Do they actually make 18 rated films anymore?

robfosters · 29 Feb 2016 at 22:29

I have looked through as many films as I can find in the current cinema listings and cannot find an 18 rated movie anywhere. Even the likes of triple 9 is rated 15 and it has a warning of:

strong bloody violence, very strong language, drug use, sexualised nudity

I'm not moaning, I'm just surprised we have got so relaxed on these things now that barely anything is rated 18 anymore.

McBain · 29 Feb 2016 at 22:39

Not very common from the films i've seen at the cinema recently.

Was very surprised Black Mass wasn't an 18, based on a couple of the scenes.

Werewolf · 29 Feb 2016 at 22:53

It's rare now as most studios are far more interested in getting the larger potential audience, not to mention a lot of what used to get an 18 rating is now ok at 15.

If you read the BBFC record for Madmax for example you'll see that it was originally released as a cut 18, but over the years had been gradually released at lower ratings until now it's an uncut 15.

DJMK4 · 29 Feb 2016 at 23:13

Just been looking at the motion picture rating system on wiki

But they have become a bit lax

R18 then exempt or rejected are upper end, but I usually see stuff on 15 that used to be 18

Vonhelmet · 1 Mar 2016 at 00:00

It'll be because the nearest equivalent to an 18 in America - NC-17 - is a recipe for not getting your film shown anywhere, so everything gets knocked down to an R rating, which is broadly equivalent to a 15.

Chojin · 1 Mar 2016 at 19:56

Most Tarantino films have been an 18 certificate including The Hateful Eight.

They are few and far between though, which is a pity. Dredd 2012 was superb but won't get a sequel because of its poor box office takings.

A 15 certificate can get away with a fair bit of bad language and violence but it's the overall tone that I find lacking.

boxman2000 · 2 Mar 2016 at 10:20

Agree with Chojin - sometimes in the toning down of a film in order to get a 15 rating does lose some of the essence of the film.

Low film age ratings are a pet peeve of mine, all the way back to Jurassic Park (NO WAY should that have been a PG). *steps off soap box*

Take Terminator 1 - I appreciate this is 30+ years ago but compare the violence of this compared to something like Deadpool. The language in the latter is far worse, the sexual innuendo/content is worse and the violence in far far far more graphic, it’s just all done in a relatively light hearted way, unlike the very dark and gritty T1.

It is a little apples and oranges I know but to me shows a more underlying but far more worrying trend, in that we as a society and children in particular are getting desensitised to extreme violence and bad language.

wolfie138 · 3 Mar 2016 at 11:03

show your age and put your hand up if you still remember "X" rates :-D

Dano · 3 Mar 2016 at 11:18

A lot of films these days would have been banned when I was a child, ratings are far more lenient than they used to be.

Dsteviedee · 3 Mar 2016 at 12:36

wolfie138 said:
show your age and put your hand up if you still remember "X" rates

1970-1982.
U - Universal
A - Advisory - Those aged 5 and older admitted, but not recommended for children under 14 years of age
AA- Suitable for those aged 14 and older
X - Suitable for those aged 18 and older

Vonhelmet · 3 Mar 2016 at 13:26

boxman2000 said:
It is a little apples and oranges I know but to me shows a more underlying but far more worrying trend, in that we as a society and children in particular are getting desensitised to extreme violence and bad language.

Only if you think that 15 year olds can't tell the difference between the comic book violence of something like Deadpool and the real actual violence of, I don't know, Saving Private Ryan or something. One is a comic book film with ludicrously unrealistic violence, the other a bloody war film in which lots of people die very hard. They're completely different things, and most people can make that distinction.

Ace Modder · 3 Mar 2016 at 20:11

The human centipede was an 18... Lol

oldbag · 3 Mar 2016 at 20:13

Layer Cake would have been better as an 18, it lost something with the toned down violence some how.

robfosters · 3 Mar 2016 at 20:47

Funnily enough, I watched my first 18 rated film in a while after posting the thread.

It was called Unthinkable. A default 18 though as it had nasty physical torture. I think torture is an automatic 18.

Kosmiche · 3 Mar 2016 at 20:56

I watched some of Hostel and was shocked by it, who would want to watch it?

Bassmansam · 3 Mar 2016 at 21:32

Kosmiche said:
I watched some of Hostel and was shocked by it, who would want to watch it?

I quite enjoyed the Hostel films.

Nitefly · 3 Mar 2016 at 22:08

It requires some contextually 'aggressive' or 'disturbing' context or themes to be an 18. Blowing 50 heads off with an uzi - 15. Shooting one child in the face - 18.

bledd · 4 Mar 2016 at 08:54

The original Predator was an 18. Nowadays it would be a 12.

insane200 · 4 Mar 2016 at 10:41

bledd. said:
The original Predator was an 18. Nowadays it would be a 12.

Like nightmare on Elm Street was an 18 but would now be a 15, loved picking 18's back in the 90's when i was 10 or so, Dad would take them to the till with a kid's VHS, but we would always watch the horror/action film as well.

18 rated these day's generally are either really crap, or just filled with OTT bad language.

Take Eli Roths Green Inferno, it was OTT gore and Cannibalism and no one wanted take it on and rate it for the cinema, so it got canned, but has now been released to Blu-ray.

Pawnless Endgame · 5 Mar 2016 at 10:02

Have anyone seen the "Cube" series of films? That's Cube, Hypercube and Cube Zero. They're all rated 15, and I agree with the first two being 15, but I think the 3rd one (Zero) should have been an 18. This guy gets sprayed with corrosive acid and you see him disintegrating flesh from flesh which I thought was very graphic. Certainly the worst death scene I've seen in a film and it gave me a recursive nightmare for several months afterwards. Was 29 when I saw it.