Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

17 Films Rated NC-17: Did They Deserve The 'Certificate Of Doom'?

Features
by The Playlist Staff
October 24, 2013 4:01 PM
70 Comments
  • |
Showgirls Kiss

"Showgirls" (1995)
What's It About? Nomi ("Saved by the Bell" icon Elizabeth Berkley) is a young woman with big dreams: to become a Las Vegas showgirl. (Has this ever been anyone's dream?) Unfortunately, she's stuck working at a seedy strip club instead. Still, this is the story of the American dream, and soon she becomes the protégé (and eventual successor) of a diva showgirl played by Gina Gershon. Other adventures include her getting violently fucked in a swimming pool by the guy who played FBI Agent Dale Cooper and mispronouncing the word "Versace."
Why Did It Get The Rating? Public opinion at the time had the staggering amount of nudity as the chief reason "Showgirls" was saddled with an NC-17 rating (at the time it was the most expensive and lavishly marketed film to carry such a rating; to date it's the highest grossing NC-17 rated movie). There is also a fair amount of sex, but nothing even remotely approaching penetration. In fact, comparing the NC-17 version to the R-rated cut (that was released on home video and for television markets) shows that simulated masturbation was a huge concern, with whole sequences reframed to delete the suggestion of masturbation or anal play. There is also a pretty violent rape.
Did It Deserve Its NC-17? Absolutely not. There is more shocking stuff on pay cable than in "Showgirls," with the amount of violence, nudity, and rape regularly eclipsed on any given episode of "Game of Thrones." One of the things that remains at least somewhat shocking is Berkley's pubic hair (or lack thereof); in the years since a shaved pubic region has remained a taboo that can tip an R-rated movie into NC-17 rated territory. In the commentary track for "Piranha 3D," director Alexandre Aja feared the wrath of the MPAA not because of the movie's envelope-pushing violence but because costars Kelly Brook and Riley Steele "shave in between their legs."
How Good Is It? "Showgirls" isn't a good movie by any stretch of the imagination, but it has reached that rarified air of the so-bad-it's-good movie and remains an enduring cult classic, best watched after midnight and after several beers have been ceremoniously downed. [B]

The Cook The Thief His Wife And Her Lover

The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover” (1989)
What's It About? An obnoxious gangster, or the titular ‘Thief’, played by a quite puffy Michael Gambon, takes over a fancy, surreal restaurant run by ‘the Cook’ (Richard Bohringer). Gambon shows up every night to engorge himself, and to disrespect and alienate the staff and customers, and partake in all manner of douchebaggery. Beyond his crew (including a young Tim Roth), he’s joined by his ‘Wife’, a ravishing Helen Mirren, trapped in a sadistic loveless marriage. When ‘Her Lover’ (Alan Howard), a bookish gentleman who eats alone, catches her eye at the restaurant, they partake in a series of trysts in different, progressively yuckier places. 
Why Did It Get The Rating? The usual MPAA no-nos: lots of sex and nudity (both male and female), but there’s also a general nasty tone to all the proceedings, and that ending...well, you should see for yourself.
Did It Deserve Its NC-17? It’s a fair rating, given some of the crazy shit that goes down. When it was released in theaters, Miramax went with unrated to avoid the stigma of the X rating, which was associated with porn at that time. Its VHS release in the ‘90s featured an R-rated version almost 30 minutes shorter, of which we’d ask: why bother?
How Good Is It? Pretty goddamn good, a truly singular piece of work by Brit Peter Greenaway, known for his challenging arthouse films. The set where most the film takes place changes with different sequences (stark, near-monochromatic color variations. Think “Hero” but with grotesque sex instead of fight scenes) and the camera glides through it all in long takes in perfect synch with Michael Nyman’s gorgeous score. There’s a lot of ugliness amidst all the beauty, but the payoff is worth it. [A-]

