. those covers are terrible. what the hell! thanks for printing R RATED FILM! and NC17 RATED FILM! all over the freakin cover. jesus.

Better artwork but why those gigantic ratings?

I will try and pick this up sometime. I hate when they change or edit a film so I will try and get the NC17.

Bradavon wrote:
Don't you think Scarface is wildly more an adult film than American Pie?

At the moment they have to go in the same rating as obviously American Pie cannot be PG13, but Scarface should be NC-17. It's not because DePalma fought for an R. Why? Because he knew NC-17 would mean it would tank. That's ludicrous.

That's all I really meant. Don't you think it's odd a rating has a stigma against it?



I think that the NC-17 rating is completely redundant and paternalistic.  The idea that the Hollywood studios (MPAA) are preventing me from taking my teenager to a movie boggles the mind!  The R rating would be fine if it hadn't become the defacto rating for every movie being released.  I live in Canada and almost every US R-rated film is rated 14A here.  Lust/Caution is Rated R which makes sense.

I think the NC-17 rating is just a chance to triple dip the consumer.  The studio releases the R rated version at the theatre, then again on DVD and a third time in the NC-17 version with penis shot included.  It's a joke.

Loved this movie by the way. Gorgeous and deceivingly subtle.

Brokeback Mountain put me to sleep. Ill skip this one

Ehh, pass.

What happened to Ang Lee? This movie made me want to gouge my eyes out. Without a doubt the best looking worst movie of the year. 30min of plot made into a three hour movie is not cool. I want the three hours of my life back Ang.


PS: The movie received an NC-17 because the last hour has a very violent (I mean very, very, very violent sex act) also the other sex scene near the last hour looks real and goes on for a long time.

It was so dumb that "This Film is Not Yet Rated" was NC-17. It was 15 in the UK. I'm pretty sure it was the sex that gave it that rating.

Quote: I mean, if he could cut it in China, why not cut a couple frames here, it's not like you need to cut out the entire thing, just a couple small snippets.
I seriously doubt Ang Lee cut Lust, Caution out of choice. The Chinese censors are infamous with their censoring.

Personally I disagree it should be cut even by a few minutes, they could be crucial to the film. The trouble with cutting it means for ever on it will be cut in America, that's not good.

You'll be 17 in just 2 years, you can then see it uncut legally. Be patient

Quote: I wish there would be an R+ or something, where there would be heavy security, but a child is still allowed to get in as long as the parent is with them at all times(go to the bathroom before the movie).
The Hard R according to Wikipedia will be as tough as NC-17 is, but used for a different reason.

Ratings whereby under age are allowed in are a very new thing in the UK. Prior to Spiderman all our ratings were fixed at that age. Lots of parents complained they couldn't take their kids to see Spiderman so the BBFC relinquished and released a 12A rating.

It's the only rating (except for U and PG obviously) whereby under age are allowed in as long as an adult goes with them. If they can do it with 12A why not 15? Answer because parents haven't complained about that one.

The problem with such ratings though is you have a situation whereby parents don't read up on a film then complain it was too violent for their 10 year old. If they did they'd see the BBFC are very clear with their 12A.

A 12A film is not suitable for under 12 but if you think your child maybe able to cope then you as an adult make that decision. The bottom age is a recommended age 8, but I don't think that's legal.

Back on topic: Where is the HD-DVD?

I hope Universal don't do what Fox did with Die Hard 4 and only release the cut version on HD!

Quote: See my above post: No, we don't.
Can you speak for 300 million people? But otherwise fair enough I take points.

Quote:  I couldn't even show my 8th grade class TITANIC because it had two seconds of Kate Winslet's boob; however, LAST OF THE MOHICANS, with all the scalpings, is okay.
Really? My god that is completely illogical.

Quote: BRADAVON, do you honestly think that if there was a strong profit to be made that big boxes like WALMART and TARGET would not sell NC-17 material?
The point is there should be. NC-17 shouldn't have a stigma against it (how absurd is it to have a stigma against a beneficial rating) and be actually used. Considerably more.

Scarface for example should actually be NC-17. It's not suitable for kids. There should be a clear distinction between films such as American Pie and Scarface. Currently there isn't.

