I've never seen this movie but would like to. It is rated as non-rated on netflix, and I assumed it was pretty mild, but I've heard there is male nudity. I don't normally watch movies with R-rated content - so can someone describe the nudity (and any other things about it worth mentioning)? Is it like the kind in Much Ado About Nothing?
shareWell, they show three individual males horsing around in a pond and chasing each other. It is a fun lighthearted scene. All of their penises are visible for about 60 - 90 seconds. I think it is rather tastefully done...but I don't get shocked by much. The movie has no overtly sexual...or even just plain sexual scenes in it....I mean they kiss...but that's obviously not sexual. I think if you have an immature mindset then you might blush while watching it, but the scene itself it directly from the novel so....I think its no big deal.
Titanic which has a tasteful nude scene is rated PG-13...so I think this movie should be rated PG-13 aswell.
It's a classic British period piece. If you like those types of films I do think you would like this one! Penises or not...just fast forward if you must.
"Art is I, Science is we."
-Claude Bernard
Thanks for the response. I actually just watched Mrs. Brown and that had some naked men in it and it was PG. Anyway, I put at the top of my netflix queue.
"Holy Noah's nutty-as-a-fruitcake ark."
Titanic which has a tasteful nude scene is rated PG-13...so I think this movie should be rated PG-13 aswell.
Under the US system, it would be rated R because of a skinny dipping scene in which three men are shown frontally nude for about 5 minutes. The scene is completely non-sexual though. They are just running around a small pond naked and goofing off. My personal opinion is that this shouldn't qualify the film as anything beyond a PG (not even PG-13), although I realize this is an uncommon opinion for an American. It's just a human body. Seeing it isn't going to hurt anyone.
Oh, and for all those who find offense, there is an film shot of a nude man with a sword - the male 'apparatus' is clearly seen. But then, those classic statues were made before they had rating systems.
It's a telling statement of why the USofA Inc has the highest teenage birth rate in the world. Sexual innuendo is plastered on television, magazines, billboards -- well everywhere -- to sell stuff. Yet, there is great concern about a beautiful story and film about 'the nude scene'. I am embarrased by the small minds of a few, or many, of my countrymen.
I recall the 'nude' scene to last about a 90 - 120 seconds. It has a vicar (priest) and two others playing in the water, just being human. Lucy had called it a "magic pool" (or something like that) and that she had bathed in it before, until she was discovered - and that joy of taking a dip in a pond in the woods was taken away from her. The pond scene is relevant to the over-all story for men are allowed all, while women must stay in their place. Just like her kissing her future husband -- (by that same pond).
Though it maybe very distasteful by immature standards, all the Charlottes in the world, (or here), it would do well to allow a bit of adventure and view a film without preconceptions and pre-sensorship.
When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property - Thomas Jefferson
I remember this played at an art cinema in Boston with NO rating back in 1985. Basically anyone could see it. I saw it with some kids in the audience and they weren't upset or shocked by it. The nudity was done casually and not in a sexual manner at all. Also it was very funny when Julian Sands ran into Maggie Smith and Helena Bonham Carter while totally nude. Carter's (unscripted) little laugh was just perfect:)
shareOnce again, everyone talks about the nudity.
The movie needs a rating because there is a revolting and very distressing scene in which a young man gets brutally murdered and dies with blood gushing out of his mouth.
"great minds think differently"
The movie needs a rating because there is a revolting and very distressing scene in which a young man gets brutally murdered and dies with blood gushing out of his mouth.
Yes, it was brutal (the man dying), but nowhere as brutal as many Hollywood films where the violence escalates and goes on for a long long time, sometimes for the entire movie.
The nudity was not sexual, and the scene was quite amusing - notlustful- so I would give this movie a PG13 rating.
I'd 'give' it a PG rating but if it were rated by the MPAA (Motion Picture Ass(es) of America) it would without doubt be Rated-R, due to their 'ratings guidlines.' Any full frontal male genitalia on screen is an automatic R-rating, and this was 3 men showing full frontal nudity for more than 90 seconds.
It actually may have received an NC-17 rating, sadly, and ridiculously. OUTRAGEOUS, to say the least.
I am in the film business and heard from some old time studio execs that if the movie had been rated it may have slapped with an absurd X rating since in 1985/1986, the NC-17 rating had not yet been created. Either way, NC-17 or X, it would not have been allowed to play in most, if many theaters, and undoubtedly would have caused many to NOT see it.
The studio was wise to release it UNRATED.
On TCM (TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES) it receives the MA rating. The worst rating of all on television in America, the same rating that SAVING PRIVATE RYAN gets when on TV. Insanity.
I think the murder was so disturbing because the rest of the film is so gentle and proper! The chaos and camera angles made it seem more upsetting.
shareActaully the scene concerned is quite amusing....It is just about 3 Men including the vicar who decide to go skinny dipping who get caught!...Nothing untoward....When the film was shown in the UK, that scene did not seem to be an issue...Love this film, could watch it again and again...
shareto maybeII
"Actaully the scene concerned is quite amusing..."
WHICH scene? The comment immediately before this one concerned a BRUTAL DEATH. Hardly amusing!
When you buy into a thread that is well established, in order to make the most obvious comment, then it's a good idea to READ before writing.
"great minds think differently"
Mandyjam. maybeII DID identify the scene that was amusing...the one with nudity. When you respond to a post, you should READ the entire post before criticizing.
Let me ask you this. If you wanted to respond to the OP and NOT the most recent post, how would you do it, what would you say and where would your post "appear" in the thread?
MaybeII was replying to the post about the nude scene, not the murder. Mandyjam, you may have your message board viewing settings as "flat" whereas if you set them as "nested" you can better see who replied to what message. You can scroll up to the top of a message board page and click on the links for "thread | flat | inline | nest" to see the different ways to view a message board, some of which are much clearer than others.
________________________________________
I don't come from hell. I came from the forest.
My suspicion is that the MPAA would rate this film R noting "brief nudity, some violence."
Then I would disagree with them. I would pull it down to PG-13 because the nudity is casual.
You see three or four minutes of full frontal male nudity while three men (two of them VERY good looking) go skinny dipping. That should get the film a PG rating in the USA but nothing higher than that.
Of course, the MPAA would give it an R rating for that. And that's idiotic. A few bare bottoms and penises in the context of skinny dipping shouldn't even warrant a PG-13.
The MPAA ratings of course are actually childish and immature. There is a checklist but INTENTION is not considered. So penises in a cute scene that's totally unsexual gets an R (or higher) but a horribly violent anti-human film that has no nudity in it could get a lower rating. The King's Speech gets R because of swear words while horror movies might get a lower rating. It's infantile. The MPAA should be embarrassed. This is like in the Middle East where sex is cut out but all types of drug use and violence are kept in. So USA = Middle East. Think about that!
shareWhen the movie aired on Showtime and HBO or Cinemax, not long after it's run at the cinema, it was rated PG. We certainly didn't expect the male nudity. It's more explicit than Much Ado... because the scenes are closer and full-frontal.
Under our clothes, we are all naked!
It should be PG because it's a wonderful film for young people to watch with nothing offensive about it.
share