Seantn

I know, every film gets an 'unrated' DVD these days. Most of the time it's because the film simply wasn't re-submitted to the ratings board. This sounds like one that simply couldn't get an R with it's original version. Here's the story from Empire Online:


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

If you thought that Wes Craven’s 1977 horror classic The Hills Have Eyes, in which a suburban family are terrorised in the desert by a family of inbred mutants, was too intense and disturbing, then prepare yourself for the forthcoming remake – because you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Says who? Well, Craven himself, who’s producing the new movie, directed this time by Switchblade Romance helmer, Alexandre Aja. At the moment, the new Hills – starring Aaron Stanford, Kathleen Quinlan and Ted Levine – is so intense and gory that the American ratings board, the MPAA, have given it the dreaded NC-17, aka commercial suicide.

“It’s a very strong picture and we’re trying to figure out what to do with that, without ruining it,” says a perplexed Craven, speaking to Empire yesterday. “We have to deliver an R rating. We looked at it last night in the screening room and before we started, we said to Alex ‘what do you think?’ And he said ‘this is a PG-13 now’. And one of our producers said ‘Alex, can we commit you to an insane asylum if this isn’t an R?’ and then he showed it to us and ohmigod, there’s no way you would get an R for that.”

If you’re wondering why, just bear in mind that the first film featured a gruelling sequence where the mutants attack the family in their trailer, and kill nearly everyone. That sequence remains in the 2006 version, but considerably amped up.

“It's intense. Very intense. The attack on the trailer in my film was horrible, but it was over fairly fast,” adds Craven. “This one goes on almost ten full minutes. It’s fairly faithful to the original, but Alex added other things that also make it worse, what’s happening to these people. It’s protracted. It’s a long, slow process rather than being a chaotic, relatively fast process. It’s just too much for people that have to rate it, by a mile.”

Craven confirmed that Aja is still cutting the movie, and with a March 10 release date (both here and in the States), there’s plenty of time to meet the MPAA’s strict demands. But don’t worry, gore fans – “We can put it all full strength on the DVD, though,” laughs Craven. “We’ll be able to do that.”


------------------------

This is the same director who did 'High Tension', which definitely earned it's NC-17 rating.


Speaking of which, it seems the new 'big thing' of horror movies recently is in which human beings are being slowly tortured/mutilated in really horrible ways. It's a trend this year/coming year.

SAW 2
HOSTEL
THE HILLS HAVE EYES remake
TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE: THE ORIGIN

Spiderbite

I hate the MPAA.

The Bus

Hmmm.... I wonder if the "Unrated" version will be sold at Walmart. Certainly if it's rated NC-17, they won't carry it.

And I don't see the "people being harmed" thing as being a trend. Isn't that what all horror movies are about?

OldBoy

by the time they chop it up to "commercialize" it, it will be rated "G" and have cartoon cannibals instead of inbred mutants.

Seantn

I mean lately it's not just stalk & slash, it's a lot of "Let's tie people up and see how we can brutally torture them until they're dead.". It wasn't invented recently, i'm just saying that there's more of it than usual as of late.

And it's not a complain, just an observation.

brainee

This kind of crap is a big detriment to me seeing horror in the theaters at all these days. The first time seeing a movie is often the best -- especially a horror/thriller where you don't know what's going to happen. I want my optimal viewing experience to be what the director intended -- not what the studio/MPAA dictated. It just looks like I'll have to pass on this in theaters then (like I did with "Haute Tension", "Devil's Rejects", and other movies where I knew the theater-version was hacked for a rating). Wes Craven "laughs", but I wonder if other horror fans feel the same?

Seantn

Did you see the R-Rated High Tension? Well, that was still extremely violent. And since this is from that same director, i'm sure it'll be as equally violent as that R-Rating. At least we know we'll see the NC-17 version.

Matthew Chmiel

Devil's Rejects only had like thirty seconds trimmed for the R rating. Not a whole lot was deleted from the theatrical cut other than shots of female nudity and some additional CGI gore (which looked fake to begin with).

The problem is that if you want the horror genre to survive, horror films are going to have to do well theatrically to do that. And as it seems now, no studio will take the chance on releasing an NC-17 horror film in theaters (Lions Gate had their chance and should've experimented with it on Haute Tension due to the fact that it cost them almost nothing to acquire it, but they fucked that one up themselves).

Devil's Rejects made double it's $7 million budget in theaters, but who knows what it would've done if released "unrated" or as NC-17 in theaters. The film played on 1500 screens with it's R rating, but if released "unrated" or NC-17, would've probably not been able to get on more than a 1000 screens possibly hurting it's box office take.

Hollywood studios are not in the business to make fans happy. They're in the business to make money. If they could make money off "unrated" releases in theaters, they'd be in the business to do so; but as of now, they can't (only on video).

Seantn

Yeah, they're in the business of making money. I don't like it, but I do understand it. I realize that they can't profit from an NC-17 theatrical release if they have a sizeable budget.

