I could see 4 men having sex getting an NC-17 rating, but just two? And it's only oral? Jesus, Sony must be still living in the 12th Century.

If people do not want to deal with this sort of censoring in the film, I highly recommend seeking out the theatrical release. It’s one of my favorite Almodovar films yet (though I admit not seeing his more popular titles like All About my Mother, Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down and Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown).

Plus, personally, if I would buy this DVD, I’d seek out the NC-17 version over the R-rated cut. I can’t stand being taken out of a movie by being reminded of the artifice of the art thanks to sudden awkward cuts (ala Sex and Lucia's R-rated cut, which I rented from Blockbuster [they had no unrated version] before buying the unrated version) and digital blurs, no matter what they’re blurring out.

But, on the other hand, there remains an audience who prefers not being exposed to certain film content. I can’t imagine what sort of value those with homosexual revulsion would get out of buying Bad Education on DVD since homosexuality is such an integral part of the film’s themes. Still, it may also provide a good touchstone to learning tolerance toward people like the brilliantly bruised and flawed characters of Bad Education.

Bye-Bye Blockbuster...HELLO Nicheflix. :up:

Blockbuster Online is supposedly sending me the nc-17 version, but we'll see.

Is the movie any good? or am I gonna watch it just for the gay porn?

I don't want to see male on male action in straight movies. Next thing you know people will be asking for male on male action in straight porn.













...:D...

I've liked some of Almodovar's films ("Women on the Verge", "Matador") and disliked others ("Tie me Up! Tie me Down!"), and so-so on several more ("Talk to Her").

This is the first Almodovar film since "Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown" that I've loved without qualification. Great acting, great direction, a really nice looking DVD transfer, and a fascinating story. It struck me as Almodovar doing his best Hitchcock... and that's high praise from me. I loved it.

The movie is VERY good and there's not really any gay porn that isn't integral to the story and even then, it's not really gay porn. From the sound of it, the scene being discussed caused the NC-17 because the MPAA is made up of several "Big Ol' Homophobes" -- sort of like DVDTalk sometimes.

I noticed that Movie Gallery (where I rent) only carries the "R" rated version. Same with "The Dreamers". What a load of horse shit since they carry the unrated versions of other films which would be NC-17 if rated. I may mention this to them next time I go in....in a nice way, of course.

I'll rent the NC-17 version from Tower.

Okay....a little off topic: I'm a gay guy with no sexual interest in women and I found the female/female sex scene in "Bound" to be very erotic. Go figure. :)

So, your "moral clarity" includes homosexuality as long as it is two hot chicks? I would not really use the audience of the Jerry Springer show as an example of what is universally accepted or not accepted in American culture. Most of them look like they should be on the stage as well. The Jerry Springer show is the sewer of American culture.

You're free to find *whatever* revolting. But applauding the censoring of a movie based on it would, in general, be a mistake.

I have no interest in sex between 100-year olds. Of any gender. I would find watching it revolting--in real life.

But movies aren't real life... and my revulsion has nothing to do enjoying a great movie--whether *or not* there's a scene in it where elderly characters might have a sex life like the rest of us. It would probably make them more interesting characters, in fact.

Why aren't you the same with 2 men? I'll tell you why: your personal homophobia--eg. personal homosexual revulsion, not political hate--is so strong that it keeps you from relating to gay characters in movies as real people. That, or you think *all* movies should only feature characters *you* find hot, which is pretty ignorant and limiting.

Weird, this whole time I've been reading the title as Bad Lieutenant. No wonder I was confused by the claim that there's only one scene different in the cuts.

My "personal" homophobia? My feelings on homosexuality has nothing to do with my personal feelings. It has to do with my religious faith, which just happens to be....wait for it...Roman Catholic. Now then, shall we continue to discuss my "homophobia" or shall we commence discussing the growing "Christianphobia" in the western secular world?

Do I find gay sex amongst men disgusting? Absolutely. Do I find it disgusting amongst women? Not as much. But do I approve of the lifestyle and acts within? Again, absolutely not. Although I can tolerate lesbian sex visually, I still feel uncomfortable in that it is wrong. As you may know, homosexuality is considered a sin against God within my Faith. Why? Because the Church believes that the one and only (main) reason to have sex is for the propagation of the human race between married people. Homosexual sex is just for one thing...pleasure.

And now with today's election of the new Pope Benedict XVI, you can expect a continued hard line against homosexuality.

