Showing posts with label film ratings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film ratings. Show all posts

Thursday, August 27, 2026

9 things I learned from the BBFC 2025 annual report




Long-time readers of this blog will know I have an "inside baseball" obsession with film classification. I’m fascinated by film classification, especially BBFC ratings, why films are rated what they are, and decisions that were the source of contention. For me, the release of the BBFC’s annual report is like Christmas; the ultimate chance to indulge my inner film nerd.

Back when I was doing my PhD, and then when I had started my job in Finance, I went on a generational run of reading and summarizing my key takeaways from the Annual Reports from 2016 to 2019. But then my job got very busy, and my actuarial exams got more difficult, forcing my niche hobby onto the back burner, leaving the 2020 through 2024 reports unchronicled.

Being on maternity leave, I can now right some of those wrongs, and thus, for the first time in six years, have the time to pore over the 2025 Annual Report, and tell you what I found interesting! Below are nine things that I learned from reading the 2025 annual report.


1. Complaints for non-standard reasons I

The section of the Annual Report that attracts most attention from BBFC nerds, is the complaints section, because this reveals the temperature of the British public, not just in regards to their pressure points in terms of film content, but broader societal issues as well.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Endless BBFC Nerdiness [Over Brief Strong Cesc].

I was browsing HMV when I spotted this, and instantly, my film classification board nerd senses were tingling.


I didn't see Endless Poetry when it hit cinemas, but I was tempted to, only because it got a 15 from the BBFC and an 18 from Ireland:

Saturday, January 28, 2017

Some BBFC nerdiness at the Oscar nominations.


Hey Em, don't make it sad. Take a shite batch of Oscar nominations and make it better! With BBFC stats and shiz, of course.

Thursday, January 26, 2017

Rules (to BBFC guidelines on sex references) Don't Apply.


Warren Beatty's vanity project, Rules Don't Apply was released to lukewarm acclaim. I saw the trailer and immediately sensed the case of 'sticking as many celebrities in a film as possible to paper over the cracks of its low quality' and thought Nah. As far as I'm concerned, I'm content having seen just one film about Howard Hughes, Marty Scorsese's seminal The Aviator.

But even if I have no intention of watching a film, I still read its BBFC extended information, just to have some indication about the content in it (case in point, writing a whole blog post about Passengers' short insight as I have no life). 

Rules Don't Apply's short insight is popular amongst several 12A-rated films: 'moderate sex references, infrequent strong language'.

With regards to these 'moderate sex references', it said this:


Ahem at the bit about 'a small dark stain'. Given that the BBFC have rated the mere mention of ejaculation a 'strong sex reference' (see Fathers and Daughters), I thought this visual sex reference is a bit risqué for 12A!

Perhaps it sounds worse reading it than watching it, and the fact that it got PG-13 in the States and 12A in Ireland, imply that. Maybe it's a really tiny stain. But still. I'm very surprised the BBFC passed it at 12A, a rating which has less allowance for sex references than the American PG-13 (case in point, the likes of Mustang, Dumb and Dumber To and Easy A were PG-13 but (admittedly soft) 15s because their sex references were deemed too crude for 12A). The BBFC has no problem deviating from the Americans on this front, and I think they probably ought to have here.

For example, in Dumb and Dumber To, rated 15 for 'strong sex references', the sex jokes the BBFC thought inappropriate for 12A were when Jim Carey's not-too-bright character gets tricked by an old woman into fingering her. Obviously they don't show it, just his hand rummaging around under some sheets, and later he exclaims 'I just finger-banged an old lady!'. I agree with the BBFC that that is probably a bit dicey to put in a 12A. But personally, the sight of a stain on a dude's crotch, in my opinion, is even  more scabrous. In both cases, if watched with kids, the kid might innocently ask 'what's that stain on his trousers / what does finger-bang mean'?

It's good that the BBFC avoided the second awkward conversation between parents and some 9-year-old, but I'm not sure they'd relish having the first one either!

Then again, I haven't seen the film.

(I hope 'the small dark stain' in question doesn't appear on Alden Ehrenreich's trousers. I like him and don't want to see him make a buffoon of himself!)

---

In case you hadn't noticed, I'm rather obsessed with film ratings. Here be the archive of my BBFC posts.

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

The Oscars and the Razzies for the BBFC, 2016

The Razzie shortlist was leaked and I see Cara Delevingne didn’t make the Worst Supporting actress shortlist, once again illustrating that the Razzies don’t deliver on their promise of honouring the worst of the year (which Blahra undoubtedly was), but instead, jumping on the bandwagon of critically panned films and knocking A-listers down a peg or two.