The truth is when it comes to American cinema it affects not only local cinema but international cinema too.

Quote: I mean, Lee refused an R-cut for theaters and he's obviously okay with offering up a slightly edited version for the DVD, so why aren't you?
I doubt he actually is. I bet he's not given a choice.

Quote: As far as the R-rating and SCARFACE v. AMERICAN PIE, you have to know that there are very vast cultural differences between the US and Britain and that we don't view sex in the same light as you do.
True but don't you think it odd they're given the same rating?

Actually we're more alike than you think. I'd say California for example is a very liberal State. Just like their are counties here (they're called Counties in the UK) that are very liberal and some very conservative.

Britain next to America is one of the most Conservative countries in the Western world. But overall I agree with that you say.

Quote: If you'd poll most Americans I'm sure the majority would be in favor of an R rating for both of those movies you listed.
I'd agree but would they if there was a different and more logical rating system? Imagine for a second NC-17 (or even Hard R) was as wildly used as R. Wouldn't it then be logical to put the two films in different categories?

Don't you think Scarface is wildly more an adult film than American Pie?

At the moment they have to go in the same rating as obviously American Pie cannot be PG13, but Scarface should be NC-17. It's not because DePalma fought for an R. Why? Because he knew NC-17 would mean it would tank. That's ludicrous.

That's all I really meant. Don't you think it's odd a rating has a stigma against it?

Quote: That's why I find it kind of absurd how you can try and dictate how our rating system should be run when our cultures are so very different.
Like I said the American MPAA in reality has much, much bigger control than just the American film industry. For example: The Cooler was cut by the MPAA as it showed the female leads genitalia. She herself was annoyed it was cut.

The studio then took the precut MPAA approved R rated version and showed it to the BBFC who released it as a 15 rated film, they never even saw it uncut. To this day we've not been given the chance to see it uncut.

The decision by an American censor doesn't just affect the UK release, worldwide it was released using the R rated cut.

I am also just giving my comments about something. No doubt you'd find it odd how some aspects of other nations are run, you're well in your rights to comment on them. It's called "Freedom of Speech"

I was really disappointed of this film.
I'll give it a rent to see if I was missing something upon the first viewing.

As suspected Lust, Caution is being released uncut at 18:

"This work was passed with no cuts made."

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/0/...

mc_serenity wrote: Well, according to one review, only 10 minutes of the film consist of sex scenes (so either the most explicit acts, which constitute 4 minutes were cut). And the reviews say that only Tang Wei shows everything while Tony Leung doesn't (at least from the front). So there's probably a lot less nudity than there was in "The Dreamers".
That doesn't make it any less important. There's next to no chance male nudity is going to be shown. It's one of life's idiosyncrasies.

The point is, actually how explicit is Lust, Caution? Male or Female nudity alone doesn't require cuts. I just know it's going to be so tame.

ticktock wrote: Bradavon, Johnathan Bennet wrote that he is under 18 but didn't say how old he truly was.  He could be 11 for all we know, and regardless how mature you are this movie is not exactly suitable for all age ranges.
My mistake. I thought he said he was 18 not under 18.

ticktock wrote: As far as the "Big Box" stores not carrying NC-17 product, I believe it is actually a testament to our Freedom of Speech amendment.  These companies are private companies and should be able to dictate what content they want to sell and not to sell.  Making a private business like Target carry NC-17 product against their will only goes against our First Amendment right as it is.
Firstly no offence but it does get a bit old when Americans hark on about Freedom of speech as if they're the only ones to have it. You do realise Freedom of Speech is just as important to all Western nations, well before America even existed in fact

Secondly that isn't remotely the reason. Who said anything about being forced to stock titles? Obviously no one has to do that. Wallmart and the like don't stock NC-17 because conservative groups pressurised them to do so. How is that still "Freedom of Speech"?

