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

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

Mysterious Skin” (2004)
What’s It About?: Gay youths struggle to process their past experiences of abuse in different ways.
Why Did It Get The Rating?: There are a couple of moments of homosexual intercourse between characters, but it’s largely a film that deals with the aftereffects of child abuse in an atypically frank manner.
Did It Deserve Its NC-17?: This is another case of the MPAA trying to distort and demean homosexuality, as the graphic sexual content (and the brief, harsh moments of sexual violence) would be entirely acceptable in an R-rated mainstream film had it involved heterosexuals. One could make a case for the truly discomforting flashbacks of child abuse, which are shot with an exaggerated unreality that suggests a horror film, but those segments are part of the lead characters’ own catharsis, and are not nearly as gratuitous as the lawless, confrontational sexuality present in director Gregg Araki’s earlier, unrated films. This seems to be another case of a director trying to move into a commercial realm and being punished by the MPAA for earlier work.
How Good Is It?: Araki, a bad-taste indie filmmaker along similar, though less comedic lines to John Waters, stepped up his aesthetics considerably with this mature, fully-realized work about an apathetic teen hustler, a boy hesitantly coming to terms with his sexuality, and the bond they share, which they believe might be the result of shared alien abduction. Araki’s films don’t shy from absurdism, but this picture honestly uses the alien material as a metaphor for not only the boys’ isolation, but also as a coping mechanism for survivors of sexual assault, and it replaces the snarky attitude of rebellion from Araki’s earlier work with a strain of mature humanism. It’s not like Araki sold out: the film still bristles with a counterculture energy the defines the picture squarely as Queer Cinema, and not just a Movie About Gays for mainstream consumption. But there are no performances as polished in the Araki filmography as the two that carry this picture: Joseph Gordon-Levitt turned heads for his showy portrayal of a loveless hustler who never looks back, playing his gay prostitute with a bit of James Dean swagger. But Brady Corbet, recently fantastic in the little-seen “Simon Killer,” is just as good as his meek doppelganger, a kid who just wants to know who he really is. [A-]

"Inside Deep Throat" (2005)
What's It About? It's a documentary detailing both the making of influential adult film "Deep Throat" (starring the iconic Linda Lovelace) and its unique cultural impact afterwards.
Why Did It Get The Rating? Because "Inside Deep Throat" dared to show actual footage from the pornographic movie it's built upon. In particular the film showed Lovelace engaging in her signature sex act: a blowjob where she takes her partner's member deep in her mouth.
Did It Deserve Its NC-17? Honestly, the sex act itself is still pretty shocking. (If you haven't seen what Lovelace does, we'll give you a few minutes to Google it, watch, and return. Wild right?) But "Inside Deep Throat" uses the footage fleetingly, mostly for dramatic and historical impact, and if you're going to make a documentary about this movie, you kind of have to see it to believe it. Still, it became the first NC-17 rated film ever shown on pay cable giant HBO and the first NC-17 rated movie Universal had released since "Henry & June."
How Good Is It? Very good. Using a combination of archival footage and new talking head interviews, "Inside Deep Throat" gives a great portrayal of both the movie and the furor that it caused (including what happened to Lovelace afterwards). What makes "Inside Deep Throat" even more impressive is the lackluster narrative film based on the same events, this year's "Lovelace." which, especially in comparison to this superior documentary, is just, well, limp. [A-]

Requiem for a Dream” (2000)
What's It About? In the words of “South Park”’s Mr. Mackey, “drugs are bad, mkay.” Darren Aronofsky's sophomore feature is an unrelenting, highly stylized piece of cinema following four desperate characters losing themselves to drug addiction. Adapted from the Hubert Selby, Jr. novel.
Why Did It Get The Rating? Do the words “ass to ass” mean anything to you? This one sex scene that comes at the end was the only portion edited down for an R-rated video release. Otherwise, the MPAA was totally cool with the rest, including an unforgettably disturbing image of a needle plunging into a rotting, infected arm. Writer/director Darren Aronofsky appealed the original rating given by the MPAA, arguing that any edits would dilute the film’s message. That was denied, so Artisan released it in theaters with the unrated tag.
Did It Deserve Its NC-17? Hmm… we suppose yes since its tone is so grim and unrelenting. But since the main issue for the MPAA was the sex scene, which is certainly graphic and depressing as all hell, it seems like this one should’ve been given the R just so more people could access it. The film has become quite cultish and well known since its initial release, so maybe the point is moot in the end.
How Good Is It? Though it’s an unbalanced, intense nightmare that only gives cursory acknowledgement to the fact that drugs can actually be fun, it’s so effective at making its very basic points (drug addiction = hell) that you can’t deny its power. Add that to Clint Mansell’s now iconic score and stylish visuals by Matthew Libatique and you’ve got a powerful piece of cinema that you may only want to watch once, but you’ll remember it for life. [A-]

Last Tango in Paris” (1972)
What's It About? While on the apartment search after his wife’s suicide, a middle-aged American widower (Marlon Brando) meets a young Parisian (Maria Schneider) and they start sexing each other, without all of that sharing intimate details nonsense. After some kinky sex (BUTTER) shot in all Bertolucci's explicit glory, Paul leaves the apartment/her and then just as abruptly tries to win her back by chasing her through the streets of Paris and a tango bar while shouting and unraveling all of his emotional baggage. Spoiler, the film ends with a bang.
Why Did It Get The Rating? Originally rated X (NC-17 wasn’t a thing until 1990), the film features not only realistic sex scenes (including a decent amount of improvisation) but also the sort of weird, disturbing sex that scars even the most jaded of modern arthouse cinemagoers (including us here at The Playlist). If you feel violated watching, here’s something to compound that with guilt—years later, Schneider went on record saying that both she and Brando felt manipulated during filming and that she felt "raped."
Did It Deserve Its NC-17? Yes, if just for children 17 and under to still be able to look at butter as food, or a food supplement (though really, if we want to help the childhood obesity epidemic….nah). Similarly, you’ll never look at corn the same way again after Claire Denis’ “Bastards,” which opened yesterday.
How Good Is It? A cinematic masterpiece. For the more prudish out there, get through the rough sex and you will find both actors at their most transcendently vulnerable and raw. Brando gives the performance of his career, which is quite a statement considering his lofty (and at times, not-so-lofty) back catalogue. Yes, we’re ready for hate comments below. [A]

You might also like:
Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

62 Comments

  • 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