James L. Brooks Forced To Cut Extra F-Bombs To Score PG-13 Rating For 'How Do You Know?'

by Edward Davis
November 12, 2010 3:06 AM
6 Comments
  • |


After losing an MPAA appeal to defeat a R-rating, Columbia Pictures will be recutting James L. Brooks' upcoming romantic comedy "How Do You Know" starring Reese Witherspoon, Owen Wilson and Paul Rudd.

The film was slapped with a R-Rating a few weeks ago, evidently because of three f-bombs utilized in the pic, and having lost the appeal to overturn the ruling, Columbia will be trimming two "fucks" so they can secure a more audience-friendly PG-13 rating (i.e. maximizing the amount of asses in seats). Apparently a PG-13 film can get away with one f-bomb, but three is too much. Whatever.

While many of James L. Brooks early films were R-rated ("Broadcast News"), the recent ones -- "As Good As It Gets," "Spanglish" -- were not, and the move is hardly a shock as studios are much more mindful these days of ratings in a cost-cutting era when dramedies are usually forced to have a 40-million dollar budget ceiling. Also it's a film that lands during Christmas and no one wants to put out an R-rated rom-com around the holiday season.

If anything the mild conservatism on display from the notoriously tight-wadded MPAA does not bode well for the NC-17 appeal by "Blue Valentine," but that issue might be all together entirely different

"How Do You Know" centers on a love triangle between Witherspoon (a former athlete), Wilson (a baseball player) and Rudd (a corporate guy) and also co-stars Jack Nicholson. Scheduled for a December 17 release, "How Do You Know" will hit theaters with a PG-13 rating, but if two f-bombs are the only issue, we assume it's not going to affect the quality of the film either way. [Variety]

You might also like:
Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

6 Comments

  • Daphne | November 17, 2010 6:30 AMReply

    ...Love Reese Witherspoon and all in it...can't wait to see it!!!! ~

  • dogcatcher | November 13, 2010 12:38 AMReply

    This looks awful. Reese Witherspoon is completely over.

  • ThePlaylist | November 12, 2010 9:21 AMReply

    27 for an athlete... it's debatable, but yeah, primetime is what 18-24 these days?

  • Nick | November 12, 2010 9:16 AMReply

    Has nobody taken issue with the fact that in IMDb's plot synopsis, they say Witherspoon is playing a 27-year-old? She's certainly not old, but she's in her mid 30s, which seems a bit far away from 27.

    Also the men she's going to be flinging back and forth from in the movie are both over 40. Why make her 27? Why not make her 34?

    Also it's phrased like this "Feeling a bit past her prime at 27, former athlete Lisa Jorgenson finds herself in the middle of a love triangle..."

    A bit past her prime? Is she a wagon woman? Is her life expectancy 32? What's the deal? Where's the beef? Airline food.

  • cirkusfolk | November 12, 2010 5:39 AMReply

    I agree this looks lame. I'd much rather see the similar looking, Love and Other Drugs, which by the way, is rated R.

  • quince | November 12, 2010 4:52 AMReply

    This film looks incredibly boring. James L. Brooks has lost his edge.

Email Updates