Bad Education

"Bad Education" (2004)
What's It About? Spanish director Pedro Almodovar has had a number of his films given the scarlet letter of the NC-17 rating, mostly having to do with his love of splashy sex and equally splashy violence. "Bad Education" is his most recent run-in with ratings board condemnation. It's the story of a pair of childhood friends (one of whom is played by Gael Garcia Bernal), who reunite and get involved in an endlessly knotty relationship involving gay sex, stalking, and eventually murder. Yes, it is quite juicy.
Why Did It Get The Rating? According to the MPAA's official ruling the film received an NC-17 for "a scene of explicit sexual content." When the movie was edited for an R, their ruling changed to "strong sexual content throughout, language, and some drug use." Instead of being trimmed out completely, the sequence in question (of a gay blowjob) is obscured as to render the scene totally powerless, like the cloaked figures standing in the way of the occultish sex in "Eyes Wide Shut."
Did It Deserve Its NC-17? No, absolutely not. There are undoubtedly countless instances of straight oral sex (or female-on-female oral sex) that have skimmed by without incident. And, again, there is much more outrageous stuff on pay cable these days. Comparably, Almodovar's recent, horror-tinged "The Skin I Live In" is way more worthy of the super-naughty rating, but skated by with an R, maybe because a greater portion of the sex was heterosexual and not gay.
How Good Is It? "Bad Education" is really wonderful and so, so entertaining, sort of like Almodovar doing Brian De Palma doing Alfred Hitchcock. It's a shame that its restrictive rating kept more people from seeing it, since it's such a blast. [A-]

Lust Caution

"Lust, Caution" (2007)
What's It About? Ang Lee's adaptation of the beloved 1979 novella follows a group of college-aged Chinese dissidents who plot to assassinate a member of the political ruling class (who at the time were a puppet government, occupied by the Imperial Japanese Army). Of course, things get sticky when one of the college kids falls in love with their intended target (played by Tony Leung). Most of "Lust, Caution" plays like a sweeping historical romance, with an above average amount of sex, but because of its NC-17 rating, it hardly played anywhere, despite all of its press.
Why Did It Get The Rating? There are two reasons why the movie was burdened with an NC-17: sex and violence. The sex is pretty hot and heavy, with plenty of pubic hair and sweaty thrusting and the violence is even more intense, depicting the true difficulty of murdering another human being (fountains of blood and all).
Did It Deserve Its NC-17? Not really. The sex is somewhat more graphic than you'd expect in this kind of movie, but nowhere near the shocking levels that should warrant an NC-17. The violence, too, is pretty extreme, along the lines of an early Paul Verhoeven movie (or something), but compared to the average Hollywood action movie, in which countless innocent people are atomized without a single drop of on-screen blood, it feels more real and necessary. In "Lust, Caution," you feel the pain of murder. And that says a lot.
How Good Is It? While no one will mistake "Lust, Caution" for top tier Ang Lee fare, it's still well worth watching, a frequently compelling, gorgeously acted and lushly photographed romantic thriller. It's a shame that its rating kept people from seeing it, although at least there was an unedited home video version, so you can see it in all of its filthy glory. [B+]

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

70 Comments

  • leavemeoutofit | July 16, 2014 10:26 PMReply

    Yes. Yes. No. Yes. No. No. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. No.
    (In no particular order.)

  • leavemeoutofit | July 16, 2014 10:26 PMReply

    Yes. Yes. No. Yes. No. No. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. No.
    (In no particular order.)

  • leavemeoutofit | July 16, 2014 10:26 PMReply

    Yes. Yes. No. Yes. No. No. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. No.
    (In no particular order.)

  • leavemeoutofit | July 16, 2014 10:26 PMReply

    Yes. Yes. No. Yes. No. No. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. No.
    (In no particular order.)

  • leavemeoutofit | July 16, 2014 10:25 PMReply

    Yes. Yes. No. Yes. No. No. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. No.
    (In no particular order.)

  • leavemeoutofit | July 16, 2014 10:25 PMReply

    Yes. Yes. No. Yes. No. No. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. No.
    (In no particular order.)

  • Daniella Isaacs | July 16, 2014 10:13 PMReply

    POISON does have a quick shot of a penis, actually, and more controversially for the ratings board, it's erect.