Anyway, I digress. I’m a massive BBFC nerd (you don’t say), and they release an Annual Report every June or so, and I love poring over it, because they discuss high-profile and contentious decisions at each age category. I’m just as fascinated as to why something’s a PG rather than a U as I am why something’s a 15 rather than an 18, and the equal exposure they give to all the ratings, as well as revealing which films got the most complaints each year, makes for fascinating reading.

That report is compiled by the BBFC, and I thought I’d do my own personal Razzies and Oscars of the BBFC for films that came out last year, just to add another dimension/point of view to BBFC reviews!



Before I discuss some decisions I strongly agreed (the Oscars) and disagreed (the Razzies), I will blather about some random thoughts which don’t fit into either category. My current eighth favourite film of 2016, High or High Water, was rated 15 for ‘strong language, violence, sex’. I have no qualms with the age rating, nor the first two classification issues. The ‘strong sex’ in question, however, gave me false hope; I was hoping it might feature dishy Chris Pine. Instead, it was his on-screen brother, played by Ben Foster, being ridden. Not the BBFC’s fault, I know, and says more about my dirty mind than their choice of lexicon. But I felt quite let down. 

At least the sex scene in Hell or High Water could be classified as strong, however brief it was. In 2016 I caught up with a couple of films that featured in awards season for the previous year, two of which were Wild Tales and 45 Years. Argentinian film Wild Tales was an anthology of six short films, wonderfully inventive and blackly comic. 45 Years, a film about a wife who discovers her husband’s secret in the week building up to their 45 year anniversary, was less gripping, but anchored by an amazing performance by Charlotte Rampling. Two completely disparate films, connected by one thing: their BBFC insight promised me strong sex. What strong sex?? I’ve seen raunchier 12s!

In terms of short insight which did deliver on what it said on the tin, the starkest case has to be, to this date, still the only 18-rated 2016 release that I’ve seen (although this will surely change with the release of foreign films Elle and The Handmaiden), The Neon Demon. Rated 18 for ‘strong bloody images, sexual assault, necrophilia’, no one could argue it didn’t have each and every one of those three articles. The last one, in particular, must have been the main reason the film obtained its adult certificate. Jena Malone’s acting in the scene in question was brilliant and I thoroughly commend her for her dedication for making that 18-rated scene so credible, however aberrant the act.

Now, onto the prizegivings!

The BBFC Oscars

Friday, December 16, 2016

Films and TV shows that have been rated 15 with absolutely no 'strong' components.

This blogpost will be continually updated with screenshots, film posters and back of DVDs that contain a fairly uncommon occurrence: things rated 15 for merely 'moderate' things.

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

What I go to school for.

I went on an R course recently just so I could produce this rather fabulous graph, of the certificates of films I've seen, and at which cinemas, since procuring my Odeon Limitless card in July.


Statistics can be fun sometimes!

--

Level 4 of my BBFC game, by the way, is purposely very very tricky. Match the film to the film which has the identical rating and short insight as it.

(Note: the short insight of the pairs don't have to be in identical order, for example, one might say 'strong language, violence, sex' and the other 'strong language, sex, violence'. That would still count as a match. Also, because the BBFC are inconsistent with 'ands', some might have an 'and' linking the reasons and others won't).


Monday, November 28, 2016

My BBFC game (level 2).

Simon won the first level, congrats geezer!

Now I've made it a bit more taxing. As with the previous round, don't cheat and go on the BBFC website, that sucks the fun out of it. :P But by all means google the plot synopsis as that could help (altho some search engines show you the rating when you do that, hmmm).




Sunday, November 27, 2016

My BBFC game (level 1).

Below are five films, one of each BBFC certificate: U, PG, 12A, 15 and 18. All that the player has to do is match which one's which.


I gave this game a test run on two people, both of who were equally unenthused. Sigh. Still, should I ever meet someone IRL who's as obsessed with film classifications as I am, I can share this game (and Levels 2 and 3, to be posted!) with them!

Tuesday, November 08, 2016

Someone to Gripe to.

I watched the moving Chinese drama Someone to Talk to on Saturday, and whilst I enjoyed it very much, that didn't stop me from being a pedantic git about precedence the BBFC have set in the past with regards to one of the classification issues of the film. Hence, I sent the BBFC my second email of the year (they must love me).

Spoilers for Someone to Talk to and Two Days, One Night under the cut. Fair warning!

Friday, August 26, 2016

Four recent releases that got a PG-13 in the States but a 15 here.

I was in Birmingham for a conference this week and saw two films there alone, thus making v.g. use of my Odeon Limitless card!

Having seen those two films (The Shallows, Lights Out), I’ve now seen four movies (those two and Nerve and Suicide Squad), all released fairly recently, that got rated a PG-13 by the MPAA and, rather than get the rating that is roughly equivalent over here, the 12A (which about 90% of US PG-13s get), they were slapped with the older sister rating, the 15.

