Yeah.  I was initially upset when I saw that it was R, because it looked funny.  But after seeing what he performs on network TV, I can understand, and I don't want to see it...  Maybe if they ever edit it for TV or something.

Quote (Agent007 @ Nov. 11 2006, 7:35 am)

Yeah.  I was initially upset when I saw that it was R, because it looked funny.  But after seeing what he performs on network TV, I can understand, and I don't want to see it...  Maybe if they ever edit it for TV or something.

You've never seen an R rated movie before?  Just curious.

sometimes movies are only rated R because of a single use of the F-word (which was only included to GET the R-rating. heh)

I wouldn't trust the MPAA to be my conscious..
or rule out an entire category of movies based on their own criteria for creating that category in the first place.heh
(which is completely arbitrary).

you'd miss out on a lot of worthy..  (dare I say)..   "art"


=======================

imagine if somebody put an age-restriction on viewing the Cistine Chapel because viewing it got their panties in a wad
(there's a lot of nudity on that ceiling)
--> would you take their warning to heart without viewing it for yourself? ( I wouldn't)

I have seen some. (Zatoichi, last 2 hrs of Private Ryan unedited on ABC, etc)  But I really try to avoid the kind of stuff that gives movies R ratings, so I don't watch them anymore.  It's a personal choice.  You guys can watch whatever you want.

And just FYI, they can say the 'f-word' once and still get a PG-13 in the US.  You can actually see how the writers save it until the 'right moment.'  I remember in this crappy 'Ah-nold' movie I saw how he tells a guy off using it.  Then when he refers to what he said later in the movie, he says 'screw' instead, because he already used his one free f-word.  Heh.

You have a very Pollyannaish attitude toward growing up. Lol Not always a good thing.

I just got back from seeing it, thought it was hilarious. First part dragged, but it picked up and was brilliant the rest of the way through.

There is one thing I find very strange about it though.
In Canada, we have two ratings that "correspond" to the US' traditional "R" rating.
The first is 14A, meaning you have to be 14 or accompanied by someone 14 to get in to see the movie, and the second is 18A (obviously meaning you must be 18 or accompanied by someone 18).
Now, a movie that gets an R rating in the States can, depending on it's level of vulgarity, garner either a 14A if its a relatively "tame" R movie, or an 18A if it stretches that rating.

Borat is rated 14A. It seems to me that it fits the 18A rating much better (for comparison, the last two 18A movies I saw were Saw 3 and Clerks 2). It was just as, if not more vulgar than Clerks 2. I am bewildered at how it managed to squeak by with a 14A rating.

Bewildered, but not complaining. Make's it a tad easier to see.

That is surprising. I'd think the fight with his producer, alone, would get it a more conservative rating.

The movie is fantastic, if you're in on the premise (eg, who'se behind the character of "Borat").

The genius of Sacha Baron Cohen's characters generally is that he gets totally absorbed into them, and thus people think they're talking to a "real" person, and drop their guard.  Eg, Borat is overtly racist and sexist, so people are more comfortable talking about their bigotted opinions with him.

Frankly, those frat boys were drinking already when they picked him up, and it was all THEIR booze, so he didn't make them do anything they weren't already doing, and didn't force any substance on them.  It looks like they're using the Mel Gibson excuse, "They weren't really my opinions, it was the alcohol talking."  Bull.  Alcohol just lowers your inhibitions so you're more open to stating them, but those opinions would have been there all along.