MovieChat Forums > The Hammer (2007) Discussion > Pretty Decent. This is NOT R-RATED Flic...

Pretty Decent. This is NOT R-RATED Flick

posted 17 years ago by dean2900
20 replies | jump to latest

I watched the movie and never noticed it's rating ahead of time. I am shocked to know it was R. There are a lot of PG (not PG-13) movies that are worse than then in terms of content. I honestly think once cut and you have a PG movie. Did they want this to be rated R? I cant think of a reason why they would not have cut 5 seconds to get it down to PG-13 (or PG).

The movie is the typical underdog story and has a lot of predictable content to it but it creates likeable charcters and moves on at a nice pace. It is heard not to pull for the underdog in this movie.

This movie earned a 7 out of 10 for being enjoyable but not great.

I am still lost as to why it is Rated R. If they meant to make it R-Rated then they needed to add more R-Raated content.

Dean

[–] BbaySMH 17 years ago

Really, just mute out the f-bomb at the begining and it seems like it would barely even be a hard PG.

[–] dean2900 17 years ago

I didnt know the rating and after seeing I thought it was PG but I honestly didnt hear the f-bomb. Anyways, they used to allow non sexual use of f bomb in PG movies. I thought you could get away with a couple in PG-13 as long as they were not sexual.

Seriously, why can anyone possibly find to justify the R rating. Maybe the MPAA didnt like the Man Show.

I remember when Army of Darkness got an R Rating and it was just because Sam Raimi had bypassed the MPAA on his Evil Dead movies. It seems like there has to be a reason for the R rating. I am still wondering if the filmmakers asked for the R Rating think it would attract more of a crowd for an adult content movie.

[–] BbaySMH 17 years ago

Yeah I recall Aidan Quinn throwing a "Get the *beep* out of here!" to Johnny Depp in the PG rated "Benny & Joon" in 1993. Guess so long as it's not dirty (even though the movie has plenty more swears and a non-explicit sex scene).

Don't forget "Army of Darkness" showed a bunch of topless slave girls. Titties = R. I remember Rob Zombie I think it was (House of 100 Corpses commentary?) talking about how the MPAA basis stuff on whether it's Hollywood or not. Like "Hannibal" can get away with an R because it's Hollywood and stars well known actors, while something much less violent (but independent & starring no-names) will get an NC-17. Their excuse being that we stupid little people can handle Anthony Hopkins eating someone's brains because we can tell it's a movie, meanwhile they think unknown actors in indie films doing something much less graphic, is in fact more graphic because they think it will confuse us and make us think it's real. Yeah, I'm scratching my friggin' head too, but any filmmaker will tell ya the same: indie films have a HARD time getting an R rating. I mean what does everyone think is more graphic? The R-rated "Hostel" or "Saw"? Or the NC-17 (released unrated) "Henry: Portrait of the Serial Killer"? Not even "Evil Dead" or hell, "Toxic Avenger" (two films the MPAA wouldn't touch with a thousand foot pole) were anywhere near as gruesome as watching 5 minutes of either "Saw" or "Hostel". "Toxic Avenger" does have an R version, but after cutting out the head crushing scene (which is a friggin' melon being crushed). Yeah, I'd say that's a lot less graphic (whether it's a kid or not) then the eyeball snipping on "Hostel".

[–] dean2900 17 years ago

Actually I had forgotten the topless scene in Army of darkness. I remember a good bit of non sexual nudity in Clash of the Titans which was PG but that was before PG-13.

There is no doubt that big producers can get away with a lot more and Indie films get NC-17. Why is This Motion Picture is NOt Rated get NC-17 and why did inside deep throat get NC-17? IDT showed the one scene from the porn film but was a legimiate biography. I liked the concept of this film is not yet rated but I thought it got too repetitive.

If Henry: Portrait of a serial killer gets an X/NC-17 then why does Saving Private Ryan get an R and get to be shown on network TV uncensored.

I dont get the double standard and hypocrisy.

With all this said, I do like the fact that the movie industry self regulates themselves. Otherwise, some controversial film would come along and cause parents to go nuts because their kids saw it and then Uncle Sam would start passing laws and determine what minors can and cannot see.

MPAA ratings are just suggestions but there are a lot of local ordianances these days that require theaters not to let minors into R rated films.

I really think the reason for 90% of the films being PG-13 is the fact that theaters now dont let kids into R rated film. I had no problem attending R Rated movies when I was 12 and beyond. There was one time a theater owner actually questioned me. My girlfriend and I were dropped of by her parents to see Paradise (Soft porn Blue Lagoon rip off). The theater owner/worker said this movie was not suitable for us but let us in since her parents had already left us there.