  • Daniella Isaacs | July 16, 2014 10:13 PMReply

    POISON does have a quick shot of a penis, actually, and more controversially for the ratings board, it's erect.

  • Jamaica Knauer | November 7, 2013 10:11 AMReply

    Actually I *would* mistake "Lust, Caution" as top-tier Ang Lee. Only it's not a mistake. Westerners rarely ever connect with this haunting picture.

  • Jamaica Knauer | November 7, 2013 10:11 AMReply

    Actually I *would* mistake "Lust, Caution" as top-tier Ang Lee. Only it's not a mistake. Westerners rarely ever connect with this haunting picture.

  • Jamaica Knauer | November 7, 2013 10:10 AMReply

    Actually I *would* mistake "Lust, Caution" as top-tier Ang Lee. Only it's not a mistake. Westerners rarely ever connect with this haunting picture.

  • Tom | November 6, 2013 8:02 PMReply

    What about Caligula?

  • Tom | November 6, 2013 8:02 PMReply

    What about Caligula?

  • John | November 5, 2013 7:35 PMReply

    No mention of Y Tu Mama Tambien?

  • John | November 5, 2013 7:35 PMReply

    No mention of Y Tu Mama Tambien?

  • John | November 5, 2013 7:35 PMReply

    No mention of Y Tu Mama Tambien?

  • john Coffman | November 4, 2013 6:05 PMReply

    Maybe there needs to be a new classification, for example - MAWC, 'Material for Adults Without Children'. Or, how about - AGTEWDM, 'Adult Graduates of a Tertiary Education Without Dependent Minors'?

  • john Coffman | November 4, 2013 6:05 PMReply

    Maybe there needs to be a new classification, for example - MAWC, 'Material for Adults Without Children'. Or, how about - AGTEWDM, 'Adult Graduates of a Tertiary Education Without Dependent Minors'?

  • john Coffman | November 4, 2013 6:05 PMReply

    Maybe there needs to be a new classification, for example - MAWC, 'Material for Adults Without Children'. Or, how about - AGTEWDM, 'Adult Graduates of a Tertiary Education Without Dependent Minors'?

  • john Coffman | November 4, 2013 6:04 PMReply

    Maybe there needs to be a new classification, for example - MAWC, 'Material for Adults Without Children'. Or, how about - AGTEWDM, 'Adult Graduates of a Tertiary Education Without Dependent Minors'?

  • Greg W. Locke | November 3, 2013 3:50 AMReply

    You forgot the biggest one, In the Realm of the Senses? And how about Michael Winterbottoms 9 Songs?

    Also, Werner's flick is not a remake of the original Bad Lieutenant.

  • Timoteo | October 30, 2013 1:01 PMReply

    You were spot on with your assessment of Last Tango In Paris. A cinematic masterpiece. I made the mistake of renting the R-rated version once, which is a total abomination. I did purchase a pristine "X" or NC-17 DVD of it recently, but still I wondered if anything would be deleted (having seen the film at least 25 times.) The only thing missing from the original was in the subtitles. They took out the line, "Go shit in Africa." Being non-PC is now worse than any sex or violence you can throw out there.

  • Timoteo | October 30, 2013 12:59 PMReply

    You were spot on with your assessment of Last Tango In Paris. A cinematic masterpiece. I made the mistake of renting the R-rated version once, which is a total abomination. I did purchase a pristine "X" or NC-17 DVD of it recently, but still I wondered if anything would be deleted (having seen the film at least 25 times.) The only thing missing from the original was in the subtitles. They took out the line, "Go shit in Africa." Being non-PC is now worse than any sex or violence you can throw out there.

  • Timoteo | October 30, 2013 12:59 PMReply

    You were spot on with your assessment of Last Tango In Paris. A cinematic masterpiece. I made the mistake of renting the R-rated version once, which is a total abomination. I did purchase a pristine "X" or NC-17 DVD of it recently, but still I wondered if anything would be deleted (having seen the film at least 25 times.) The only thing missing from the original was in the subtitles. They took out the line, "Go shit in Africa." Being non-PC is now worse than any sex or violence you can throw out there.