Rockmjd23

Not to derail the thread, but wtf is up with CGI gore? It looks horrible and its fucking lazy

Matthew Chmiel

I have no clue. However, in terms for Devil's Rejects, the choice to go with CGI gore was for the fact the film had only a thirty day shooting schedule and a very limited budget (for Christ's sake, the film was shot in 16mm). While the more practical effects were done via make-up, everything else was done with (extremely fake looking) CGI.

Hell, Land of the Dead had just a few million dollars more to it's budget and looks like a completely more polished up film.

Spiderbite

I can appreciate that Hollywood wants to make money. I think that putting out Unrated material or NC-17 movies in theaters could prove quite lucrative if it wasn't for the attitudes of the MPAA, theater chains, Blockbuster, Wal-mart, pastors, etc. that give this meaningless negativity toward an non-rated or NC-17 film.

The damn rating was made so movies could be made for adults that was not pure pornography. Instead the above groups have made it seem like it is just that. Theaters refuse to carry NC-17 movies. Whenever a controversial movie comes out, some theaters refuse to carry it to try to earn points in the community (i.e. several theaters in the south refused Last Tempation of Christ, Henry & June, Fahrenheit 911, etc.). Blockbuster & Wal-mart try to get the family sales by making big public stances against movies with the rating (but will carry unrated dvds all day long ). The MPAA president always likes to make press releases about how they are helping America with their silly & unequal rating system. It's an argument we've all heard before but it still seems no one wants to push any buttons on it anymore since studios are cleaning up with "unrated" editions of every film on dvd. If there is a market for it on dvd there is definitely a market for it on the big screen.

Sorry to get off-topic. Just had to step on the soap box a minute.

Giles

hmm, well if Fox home video can release Dodgeball - Unrated they can do us horror fans a favour and release this unrated for home video. I think this is just hype to make sure us know that the MPAA are being bitches and requesting cuts to make this a more commercially acceptable R-rated film. This is kind of bad news since alot of us, won't even bother in seeing this in the theatre and just wait for the eventual DVD edition.

Giles

yeah, I miss the good ol' 80's splatter films

Matthew Chmiel

Fox Searchlight is releasing the remake (IIRC) and they're a bit more relaxed than their parent studio. They released The Dreamers to theaters and DVD with an NC-17 rating and they've also issued Club Dread on DVD in an "Unrated" form. I think we will have no problem seeing an unrated cut of Hills Have Eyes on DVD.

EDIT: I also forgot, Fox issued Romper Stomper years ago on DVD in it's "Unrated" glory (however, the DVD issued now is "R rated" -- no clue if they edited the film from it's first DVD release).

brainee

I know all that ... but the economics of Hollywood does not change how I feel about seeing movies that I know to be edited from the filmmaker's intentions. Even if I hear its just a few seconds, it bugs me (and in horror, a few seconds can make a world of difference). I do support horror I like financially -- on DVD. I guess I shouldn't be complaining too much -- we do get the uncut stuff on DVD, where it used to be you could never see it at all. I just hate the NC-17 problem -- the rating is completely useless since its being treated just like the "X" it was meant to replace.

Giles

thanks for the other Fox Searchlight titles, I was kind of clueless what other patently 'adult' films they had released were.

as to "Romper Stomper" - yeah what gives, I thought the 2-Disc DVD edition which I own, carried a NC-17 rating, I'll check when I get home.

paradicelost

This is off topic a little but since it has to do with the MPAA, i'd thought i'd ask. Wasn't it Craven and Cunningham who couldn't afford(or just didn't want to do it)to re-submit Last HOuse to the MPAA, so they just the R rating from another film and spliced into their film. Sorry hearing the story and MPAA just made me think of this and i couldn't remember where i may of heard this story.

Seantn

Yep, that was Craven & Cunningham.

Julie Walker

But the difference between then and now is. "Last House on the Left" was a small indie film released by a very small distributor. So they could easily get away with splicing the R rated tag onto their prints and releasing films uncut. And they would regularly released cut and uncut prints in circulation in case the MPAA came snooping.

Major studios can not get away with that and will be in major trouble if caught. Which I am sure would happen immediately in this lighting speed internet age.


As long as we get the uncut Hills on dvd. That is all that matters at this point. Since we can't change the crappy NC-17 stigma alot of igorant jarheads enforce.

jessecrx

Well, personally I liked the way The Devils Rejects looked. It had a cheap drive in theater feel to it. I thought it added to the movie experience.

Giles

yeah, but IMO Rob Zombie's decision to shoot the I thought the MPAA cut that scene, but alas that was Zombie's original cut of that scene... oh well.

Matthew Chmiel

Oh, I liked his intentions. What he messed up on was using CGI blood, which is completely distracting. I can handle CGI carnage (Land of the Dead or the Dawn of the Dead remake) if it's handled decently, but in Zombie's picture it looked terrible.

scott shelton

Agreed.

Too bad Zombie seem proud of it on his commentary.

Matthew Chmiel

But he was able to accomplish all of that CGI blood on a $7 million budget.