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Ass...

ticktock wrote: The last I heard, one of the main reasons that WalMart and other like stores are wary of carrying mature content is because something like 70% of minors were still able to purchase adult-rated CDs, DVDs, and games at their stores despite the ID check system.
Except they do stock mature content, under the guise of an R rating. It has nothing to do with mature content but more the perceived opinion that NC-17 can only mean filth or extreme violence.

ticktock wrote: Just not selling the scant amount of NC-17 titles makes a lot more sense than opening themselves up to the liability of selling to minors.
Hire better staff who only accept passports, driving licences and the like. I know from experience in America pubs and bars manage very well under very much the same system.

ticktock wrote: I mean, how much money is WalMart going to make off of selling the NC-17 cut of the film?  Not much, as there's not much of a market for that type of flick here.
Exactly. That's only because NC-17 is a box office killer instead of a clear distinction between porn and mature content. It's the very reason X became NC-17 to try and break away from this, it didn't work.

So in reality you have an R rating which is used so loosely it's absurd. How can you have a situation where American Pie gets the same rating as Scarface? That's just absurd.

That Wikipedia link actually addresses this. The MPAA want to bring out a Hard R to distinct between Porn (NC-17) and Mature content. I'm not sure that would work and would just further break a broken system.

What's the point in a rating that less than 50 titles have ever been given it?

As it happens I do think the British system is better:

U - Universal
PG - Parental Guidance, most Star Wars films got this
12A - The same as PG13 but 12 instead, this is a cinema only rating
12 - The same as 12A but no one under 12, this is a home video rating only
15 -  No one under 15, stuff like American Pie.
18 - No one under 18. Violence or sex but there is an important distinction here. If the sex is not pornographic it doesn't get cut!
R18 - Used specifically for porn and can only be sold in licensed shops.

The point here is no rating has a stigma against it. 18 is considered a perfectly acceptable rating to give a film.

The British system is far from perfect, they can cut films for ludicrous reasons too (although they're considerably more relaxed than they used to be) but at least they A: Make it clear why a film is cut (it's even published on their website) and B: Cut films without a biase toward sex or violence. It's common knowledge the MPAA have a bias towards sex.

I suggest everyone watches "This film is not yet rated". It's very enlightening.

ticktock wrote: Now, how much money do they stand to lose if just one of those copies is sold to a minor?
The same would happen if they sold an R rated film to a minor?

Quote: So many director's are forced to cut their work not so it's seen by a smaller audience but to even get it released at all. I seriously doubt the 4 minutes are in the slightest bit that sexual anyway.

Well, according to one review, only 10 minutes of the film consist of sex scenes (so either the most explicit acts, which constitute 4 minutes were cut). And the reviews say that only Tang Wei shows everything while Tony Leung doesn't (at least from the front). So there's probably a lot less nudity than there was in "The Dreamers".

Simon Abrams wrote: Yeah, but what's cut is is pretty essential to the story.

The graphic nature of the sex is an essential part of the abrupt nature of the couple's relationship and not showing it undercuts the violent undertones, the desperation, etc.

I think an R-rated version is pointless but hey, why not chop it up so we can further turn sex into taboo? Its not like it was an important decision to release the film in theaters with an NC-17 instead of an R; that's just trivial. Get your copies, school-marms. You deserve it for making the world safe for further disney and walmartification.

PS: yeah, I realize that having an alternative doesn't seem to take away from the release of an uncut version but in implying an R-rated version is necessary, it does.

It has less to do with cutting the movie up for "school marms" than it does just getting it in stores altogether.  Walmart, Target, and most other big-box retailers do not stock NC-17 products, which means they'd pretty much be releasing the movie to online buyers only.  Cutting it was necessary to get their product seen at all.  

I hesitate to think of what they're cutting out of the original version because the sex is an incrediblu important necessity to the plot. And yes, I also think having one feature for this film is a shame, especially since there is one major deleted scene shown in the previews.

I'm excited. Lust, Caution is one of my favorite movies this yeat. Incredibly lush, savage, and heart wrenching.

Big fan of Ang Lee and Tony Leung.  I'll definitely rent this.

This screamed for a director's cut and I'm pretty p%$$@d with this barebone announcement

Wow they asked Ang Lee to cut only 4 mins of Footage to get a R Rating and he didnt do it??? Man that is a man who is VERY Proud of his work my friend!!! I may check this out because of the rave of articles I read regarding the movie!