I thought I’d be super-nerdy and discuss my thoughts on the BBFC’s decision to rate them 15, rather than the actual quality of films themselves.

Lights Out: 15 for strong supernatural threat, bloody images.
My verdict: 15.
Far from being one of the scariest 15s I’ve seen, but there were a lot of jump moments, some funny, but some very intense which would have been just a bit too terrifying for a 12A. The main antagonist was also too creepy in appearance for 12 year olds and under to stomach.

Nerve: 15 for risky imitable behaviour.
My verdict: 15.
The film portrays teenagers being egged on to do increasingly more daring and ill-advised things for money, and that fact that some of these really dangerous acts don’t have negative consequences (eg, lying on a train track as a train crosses, or driving a motorcycle at perilously high speeds without sight [Dave Franco in motorcycle gear tho. Swoon]) could potentially send out the wrong message to impressionable pre-teens, which the 12A rating would have allowed them watch. Thus, agreed with the BBFC on this one.

The Shallows: 15 for sustained threat, bloody injury detail
My verdict: 12A.
To paraphrase a defender’s protestations after his clumsy foul has led to conceding a penalty, ‘Never a 15!!!’ This survival movie, about a young Medical school dropout (Blake Lively, surprisingly decent) and her battle with an aggressive shark, felt more vaguely unsettling, rather than relentlessly frightening. There were some moments where her vs the shark felt a bit touch-and-go, but the focus on the resourcefulness of Lively’s character gave me faith that she wasn’t going to go down without a fight; I didn’t feel the threat really was ‘sustained’.

Also, the injury detail, whilst grisly, was no worse than what Matt Damon had to address in The Martian, a 12A.

Suicide Squad: 15 for sustained threat, moderate violence
My verdict: undecided.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m very happy it got a 15, because it meant I got to enjoy Suicide Squad in relative peace (the cinema was full when I saw it because I watched it the day it was released to maximise the number of hits I’d get for my review for it. I’m cool like that).

But in terms of precedent, the 12A-rated 10 Cloverfield Lane made me a lot more nervous than this film did, and I also thought the tone of Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight was bleaker than Suicide Squad. Plus the BBFC rating for that 12A title featured ‘strong violence’, so if strong violence is allowed in a 12A (The Kite Runner, another 12A, has strong violence), then moderate violence shouldn’t be really flagged as a 15 category-defining issue, no? #pedanticChinawoman

On the other hand, I do think the scenes between Joker and Harley were a little disturbing, particularly when she voluntarily jumps into a vat of acid to pledge her love to him; the juxtaposition of Kehlani’s seductive vocals on ‘Gangster’ with the disquieting visuals perfectly capturing Harley's brainwashed mental state (Margot Robbie in glasses tho. Swoon). I guess Jared Leto’s Joker’s unhinged grin when he was torturing people contributed to the 15 certificate and may go someway to explaining why The Dark Knight wasn’t a 15 – Heath Ledger’s Joker committed acts of violence and murder, but those acts were more functional rather than Leto’s, who definitely had an element of relish to his acts.

So yeah, sitting on the fence on this one.

In conclusion, I fervently agree with the BBFC on two of their 15s, strongly disagree with one, and don’t know about the final one.



I previously mentioned 10 Cloverfield Lane; I’d like to highlight again that that was far too scary for a 12A (even if it did get a PG-13 in the States, but a lot of our 15-rated horrors are also PG-13, showing that the two certificates don’t directly align in the category of threat). Here is a film that definitely could have done with being one certificate higher; if any movie merits the ‘sustained threat’ rubric, it was 10 Cloverfield Lane, which filled me with dread from beginning to end.

Yet the BBFC, bafflingly, claimed the threat in 10 Cloverfield Lane was purely ‘moderate’. They also assigned ‘moderate threat’ to the 12A rating to Star Wars: The Force Awakens, somewhat laughably. Those two films were not at all comparable in the fear stakes.

The IFCO, the Irish film board, rated that a 15, as well as Suicide Squad, Lights Out and Nerve 15s, and The Shallows a 12A. Looks like me and the IFCO are in closer alignment when it comes to these five films!

Friday, August 19, 2016

Juliet-huh?

Here's a nerdy spot that I couldn't not flag. 

Julieta, Pedro Almodóvar's upcoming movie, is rated 15 by the BBFC for strong sex. This in itself is nothing special; several of Almodóvar's movies are a 15 for strong sex (amongst other classification issues), for example Broken Embraces and The Skin I Live In.

In fact, it's because I'm so familiar with BBFC classification issues (particularly at 15), and the rubric for them in a short insight, that when I walked past this at my local train station, I was a little surprised:


'Strong sexual content', as opposed to 'strong sex', is a distinctly American wording, one that the MPAA occasionally adopt (although they didn't for Julieta, which was an R for 'sexuality/nudity'.) So that was confusing - I thought perhaps, when constructing the film poster, the BBFC had given a 15 but no specific reason yet, so the poster designers pulled the wording from the MPAA. But apparently not.