All we need is to create specific criteria for the ratings and stick to it and then the MPAA will be fine. I just dont like the subjective part of it.

Dean

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bsharkey 17 years ago

"I really think the reason for 90% of the films being PG-13 is the fact that theaters now dont let kids into R rated film. I had no problem attending R Rated movies when I was 12 and beyond. There was one time a theater owner actually questioned me. My girlfriend and I were dropped of by her parents to see Paradise (Soft porn Blue Lagoon rip off). The theater owner/worker said this movie was not suitable for us but let us in since her parents had already left us there. "

many (if not most) theatres have policies against selling tickets to movies with R ratings to kids under 17 and many also check tickets at the door of the theatre if it's a "hard R". usually if you're close (16..ish) they're not going to care with most movies.

but for a 12 year old to walk up and buy tickets to an R-rated show - no way... heck I probably would have been fired (ok disciplined). it's called Restricted for a reason. what exactly do you think restricted means...they're restricted from showing it to 12-year-olds. parent required

[–] ohmyhead 16 years ago

Paradise? Wow! Did you realize at 12 that you were witnessing future supermagahotness in a naked teen Phoebe Cates? Maybe you'd appreciate it more now that you're older. hehe

Funniest thing about that movie was that the boy in it grew up to become Bible Man. lol

Uh, don't want to threadjack, so I'll toss in a comment about The Hammer, which I just now got finished watching for the first time.

Thoroughly enjoyable. And now I know why he raved on about the MPAA on his radio show and how they were doing him dirty with an R Rating. I just didn't see it. Not even close.

"Lindsay! You back! When you leave, Jerry cry like a baby!"

[–] roylogan 16 years ago

I watched "The Hammer" and "Live Free or Die Hard" both for the first time tonight. If I didn't know ahead of time and someone asked me to guess which was the R rated film and which was the PG-13 film I would've guessed wrong. I'll admit I must have missed hearing the F-bomb in the coffee filter scene but otherwise---

1)this film had no real sexual content while the other had a guy trying to cop a feel.

2) violence here was tame considering it was a boxing film while the other had a high body count, blood was shown and violence: man vs. woman.

3) again I didn't notice much strong language but it sounds like I missed a couple of biggies while the other used just about every curse word except the f-bomb several times (including g.d.).

I guess if they didn't edit Mcclain's famouse catch-phrase this "Die Hard" film would've gotten an R.

[–] ThinkTwice516 14 years ago

I just watched Inside Deep Throat, it got an NC-17 rating because it showed Linda Lovelace deep throating. Even in context, I think that an NC-17 rating is designed specifically for that type of content. S'in a D can be included in an non-pornographic film (i.e. Brown Bunny), but such a film rightfully deserves an NC-17 rating.

As far as actually not letting someone under 17 from watching the movie, that would be a decision better left to the parents of that person. Personally, I think that violence has a more negative impact on children than sex. I would be feel far better as a parent if my teenager told me they engaged in oral sex than if they told me that they had been invovled in a particularly violent assault.

I agree with your assessment of "The Hammer." Adam Carolla is the man.

[–] bsharkey 17 years ago

I also can't believe it was R -- I expected a lot more ... SOMETHING. there was no skin in this at all, no sex, really no language and no major violence outside of the boxing ring (guns, shootings, etc).

I also rented The Bank Job and Charlie Bartlett at the same time. Bank Job was what you'd expect but for freak's sake, Charlie freakin' Bartlett had 10 times as much stuff as The Hammer in it, which was unbelievable to me.

it should be PG-13... the producers definitely should have protested the rating. but then, maybe they wanted it R? I dunno, I can't see why.

[–] dean2900 17 years ago

I cant see why they wanted it R either but they had to want it R. The filmmakers can tell the MPAA what they are aiming for.

I have heard more F words in PG-13 and PG movies. It was one F word without sexual connatations.

All the would have to do is cut that scene.

Either the filmakers wanted it R or there was a scene with a dilo or something that I missed.

Why shouldnt this movie be PG-13? The tone was pretty much that from the start to end. If they wanted to make it R then make it earn the title.

The Bank Job is a great movie (not because it is R) but it definitely earned a pretty strong R rating but was a good film.

Dean

[–] romanoff-1 16 years ago

In fact, if you have an opportunity to listen to the DVD commentary you'd know that Carolla and co-writer Kevin Hench found the rating to be ridiculous and discuss at length how absurd the rating is.

The apparent reason for the R was the use of the dreaded "f-word" twice ("I found a f-ing maxipad in the coffeemaker" and once during the first Carolla boxing scene.)