  • Caleb Donnie Chadwick | October 27, 2013 4:24 PMReply

    actually, "Lust, Caution" is my favorite Ang Lee film.

  • Caleb Donnie Chadwick | October 27, 2013 4:24 PMReply

    actually, "Lust, Caution" is my favorite Ang Lee film.

  • Caleb Donnie Chadwick | October 27, 2013 4:24 PMReply

    actually, "Lust, Caution" is my favorite Ang Lee film.

  • Caleb Donnie Chadwick | October 27, 2013 4:24 PMReply

    actually, "Lust, Caution" is my favorite Ang Lee film.

  • Caleb Donnie Chadwick | October 27, 2013 4:24 PMReply

    actually, "Lust, Caution" is my favorite Ang Lee film.

  • Caleb Donnie Chadwick | October 27, 2013 4:23 PMReply

    actually, "Lust, Caution" is my favorite Ang Lee film.

  • Caleb Donnie Chadwick | October 27, 2013 4:23 PMReply

    actually, "Lust, Caution" is my favorite Ang Lee film.

  • Caleb Donnie Chadwick | October 27, 2013 4:23 PMReply

    actually, "Lust, Caution" is my favorite Ang Lee film.

  • Ivana | October 26, 2013 7:56 PMReply

    I happen to think that Lust, Caution is in the top tier of Ang Lee films.

    It's also much better than the overrated Last Tango in Paris.

  • Ivana | October 26, 2013 7:56 PMReply

    I happen to think that Lust, Caution is in the top tier of Ang Lee films.

    It's also much better than the overrated Last Tango in Paris.

  • Ivana | October 26, 2013 7:55 PMReply

    I happen to think that Lust, Caution is in the top tier of Ang Lee films.

    It's also much better than the overrated Last Tango in Paris.

  • Ivana | October 26, 2013 7:55 PMReply

    I happen to think that Lust, Caution is in the top tier of Ang Lee films.

    It's also much better than the overrated Last Tango in Paris.

  • Ivana | October 26, 2013 7:55 PMReply

    I happen to think that Lust, Caution is in the top tier of Ang Lee films.

    It's also much better than the overrated Last Tango in Paris.

  • Ivana | October 26, 2013 7:55 PMReply

    I happen to think that Lust, Caution is in the top tier of Ang Lee films.

    It's also much better than the overrated Last Tango in Paris.

  • Ivana | October 26, 2013 7:54 PMReply

    I happen to think that Lust, Caution is in the top tier of Ang Lee films.

    It's also much better than the overrated Last Tango in Paris.

  • Ivana | October 26, 2013 7:54 PMReply

    I happen to think that Lust, Caution is in the top tier of Ang Lee films.

    It's also much better than the overrated Last Tango in Paris.

  • Rick | October 25, 2013 10:00 AMReply

    NC-17 is dumb, just dumb. I mean, I could be wrong, but I thought the MPAA's whole thing was they are not a censorship group but an educational tool. Their motive is to educate guardians to determine whether their kids are mature enough to see any given movie, but you take away a guardians ability to approve with a rating designed to exclude children (how different was your 16 year old self from your 17 year old self really?) no matter what. If the idea of an R-rating means if your under 17 but a parent permits you to see said movie that seems like the most restriction needed.

    Although I probably wouldn't care so much if the general public didn't treat NC-17 movies as if they were porn. Some theaters won't show them. Some media outlets won't allow them to advertise. People definitely think of it as gratuity for the sake of gratuity which is completely unfair for movies like Shame or Crash.

  • Cranky Grandpa | October 25, 2013 12:16 PM

    NC-17 is censorship albeit not in a overt sense. It's economic strangling by design coming from a board connected to powerful interests. They are basically saying to all those filmmakers out there, "You want to continue making movies then you have accept our values, assumptions, and political goals." They'll let all the gore and military might into the margins while restricting raw emotion and real sex and humanity by either giving it a higher rating than they'd normally give or slapping it with an NC-17. It's an ingenious system for spreading political agendas, and keeping the mainstream, mainstream..... all while giving the illusion that it's not censorship. People who actually care not only about movies but about humanity, justice, and freedom of speech should be opposed to the MPAA.