I'm sure this phenomena - of the short insight on the poster and that given by the BBFC on their website being disparate - has occurred a few times before, but it has only come to my attention one other time, for last year's embarrassingly poorly written Tom Hardy vehicle, Legend.

Legend is an 18 for 'very strong language, strong violence'. The poster I saw for it, in Picturehouse Central, said 'strong language, violence and sex references'. I know the general gist is correct, but there's a big difference between strong ('f_ck', 'motherf_cker' and 'c_cksucker') and very strong language (cnut [with the n and the u rearranged]). So that was kind of bad they didn't get that precisely right. 

Plus, at 18, you're only supposed to list the stuff that contributed towards the 18 certificate. So the fact that there were strong sex references in Legend is correct. But the dialogue was no more crude than that in many a 15-rated film, including a recent watch of mine, Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates, or the Bad Neighbours series. 

The actual BBFC short insight only flags the language and the violence as the classification issues at 18. Whoever did a haphazard job constructing the Legend poster placed in Picturehouse Central may well have had a mate who saw the film, and then just wrote down the three things they thought would be an issue - the swearing, the violence and the sexual dialogue. But the latter wasn't why it was 18, the former two were. 

And the swearing was very strong, not just strong.

So if the dude was gonna make up his own BBFC short insight for Legend, he should have known the guidelines better.

Just being a pedant.

Sunday, July 31, 2016

My 10 Favourite Performances in an 18-Rated Movie.

I watched The Canyons this week, a Kickstarter-funded movie about the sexual jealousy and betrayal between a hedonistic movie producer and his glamorous girlfriend (Lindsay Lohan). The fact that the film was low-budget was apparent in the shoddy production value, lazy script and daytime TV-esque performances, but Lindsay Lohan was genuinely brilliant, even more so if you consider she had to deliver laughably bad lines and make them plausible. The high quality of her performance jarred with everything else about the film, which was extremely cheap and trashy, but at least it inspired me to do another list: favourite 18-rated performances.

Certain directors seem to be drawn to darker content than others, so it's no surprise that this list features multiple entries from films from three directors: two Fincher-directed performances (both fierce women who like a bit of revenge), two Quentin Tarantino-directed performances, and three Martin Scorsese directed-performances. But not the two seminal Robert de Niro turns (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull) that you might expect to see.

Very honourable mentions: Emily Watson in Breaking the Waves, Christoph Waltz in Inglourious Basterds, Daniel Day-Lewis in Gangs of New York, Uma Thurman in Kill Bill Vol. 1  and Pulp Fiction, Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet (another spirit animal of mine. I jest. Or do I?), Lindsay Lohan in The Canyons, Léa Seydoux in Blue is the Warmest Colour, Leonardo DiCaprio in The Depahted, Dominique Swain in Lolita and Jonah Hill in The Wolf of Wall Street (heard he gets his penis out in a pool party scene or something).

10. Ray Liotta, Goodfellas
1990. director: Martin Scorsese. Rated 18 for strong violence.

09. Bel Powley, Diary of a Teenage Girl
2015. director: Marielle Heller. Rated 18 for strong sex.

08. Rooney Mara, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo 
2011. director: David Fincher. Rated 18 for strong sexual violence and sex.

07. Leonardo DiCaprio, The Wolf of Wall Street 
2013. director: Martin Scorsese. Rated 18 for very strong language, strong sex and hard drug use.

06. Sharon Stone, Casino
1995. director: Martin Scorsese. Rated 18 for strong violence. Not like a Scorsese film to have strong violence, now is it?

05. Mélanie Laurent, Inglourious Basterds
2009. director: Quentin Tarantino. Rated 18 for strong bloody violence.
I idolised her back in 2010, and I still idolise her now. Au revoir, Shoshanna!

04. Michael Madsen, Reservoir Dogs
1992. director: Quentin Tarantino. Rated 18 for strong bloody violence, torture, strong language & sex references 

03. Kevin Spacey, American Beauty
1999. director: Sam Mendes. Rated 18 for strong language, once very strong, strong sex, violence & drug use 
It's interesting I had Dominque Swain as Dolores 'Lolita' Haze in my honourable mentions list, for this film, one of my top 15 of all-time, has heavy Lolita overtones running throughout. Even Kevin Spacey's character's name, Lester Burnham, is an anagram of 'Humbert Learns'.

And the top two, which was an absolute no-brainer...

02. Adèle Exarchopoulos, Blue is the Warmest Colour
2013.  director: Abdellatif Kechiche. Rated 18 for strong sex and very strong language.