[–] dean2900 16 years ago

Thanks foe the info. I had no interest in listening to the commentary on the film. It was a decent film but not something wortth listening to the comentary for IMO.

It seems like the MPAA has gotten tighter on the use of the F bomb in PG-13 movies. You used to be able to get away with one or two as long as not used in a sexual way.

Regardless, this is a PG-13 movie. I dont care what the MPAA says.

The MPAA needs to come up with OBJECTIVE criteria or rating films.

Dean

[–] roylogan 16 years ago

I saw a little bit of "Summer School" the other day. I had watched it years ago but had forgotten the scene where everyone decided they could swear. You heard the S-word twice, f-in', f-face, jism head and b.s. followed by two obscene gestures (flipping the bird and one implying fellatio). Plus you have the scene where the two "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" fans appear to be getting their faces ripped off by rabid rabbits and another where they ogle a fellow classmate as she prepares to remove her bikini top (she is stopped before any nudity occurs though). And this was rated PG.

This is another example where if you saw "The Hammer" and a PG/PG-13 movie you would incorrectly guess which one had the R rating.

[–] dubyac99 16 years ago

Okay, my thoughts.

This movie, in today's day and time, did not deserve an R rating. Back in the 80's and before, before PG-13, this movie would def have gotten an R rating. But when they allowed the PG-13 rating on, and that was around mid to late 90's I believe, the rating of this movie and others like it would immeidately switch to PG-13.

For example, I just borrowed Silver Streak from the Library (came out around 1976 I believe), and it was rated PG. I watched it, wondering what parts would make it PG, and the only thing I can remember, was several uses of the P word, and the slang word for breasts was used. There was no nudity, no large usage of the F word (can't actually remember it being used) and the N word was used twice if I remember, no big deal, in my opinion.

BUT THIS WAS 1976, BEFORE PG-13 RATING WAS USED. And even this flick, very simiar to The Hammer, was PG, NOT R!!!

Having said that, I don't understand the R Rating for The Hammer. It's like the reviewer staff, suddenly switched back to mid 80's and before, and reviewed it as if PG-13 rating did not exist. I def remember the F bomb, and p word used early on, but like everyone else has mentioned, this was straight forward, PG-13 material, throughout. Def a PG-13 worthy movie.

Adam got screwed on this point. Sorry for him.

__________________
"I don't like white people. I hate red necks!" (Eddie Murphy in 48 Hours)

[–] Studman_Productions 15 years ago

yeah this shouldn't be rated R

[–] Eclipse754 15 years ago

as an adult of legal drinking age (well, maybe even a decade or two more) I don't pay attention to MPAA ratings other than to gauge what I might expect to see in a movie. As far as this movie goes, the R was probably due to the bathroom scene where Corolla has to pee after being gloved more than any language, which was followed with a shot of his crotch with a wet stain in the ring. The gay innuendo gag wasn't that funny and it most likely earned the movie it's R rating. Not that I'm a film student or anything, but the MPAA gives studios opportunity to edit and resubmit movies if there is a disagreement about the proposed rating prior to release. Corolla knew exactly why the rating was given and was quite happy with it. I never heard his radio show, but if he did waste time airing a beef about the rating, he did it only to fill air time.

[–] romanoff-1 15 years ago

You can speculate all you like, but Carolla mentioned numerous times on both his radio show and his podcast that the rating was based on language - not on the scene you mention.

I have no idea where you get the idea that Carolla was "quite happy" with the rating, particularly considering you freely admit you've never heard his radio show.

[–] Connecticut_Bob 15 years ago

The MPAA has an appeals process that allows filmmakers to resubmit their film (usually for a fee) after making appropriate cuts. This may have been a case of the film's producers not wanting to spend the minimal fee to get it rated differently. Kevin Smith has a few instances of films he appealed and got the rating lowered, but then again he had Miramax behind him.

This film would have been an easy one to get rated PG or PG-13 if they appealed, but something tells me there may be something to the way the MPAA rates non-studio films. Oh well...

See my IMDb listing here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2482070

[–] zender8584 15 years ago

Carola has mentioned several times on his podcast that the R rating was for language, violence and adult situations. Language... please. Violence... it's amateur boxing. Adult situations? Like what, building a deck for your girlfriend? Yeah, I guess it does take an adult to do that.

Hostel 2 is an R-rated movie. Now THAT'S violence.

Seriously, the MPAA needs to get it's head out of it's ass. Who gets to vote these idiots into office? (Rhetorical question - I've seen This Movie Is Not Yet Rated)

Let's face it the "self-policing" of the studio-run MPAA exists to make sure indie films don't have a fair shot. Which is a shame because it's indie films that have a shot at showing you something you've never seen before.