  • Cranky Grandpa | October 25, 2013 12:16 PM

    NC-17 is censorship albeit not in a overt sense. It's economic strangling by design coming from a board connected to powerful interests. They are basically saying to all those filmmakers out there, "You want to continue making movies then you have accept our values, assumptions, and political goals." They'll let all the gore and military might into the margins while restricting raw emotion and real sex and humanity by either giving it a higher rating than they'd normally give or slapping it with an NC-17. It's an ingenious system for spreading political agendas, and keeping the mainstream, mainstream..... all while giving the illusion that it's not censorship. People who actually care not only about movies but about humanity, justice, and freedom of speech should be opposed to the MPAA.

  • Cranky Grandpa | October 25, 2013 12:16 PM

    NC-17 is censorship albeit not in a overt sense. It's economic strangling by design coming from a board connected to powerful interests. They are basically saying to all those filmmakers out there, "You want to continue making movies then you have accept our values, assumptions, and political goals." They'll let all the gore and military might into the margins while restricting raw emotion and real sex and humanity by either giving it a higher rating than they'd normally give or slapping it with an NC-17. It's an ingenious system for spreading political agendas, and keeping the mainstream, mainstream..... all while giving the illusion that it's not censorship. People who actually care not only about movies but about humanity, justice, and freedom of speech should be opposed to the MPAA.

  • Cranky Grandpa | October 25, 2013 12:16 PM

    NC-17 is censorship albeit not in a overt sense. It's economic strangling by design coming from a board connected to powerful interests. They are basically saying to all those filmmakers out there, "You want to continue making movies then you have accept our values, assumptions, and political goals." They'll let all the gore and military might into the margins while restricting raw emotion and real sex and humanity by either giving it a higher rating than they'd normally give or slapping it with an NC-17. It's an ingenious system for spreading political agendas, and keeping the mainstream, mainstream..... all while giving the illusion that it's not censorship. People who actually care not only about movies but about humanity, justice, and freedom of speech should be opposed to the MPAA.

  • Cranky Grandpa | October 25, 2013 12:15 PM

    NC-17 is censorship albeit not in a overt sense. It's economic strangling by design coming from a board connected to powerful interests. They are basically saying to all those filmmakers out there, "You want to continue making movies then you have accept our values, assumptions, and political goals." They'll let all the gore and military might into the margins while restricting raw emotion and real sex and humanity by either giving it a higher rating than they'd normally give or slapping it with an NC-17. It's an ingenious system for spreading political agendas, and keeping the mainstream, mainstream..... all while giving the illusion that it's not censorship. People who actually care not only about movies but about humanity, justice, and freedom of speech should be opposed to the MPAA.

  • Cranky Grandpa | October 25, 2013 12:15 PM

    NC-17 is censorship albeit not in a overt sense. It's economic strangling by design coming from a board connected to powerful interests. They are basically saying to all those filmmakers out there, "You want to continue making movies then you have accept our values, assumptions, and political goals." They'll let all the gore and military might into the margins while restricting raw emotion and real sex and humanity by either giving it a higher rating than they'd normally give or slapping it with an NC-17. It's an ingenious system for spreading political agendas, and keeping the mainstream, mainstream..... all while giving the illusion that it's not censorship. People who actually care not only about movies but about humanity, justice, and freedom of speech should be opposed to the MPAA.

  • Cranky Grandpa | October 25, 2013 12:15 PM

    NC-17 is censorship albeit not in a overt sense. It's economic strangling by design coming from a board connected to powerful interests. They are basically saying to all those filmmakers out there, "You want to continue making movies then you have accept our values, assumptions, and political goals." They'll let all the gore and military might into the margins while restricting raw emotion and real sex and humanity by either giving it a higher rating than they'd normally give or slapping it with an NC-17. It's an ingenious system for spreading political agendas, and keeping the mainstream, mainstream..... all while giving the illusion that it's not censorship. People who actually care not only about movies but about humanity, justice, and freedom of speech should be opposed to the MPAA.