01. Rosamund Pike, Gone Girl
2014. director: David Fincher. Rated 18 for strong bloody violence and very strong language.
Surprise!

Friday, July 01, 2016

8 Things I Learnt from the BBFC Annual Report for 2015

You know the BBFC. The British Board of Film Classification. I never talk about them. Honest guvnor.



Every year they release an Annual Report in which they talk generally about how they’re doing, before discussing a few contentious decisions in each age category. I love poring over these reports with a magnifying glass and thank the BBFC for the transparency they offer in their rating decisions. You can read the 2015 report, released today, here.

Below are eight things that stood out for me from 2015’s Annual Report.

1. Spectre was the most complained about film of 2015

I’d called this one a while back. As a hardened (then) 25-year-old who has watched far too many films for my own good, the torture scene with the miniature drill, as well as the eye-gouging, didn’t register as particularly unsettling in the grand scheme of violence in movies. However, for a 12A, those two scenes were pretty dicey. Whilst they didn’t quite reach the ceiling-of-a-12A-rated-film that Heath Ledger impaling someone with a pencil did in The Dark Knight, I figured there would be some pretty disgruntled parents who’d have something to say about the presence of those two scenes in a 12A rated film, indeed, they amounted to 40 complaints.

2. The ‘strong sex’ in 45 Years might have been a bit of an oversell



In their report, the BBFC remark on the ‘gentle tone’ of 45 Years, which tells the story of a woman (terrifically played by Queen Charlotte Rampling, who earnt a coveted spot in my Top Performance of 2015 list) who, on the week leading up to her 45th wedding anniversary, learns about the depths of her husband’s feelings for his previous flame, who has been found dead. Indeed, the majority of the film barring the swearing and the sex scene could have been placed at PG. 

The film is classified a 15 for 8 uses of the f-word and one marital sex scene. The former is pretty open-and-shut; you can just about get away with 6 uses of the f-word in a 12A film, and that’s only if you’re Richard Curtis (About Time is a 12A for 6 f-words, whereas Brazilian movie The Second Mother featured identically the same number of f-bombs and is a 15. #consistency). 

But the sex scene left me underwhelmed in terms of its legitimacy as a 'strong sex scene' in a 15 rated film. Not, I hasten to add, because the extent of my voyeurism is so depraved that I wanted to watch 2 geriatrics romping vigorously. But the BBFC promised me ‘strong sex’ in their rating justification and the scene itself, where the husband gets excited and then loses his erection (all under sheets), was anything but strong. The BBFC just about acknowledge this fact, conceding that the scene was ‘honest and comic’, and the dialogue, featuring discussion of changing positions and the loss of wood contributed to the 15, rather than any excessive visual detail.

3. The difference between a 12A-rated love scene and a 15-rated love scene? Carol.

This isn’t so much a new lesson learnt as a reinforcement of what I already knew. The sensuous sex scene in Carol, which is far and away my favourite love scene in 2015 and quite probably my second in a film, ever (first would have to be James McAvoy and Keira Knightley’s steamy library shag in Atonement), features sight of Rooney Mara’s boobs (I’ve seen them before in Girl with a Dragon Tattoo and Side Effects, but, always thing a beauty) and Cate Blanchett’s head between her legs, two elements of visual detail that tipped the exquisitely tasteful scene into 15. (FYI: oral sex can be hinted at in a 12A rated film (see To the Wonder), but it has to be off-screen or implied rather than overtly shown.

Whilst I love both Carol and Blue is the Warmest Colour, I much preferred the sex scene in the former to the frantic scenes of copulating in the latter, which had pervy male gaze painted all over them. The scene in Carol was so romantic and tender; I loved the way Carol and Therese held and kissed each other, and when Cate Blanchett undid Rooney’s pyjama top to reveal her breasts, before she breathed, ‘I’ve never looked as good as you’ was unbelievably erotic. Sometimes, less is more.

4. The BBFC can be draconian A F when they want to be

On the whole, the BBFC get complaints because people think that the rating they awarded wasn’t high enough. In Spectre’s case, people felt the 12A should have been a 15. However, the BBFC can sometimes rate a film higher than it probably should be. In 2014, I contested the 15 rating for 2 Days, 1 Night, which was given due to a scene of failed Xanax overdose. I didn’t find that scene too traumatic at all, and the context and way it was handled made it quite clear that this wasn’t an action that the directors were prescribing for members of the audience.

It’s harder for me to comment on My Skinny Sister, which I haven’t seen. But the justification – for eating disorder theme – seemed off to me. A film about eating disorders could prove extremely beneficial for the impressionable teenage age band to watch, particularly as the film is told from the young sister’s point of view, who sees the detrimental effect of her sister’s bulimia. A quick scan over the rating given to My Skinny Sister from other European countries, Germany: 6, Netherlands: 9, Switzerland: 6, suggests that the BBFC may have rated this one too cautiously.

