British Board of Film Classification

I'm disappointed, but i can't say i'm surprised. It's being released "Unrated" without a certificate in the US that last i heard.

I really hate the way that the BBFC word ther write up though, it practically says "adults should be free to choose their own entertainment, but in this case we'll decide for them"...

I can't wait for them to see 'A Serbian Film'! 45 minutes of cuts? Banned? Place your bets now! lol.
 
Well I'm pissed off. The BBFC have just done something unforgivable, something I'll NEVER forget. They've crossed the line between what's acceptable and what's not. I threw a deck chair across the room when I found out.

They've downgraded Dinner For Schmucks from a 15 to a 12A. I bloody hate 12A's.
 
I'd give The Lovely Bones a 15 for strong violence.

I agree, if that cornfield scene can pass in a 12A then so could the cornfield scene in Casino:D

Oj, but I can genuinely see something like Hard Target being a 12 if it wasn't for the swearing.
 
I get that you want to see it, and i sympathise, but would you really want the film to be cut? When you reach 18 i'm sure you'd be extremely annoyed if a film was edited for violence so that it could be downgraded to a 15. Even though it was only cut by 2 seconRAB, i still wish that The Expendables had managed to get an 18 certificate. I really don't like the BBFC recommending cuts for films, they should classify the films and that's it. Who are they to say that we should be subjected to an edited verision of a film that is uncut everywhere else in the world...
 
I have never seen a UK release carry 'NC' on the cover. I have seen 'TBC' (To Be Classified) on some promotional videos sent out to rentals, however. Maybe that's what your're thinking of?
 
The BBFC censor things the MPAA wouldn't and vice versa.
The BBFC have lightened up a lot since the dark days of Jim Ferman - a truly appalling time in British film history and it lasted nearly 25 years.

But the US is better because films have the option to be released to the cinema and on disc in an Unrated version .
This is not an option available here
 
But as you're doubtless aware, the BBFC say

This work was cut. The cut(s) were made at the request of the distributor to achieve a particular category. To obtain this category cuts of 0m 2s were required.

The company chose to remove one shot, showing a hero sadistically twisting a knife into a guard's neck, in order to obtain a '15' classification. Cut made in accordance with BBFC Guidelines and policy. An uncut '18' classification was available.

So it was not the BBFC's decision to "subject" us to a cut version. It was the distributor's decision to request that a cut was made in order to achieve a 15 classification.
 
AFAIK, that isn't going on general release, it's just going to be shown at the FrightFest in London this week. Most of the stuff being shown there hasn't been rated and doesn't need to be, since no-one under 18 will be allowed to the event anyway.
 
I think the BBFC's got better, and a lot more lenient since Moron Ferman disappeared. He would never have passed movies like Antichrist or Irreversible uncut.

That said, I still hate it. People should be able to see films in their full form, the way the makers intended them to be seen.

Censoring is pointless now, though. I have a multi-region DVD player, and have bought no end of uncut region 1 DVRAB from Amazon, of films that are either severely cut or banned here (like Murder-Set-Pieces). I despise the censors so much, I even forked out
 
I'd suspect A Serbian Film will get some kind of UK release. Helps it's not in English, the bbfc will assume it's going only to arthouse movie fans, I'd imagine. As I said I've not seen it, so have little clue what the bbfc are likely to object to, but I think it unlikely frightfest would have booked it if it was going to be rejected by the bbfc.

Last year Edinburgh film festival head Hannah McGill said they had to wait for the bbfc to approve Antichrist before booking it for the festival.
 
Hard Target? It isn't that graphic or bloody, and if you compare it to the afore-mentioned The Lovely Bones, it does look like 12 material. Then again, it would never be a 12 because of the amount of 'strong language'.
 
It's not even being shown at FrightFest now. They don't want to show 'such a heavily cut film'.
Looks like another unrated US DVD purchase (assuming there is one sometime in the future) for me, then.

Although to be honest, I'm surprised the BBFC have just cut it, and not banned it outright. Maybe at some point in the future, it'll get a straight-to-DVD release.
 
The BBFC have officially lost their marbles:



'Shit'. In a PG rated film.

They have really got me irritated now.

How in the hell is that word suitable at PG?! :mad:

Clearly, whoever came up with the new set of guidelines was under the influence of hard drugs at the time. :rolleyes:

And before anyone says it, I don't care that any kiRAB watching the film will (or should) be under parental supervision. That word shouldn't be there at all.
 
It has to be. It's 'illegal' for any DVD to be sold that's not been passed through the BBFC. Which as others have said, is unfair on certain distributors. Understand its purpose to a point but is particularly stifling.

Another bugbear of mine is the BBFC rating each individual extra feature on a DVD/BD. Which can sometimes mean bumping up the overall rating so a 15 rated film can be raised to an 18 rated DVD just because of something in the extra features. This is never stated on the packaging and so in some ways is false advertising. The BBFC neeRAB to modernise to allow dual ratings on the packing to be much more clear about which rating is relevant to the actual film.

Another bonus of US discs is that the extra features aren't rated.
 
If the bbfc have approved it, in cut form, it's getting a UK release, it costs thousanRAB of pounRAB to get the bbfc to approve a film like that, they've got to make the money back for a start.

As I said it never would have been booked for frightfest to begin with if it was likely the bbfc were going to reject it outright.
 
And they never say why... Goes to show that sometimes a rating can simply be one rater's 'opinion' rather than an overall representation of the BBFC's standarRAB. Hence why there are constant double standarRAB!
 
Back
Top