  • Cranky Grandpa | October 25, 2013 12:15 PM

    NC-17 is censorship albeit not in a overt sense. It's economic strangling by design coming from a board connected to powerful interests. They are basically saying to all those filmmakers out there, "You want to continue making movies then you have accept our values, assumptions, and political goals." They'll let all the gore and military might into the margins while restricting raw emotion and real sex and humanity by either giving it a higher rating than they'd normally give or slapping it with an NC-17. It's an ingenious system for spreading political agendas, and keeping the mainstream, mainstream..... all while giving the illusion that it's not censorship. People who actually care not only about movies but about humanity, justice, and freedom of speech should be opposed to the MPAA.

  • Cranky Grandpa | October 25, 2013 12:15 PM

    NC-17 is censorship albeit not in a overt sense. It's economic strangling by design coming from a board connected to powerful interests. They are basically saying to all those filmmakers out there, "You want to continue making movies then you have accept our values, assumptions, and political goals." They'll let all the gore and military might into the margins while restricting raw emotion and real sex and humanity by either giving it a higher rating than they'd normally give or slapping it with an NC-17. It's an ingenious system for spreading political agendas, and keeping the mainstream, mainstream..... all while giving the illusion that it's not censorship. People who actually care not only about movies but about humanity, justice, and freedom of speech should be opposed to the MPAA.

  • Cranky Grandpa | October 25, 2013 12:15 PM

    NC-17 is censorship albeit not in a overt sense. It's economic strangling by design coming from a board connected to powerful interests. They are basically saying to all those filmmakers out there, "You want to continue making movies then you have accept our values, assumptions, and political goals." They'll let all the gore and military might into the margins while restricting raw emotion and real sex and humanity by either giving it a higher rating than they'd normally give or slapping it with an NC-17. It's an ingenious system for spreading political agendas, and keeping the mainstream, mainstream..... all while giving the illusion that it's not censorship. People who actually care not only about movies but about humanity, justice, and freedom of speech should be opposed to the MPAA.

  • Cranky Grandpa | October 25, 2013 12:15 PM

    NC-17 is censorship albeit not in a overt sense. It's economic strangling by design coming from a board connected to powerful interests. They are basically saying to all those filmmakers out there, "You want to continue making movies then you have accept our values, assumptions, and political goals." They'll let all the gore and military might into the margins while restricting raw emotion and real sex and humanity by either giving it a higher rating than they'd normally give or slapping it with an NC-17. It's an ingenious system for spreading political agendas, and keeping the mainstream, mainstream..... all while giving the illusion that it's not censorship. People who actually care not only about movies but about humanity, justice, and freedom of speech should be opposed to the MPAA.

  • Cranky Grandpa | October 25, 2013 12:15 PM

    NC-17 is censorship albeit not in a overt sense. It's economic strangling by design coming from a board connected to powerful interests. They are basically saying to all those filmmakers out there, "You want to continue making movies then you have accept our values, assumptions, and political goals." They'll let all the gore and military might into the margins while restricting raw emotion and real sex and humanity by either giving it a higher rating than they'd normally give or slapping it with an NC-17. It's an ingenious system for spreading political agendas, and keeping the mainstream, mainstream..... all while giving the illusion that it's not censorship. People who actually care not only about movies but about humanity, justice, and freedom of speech should be opposed to the MPAA.

  • Jarod Rebuck | October 25, 2013 2:02 AMReply

    All of this rating business is, of course, subjective. However, there are times in which a film is obviously too much for children, or pre-adults 17 and below; this seems like a safe and sound number. Past this age, it only becomes adults censoring adults, which is ridiculous. In the process of rating a film for children, the most we (as parents) can do is use our best judgement and reasoning skills. Put ourselves in the shoes of our children and make a sound assessment of content suitability. This assessment can be reached by asking ourselves a series of important questions regarding the child's maturity, proclivity to act out perceived actions, history of vulnerability towards things which bear a keen likeness to content displayed in the movie, etc. I find that making such decisions is far easier by carrying this out.