5. Some people have too much time on their hands

The U-rated Minions movie also received a prominent number of complaints – 16 – mainly for a scene of ‘torture set in a dungeon’. OK…………

I’ll be the first to write lengthy blog discourses that no-one reads when I feel the BBFC have done something wrong, but even I draw a line somewhere. To write the BBFC an email or letter of complaint takes time. Admittedly, most people in this day and age type at a pretty rapid pace, but still, you’ve got to gather your thoughts, not to mention find out the email address to direct your grievances to. Some battles are worth picking, others are a mild nuisance which should be allowed (for example, I wasn’t too pleased to hear ‘crappy’ in the U-rated The Road to El Dorado, but I have 99 problems and emailing the BBFC about trifling concerns that wasn’t gonna be one).

So the fact that 16 people actually took the time to formulate their thoughts about a clearly comic scene in a film about minions which AREN’T EVEN A REAL THING, amuses me no end. It tells me that there are people out there who are even more pedantic when it comes to the BBFC than I am. And I didn’t think that was possible.

6. There weren’t a prominent number of complaints for The Revenant’s 15 certificate

When The Revenant was first screened in the States, a film critic by the name of Jeffrey Wells (no? me neither) dismissively wrote in his Twitter reaction to the film "Forget women seeing this." Charming. However, his sentiment (other than being a loathsome sexist) was echoed by other critics: The Revenant was a brutal frontier film with mounds of brutal frontier violence. Also, a grisly bear attack that had to be watched through the finger tips.

Given how full-on the violence in The Revenant was, as well as the sadomasochistic detail in which the film’s production crew went to REALLY ACCENTUATE LEO’S SUFFERING (more ranting about that thirsty movie here), I half-expected The Revenant to gather a substantial number of complaints. But it couldn’t have received more than 15, else, the BBFC would have flagged it in their most complained about section of the report. Minions gained more complaints than The Revenant.

Looking back, I think a 15 is about right (although I wouldn’t have contested an 18 either). The Revenant sits bang on the border of those two ratings. In fact, the IFCO, the Irish version of the BBFC, who have a ‘16’ rating for cinematic release and usually award 16s to hard 15s or soft 18s (example of uses of 16 in each case: Deadpool (15 over here), Gone Girl (18 over here)) enlisted the 16 for The Revenant. 

The BBFC cite the lack of sadistic violence in its decision to award The Revenant a 15, and I think that’s accurate: whilst the violence was frequent, choppy and painful to watch, there was never a sense that any character was really getting off on the killing. It was more a survival thing.

7. Kingsman was the second most complained about film of 2015

I’ve not seen this one so sadly can’t comment (although my brother was a fan), but I’m not surprised it gained complaints as director Matthew Vaughn also directed Kick-Ass, a film which really straddled the 15/18 line quite precariously due to its cartoonish violence.

I should probably check this film out though; Taron Egerton seems cool.

8. The BBFC awards U ratings more readily than their American counterparts

My second favourite film of 2015, Inside Out, a very witty homage to the ideas of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung and a complete tear-jerker, was rated U for ‘very mild threat’. The Americans rated it PG for ‘mild thematic elements’. The BBFC touch on these in their report, referring to them as ‘sad scenes’, but conclude that the positive message of the film, showing it is OK to feel sad sometimes, makes them suitable for a U. 

I think the British are right here. The MPAA also rated Finding Dory a PG (it got a U over here), and whilst I’m yet to see it, I feel the BBFC are right to award Pixar movies, with their fantastically empathetic morals, the rating that allows them to receive as Universal an audience as possible.




By the way, such is the strength of my emotions towards this terrifically ingenious film, that I welled up just reading the BBFC description of the plot, haha.

Monday, June 06, 2016

The Neon Demon gets rated 18 by the BBFC.



I was equal parts intrigued and horrified when I first saw the trailer for The Neon Demon before The Nice Guys last Friday. On the one hand, it features Elle Fanning, who completely won me over with her adorable turns in Somewhere and Maleficent, blossoming from pretty little girl into full-bodied woman. It also has Jena Malone, who was 50 shades of fierce as Johanna in The Hunger Games; exactly as I'd imagined her from reading the books. The setup: a group of L.A. models' slow disintegration into personal hell sounds quite dark; like a more interesting, less Oscar-thirsty Black Swan set on the catwalk. Fanning truly is a very gifted actress and this juicy role of the ingénue-come-manipulator sounds like one which will allow her to showcase the full range of her acting talent.

But, on the other hand, it's directed by that Nicolas Winding Refn pseud, who's snorefest Drive was so dull and pointlessly violent that even Ryan Gosling wearing a scorpion jacket couldn't salvage it. From The Neon Demon's trailer alone, you get ample glimpse of Refn's two favourite cinematic elements: ultra-violence and pretension, of which the full-length feature will no doubt feature more of.

Today, the BBFC released their rating + short insight for The Neon Demon, and, like Refn's Drive, Bronson and Only God Forgives, it also got an 18. No surprise, given the director's overt fondness for casual hammers-to-faces, and the like. As you know, I basically stalk the BBFC's website to be up to date with their ratings and justifications. The reason for the 18 to TND is quite an eyeful...


Sounds lovely(!) I think it's fair to say that I won't be enjoying this 18-rated release quite as much as the last one who's certificate I extensively analysed.

Sunday, December 20, 2015

Pirate DVD alert.

I was in my local secondhand DVD store, and saw this on the back of the DVD for True Romance:

  photo 20151213_152208_zpsmjb5jwqn.jpg

True Romance was re-released in the UK last month, and when a film is re-released, it gets re-rated by the BBFC. Often it will retain its original rating, but with modern sensibilities, it's not unusual for the rating to change (it usually goes down). 

However, in the case of True Romance, which was given an 18 when it first came out over here in 1994, it retained its 18 certificate, for many reasons, the chief one being strong bloody violence. Which is, as you can tell, is completely different from that pictured on the DVD.

However, you don't have to be a BBFC obsessive like me to smell fish. As I've previously mentioned on here in my lengthy analysis's of why movies get certified what, films these days have to be pretty hardcore to get an 18 certificate. So the consumer information for an 18 just would not contain the word 'moderate' anywhere. So not only is the photographed DVD a pirate, but a bad pirate.

And it's all thanks to my obsession with film certifications that I spotted it!

Saturday, December 12, 2015

Discovery from stalking the BBFC app that interests me and only me #1:


I'm probably the only person who's amused with this, but a film called Gladiator contains 'gladiatorial  combat'? Who knew!?

Saturday, August 08, 2015

Diary of a Teenage Girl and the 18 Certificate


Yesterday, I watched Marielle Heller’s Diary of a Teenage Girl, which tells the story of 15-year-old Minnie Goetz’s sexual awakening after she loses her virginity to her mother’s boyfriend. It was a good film, sadly not quite as funny as I’d hyped it up to be in my mind, and there were tonal issues with it that didn’t quite sit right with me. Thankfully, it was elevated by a transcendent performance by British actress Bel Powley as the protagonist, without whom, the film would have completely sunk. Her fearless, honest performance truly captured what it’s like to be a teenage girl, even when parts of the screenplay didn’t quite ring true. Minnie makes poor decision upon poor decision and you find it increasingly difficult to get behind her, but Powley’s large grey-green eyes and childlike visage reinforce that at the end of the day, she is just a misguided kid trying to find her place in the world, and it is our mistakes which form us. I can’t think of another young actress who could have imbued Minnie with the realism that she did – Jennifer Lawrence would have overplayed it, Kristen Stewart would have underplayed it – and it’s for Powley’s acting that the movie is worth a watch.

In the build-up to the UK release of Diary of a Teenage Girl, director Heller, actress Powley and Twitter feminists across internet have been voicing their displeasure with the British Board of Film Classification’s decision to award the movie an 18. The director argues that by doing so, the all-male certification board are putting black box around female sexuality, in a way that male sexuality is never questioned. Naturally, feminists have jumped on this bandwagon, lambasting the BBFC as being backward and threatened by women who embrace sex. I can't help feeling their arguments would have more clout had they actually watched the film first before crying sexism.

Watching the film, I thought the 18 certificate was wholly merited. The sex scenes in it aren’t anywhere as lengthy as those in, say, Blue is the Warmest Colour, but there are a lot of them, in range of positions, featuring, in want of a better phrase, what the BBFC describe as ‘mechanical thrusting’, as well as Minnie’s ill-fated adventures, of which include her and her friend blowing two random guys in a bar toilet for some money. Minnie is an aspiring artist so there are also sketches of various parts of the male and female anatomy littered throughout the narrative, as well as strong verbal sex references in which Minnie and her promiscuous best friend casually discuss the next guy they’re gonna fuck. Film critics have remarked on the irony that teenagers (between 15-17) won’t get to watch a film titled ‘Diary of a Teenage Girl’, but if this is the life of a teenager being presented, I’d argue that that isn’t the worst thing.