    Now moving on to the controversial MPAA. Let me first explain why I think the R rating is absurd and the NC-17 rating is helpful, yet, also absurd in the end. How many times have you attended an R rated film, say, of the SAW or HALLOWEEN slasher series in the presence of a mindless parent(s) with their youngster wailing out at the sight of every decapitation, disembowelment, and hacked off body part? I have. This is when the MPAA can be justified in stamping the film with an NC-17. No children 17 and under -- with or without the accompaniment of an adult. No fu*king R (too many dumb as* parents out there, sorry) -- just a fat fu*king NC-17. When the content of a film is that conspicuously intense, there should be no argument. And, no, I'm not ignorant to the fact that there are "some" kids out there who have the fortitude for such things extreme in nature. Sure, I was one of them. However, my perception rests on the notion that no film bearing the indubitable earmarks to probably inflict psychological damage is THAT worth seeing, anyway. So fu*king what if they have to wait a few years. It ain't gonna kill 'em.

    Now the dismal news. Having said all of this, I must confess that censorship is ultimately pointless. Any child with access to a computer and the knowledge to bypass their parent's blocked site mode, if need be, can reap access to anything he or she desires.

    Yes... this.... is... the... VILLAGE... OF... THE... DAMNED!!!

  • Adam | October 25, 2013 12:07 AMReply

    You've imagined the raw, unprotected gay sex in Shame. It's just a none too graphic blowjob.

    There's also no male frontal in Borat. There's the nude wrestling scene, but the frontal a are blurred.

  • Gabe Toro | October 25, 2013 11:57 AM

    There's frontal. Some of us CAN'T forget.

  • Gabe Toro | October 25, 2013 11:54 AM

    There's frontal. Some of us CAN'T forget.

  • Gabe Toro | October 25, 2013 11:54 AM

    There's frontal. Some of us CAN'T forget.

  • Cranky Grandpa | October 24, 2013 10:19 PMReply

    The fact you are even accepting the MPAA's parameters is so fuccking lame.

    How about a whole article challenging the cabal of corrupt ass motherrrfucckas that sit on the board of MPAA? Or is that ruffling too many feathers for you?

    Until that article appears, you are legitimizing an illegitimate body by caving to their rules. It's about the future of movies here....not giving in to reactionary forces trying to tame the power of film.

  • Cranky Grandpa | October 24, 2013 11:48 PM

    Thanks man. After reading about the MPAA quite a bit and seeing Kirby Dick's movie as well, they just piss me off. So any kind of catering to their shadowy wtf practices tick me off in turn. Who even sits on that board? Some religious crusaders, hypersensitive soccer moms, and slime-ball extraordinaire Chris Dodd? Fucck em'. Good movies matter more.

  • Gabe Toro | October 24, 2013 11:34 PM

    I'm with this guy, actually.

  • Alex | October 24, 2013 5:13 PMReply

    Great list! But "Whore" is by Ken Russell, not Michael Winner.

  • Liz | October 24, 2013 4:27 PMReply

    I saw Henry & June for the first time recently, and I'm at an absolute loss as to what could have qualified it for an NC-17. According to the movie's Wikipedia page:

    "The inclusion of the postcard Nin views at the start of the film (which is of Hokusai's The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife), and some scenes of le Bal des Beaux Arts contributed to the NC-17 rating."

    If that's true, it's ridiculously lame reasoning.

  • Daniel | October 24, 2013 4:19 PMReply

    What about Salo? Definitely deserved the NC17.

  • JamesK | October 30, 2013 12:51 AM

    Salo was released Not Rated in the US.

  • JamesK | October 30, 2013 12:51 AM

    Salo was released Not Rated in the US.

  • JamesK | October 30, 2013 12:51 AM

    Salo was released Not Rated in the US.

  • JamesK | October 30, 2013 12:51 AM

    Salo was released Not Rated in the US.

  • JamesK | October 30, 2013 12:51 AM

    Salo was released Not Rated in the US.

  • JamesK | October 30, 2013 12:51 AM

    Salo was released Not Rated in the US.

Email Updates