In terms of precedent, the filmmakers of Diary of a Teenage Girl have pointed to Fish Tank, a similarly-themed movie about an Essex girl who sleeps with her mother’s boyfriend (played by the dishy Michael Fassbender), which got a 15. However, in that movie, there were only two sex scenes (one between the girl and Fassy, and another between her mum and Fassy), both of which, whilst featuring thrusting, are brief and do not match any of Diary of a Teenage Girl’s impact. Secondly, Fassbender’s characters actions are condemned pretty strongly and he is painted to be a sleazy shit. Minnie’s love interest, on the other hand, played by Alexander SkarsgÃ¥rd, is portrayed with more easygoing affability, even though his actions illustrate him to be quite the douche. I don’t think you can make a direct comparison between these two films at all, and if we’re going to be banding about bargain-basement arguments like ‘oh it’s about teenagers so teenagers should see it’, why not make Battle Royale and Kids a 15 as well then?


I wrote this blog in defence of the BBFC, because I feel they get a lot of misplaced slack these days. Last year, there was a media frenzy over Paddington getting classified a PG, because people couldn’t believe that a film about the friendly bear they grew up watching could be anything other than Universal. But, watching it, I thought PG was the correct decision – there were the odd curse words, and more pertinently, Nicole Kidman threatening to stuff a bear with a variety of threatening looking knives. It’s hardly Saw, but it was mildly unsettling, and it’s good that the BBFC acknowledged that, rather than pandering to public nostalgia. Similarly, when Gone Girl got an 18, lots of under-18s complained, with some poor sap with too much time on his hands even launching an online petition to try and get the rating changed (lol, because the rating of the film is the biggest problem in our lives). Cinemagoers need to understand that just because you’ve read the book and like David Fincher, doesn’t mean the BBFC have to dish out a 15 rating when the strength of the scenes in the film command something higher. The BBFC do not exist to make decisions just to appease you.



Part of my affection for the BBFC is that I don’t think British filmgoers realise how good they have it compared to the MPAA. The BBFC treat heterosexual and homosexual sex scenes the same, which the MPAA do not. Furthermore, despite what the crew of Diary of a Teenage Girl would have you believe, getting an 18 here is not that big a deal. It doesn’t kill off a film’s chances of succeeding at the box office. In the case of 50 Shades of Grey, I think we would have been surprised if it had gotten anything other than an 18. The MPAA’s ‘NC-17’, however, is extremely restrictive, and essentially kills of a film’s chance of getting advertised. And the way the NC-17 is dished out is, spurious, to say the least. (but that’s another essay for another day).

That’s not to say I agree unequivocally with every decision the BBFC make. I will never get over how the hyper-stylised violence of the two Kick-Ass movies didn’t earn them 18s, comedy as a mitigating factor or not. 2 Days 1 Night getting a 15 for a failed Xanax overdose also seemed a touch draconian (I maintain that if a 12 year old can take Heath Ledger’s shoving someone’s head into a pencil or, more disturbingly, Kate Winslet’s hand sliding down a sweat-steamed window then they’ll definitely be able to handle that, especially as the overdose wasn’t successful). Generally, some of the more adult 15s I watch I think could be 18s, so I would encourage the BBFC to err on the side of caution more. But that probably says more about my prudishness when it comes to cinema than anything.

In summary, I am delighted that the BBFC stuck to their guns about Diary of a Teenage Girl. To accuse the board of sexism and stifling female sexuality is a cheap, lazy tactic. In Diary of a Teenage Girl, Minnie goes on a destructive road of self-discovery before she truly understands into who she is, and what makes her. Perhaps the filmmakers could do something similar with their underage sex-riddled film before pointing fingers at the BBFC.

Saturday, August 01, 2015

First Day of the Month Pedantry

I was flipping through the latest issue of Empire and noticed these two discrepencies:


 As someone who knows the BBFC website like the back of my hand, I could tell straight away that something was awry. Trainwreck is actually a 15, not a 12A, and Mission Impossible - Rogue Nation, which I saw on Thursday and reviewed, is a 12A, not a PG.

I like pointing out random film classification-related mistakes because I like to think all that time I spend on the BBFC website is put to good use, amirite?

Thursday, September 25, 2014

It's things like this that remind me why I love film.


I read Gone Girl voraciously over two days around this time last year, and was obsessed with it. An amazing spin on the he said, she said, with two narrators, each as unreliable as the other. When I heard David Fincher was going to be directing the big screen adaptation, I prayed and prayed that his vision wouldn't be impeded by box office requirements, but I figured he isn't the sort of director who would let money get in the way of making his picture. And viola... Gone Girl, an extremely high-profile 2014 release, with an 18 rating (going by the comments directed at the BBFC account, many was surprised by the decision).

I'm delighted. No having to watch it with brat teenagers, and more importantly, Fincher got to carry his vision through! Win win!

By the by, in the BBFC insight, it transpires that the film also has several strong sex scenes, and breast nudity. Me's betting that Emily Ratajkowski, aka the stunning brunette off the Blurred Lines video, definitely gets her baps out. That's all very well, but she'd better make a convincing Andie whilst she's at it.