I, as well as the Church also strongly oppose abortion. The Church and I feel that abortion is pure evil. The fact that those who are in favor of it call it a "right" just baffles me. Who are these people who think that killing an innocent new life is a "choice" that they have a "right" to? The "choice" was made when they spread their legs.

Do these morality judgements make me and the Church seem close-minded? To some maybe, but remember, when you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

Why is this extreme, homophobic, close-minded, plethora still allowed on this forum? IT IS way off base and the reason no one responds to Lowry's absurdities in detail is more than obvious.

Pro-B

Everyone has their own opinion, no matter what you do, you can only educate some. With some, especially those who use the Jerry Springer show as THE example of society, it may not be possible.

If one is against homosexuality amongst men, but not women- you know he has far too many Seymour Butts dvds that affirm these misguided, hippocritical views. It's kind of sickening how some use religion to defend bigotry and hatefulness. His venom doesn't reflect the views of all us Roman Catholics, especially his hatred and lack of compassion.

This thread has been hijacked, it would be nice for a moderator to review the posts and take appropriate action.

I can't believe what I'm reading in this forum. But since this is a discussion about Bad Education, let me make one observation: if anyone has been badly educated, it would be someone who disguises his homophobia and intolerance under the thin veil of religion.

Bookcase,

not everyone here thinks like Mike but a select group do. The best way to deal with them is to put them on your "block" list. It'll save you A LOT of aggravation. To me though, it's all very very amusing. These are the people who will have homosexual family members desert them and be left to die alone because of their "religious" beliefs.

Cool....ill check it out.

Because I have every right to my opinions as you do yours.

What you call absurdities, I call the word of God. In fact, Pro-B, I would call your views extreme, morality phobic, and close-minded to anyone who doesn't hold the liberal viewpoint.

And to the kbjorn, for the record, I don't watch the Jerry Springer Show...anymore. But when I used to watch it occasionally many years ago, I know that was what the general reaction amongst the audience when such scenarios would play out.

And another thing, you mischaracterized my feelings on lesbianism as well. I can deal with the visual aspect of it, to some extent, but I disapprove of the overall behavior.

So I guess it's safe to say that Mike will be at the Gay Otter meet. Unfortunately he'll be standing outside holding a sign saying "all gays and full screen DVD's are going to hell!"

I really don't think simply "fogging" a one second scene (where you can't see anything anyway) is going to make the film acceptable to some of these complainers.

The film is still full of other stuff (including gay sex) that would freak them out, so why they don't just avoid the movie all-together is beyond me.

Why is it that they keep watching "gay" movies like ALEXANDER and BAD EDUCATION, when they know they will be offended? Do they like to be offended?

Is there another reason?

Better yet, why not just use one of those DVD players that edits all the "bad" stuff out? Then the movie will be half the length, and they can go back to being offended by other forms of media.

Apparently their God is telling them to. He's talking to them. Directly. Every night.

Sucks because my God teaches me not to hate and to love and accept people for their differences. He doesn't care who I love and doesn't like me trying to judge other peoples lives.

Hopefully this new pope's age will prevent him from doing any MORE damage (if that's even possible).

Gee, that's funny, because God is the ultimate and final judge. And it is the duty of his Children, us, to carry His message.

Yes, how dare he actually hold true to the Church's strong moral beliefs. And that is doing "damage"??? Boy, what a convoluted view you have of the Church. If anything, I hope his staunch conservative beliefs will start to heal Europe in their waining faith.

If anything, the liberalness of the the priesthood from 30-40 years ago during Vatican II did more damage to the Church than what Pope John Paul II could have done. It was the Vatican II era priests who became the child molestors.

Mike,there is no "christianphobia"..only common sense prevailing against people using their religion as justification for their hatred of others:)

I know many true christians who don't spread the hate. I even know gay and lesbian christians,as well as straight christians who have no problem with homosexuality. Since they are living in reality and have seen past all the lies and misconceptions the hate mongers spread.

Regarding Springer,Jerry himself admits the show is 'absurd' and just 'entertainment'. It is not to be taken seriouslly. It is a freak show for those who feel better laughing at people worse than themselves. The majority of the stuff is scripted anyway and just showing an exaggerated view of the 'other' side of life.

It is a stupid show and so cliche by now,that I don't bother watching it. But too use the show as an example of what 'societyy is really like' is hilariously misguided.

I have nothing against Springer himself,since he's a pretty nice guy in reality. But his show is just pure mindless sensationalism like everything else. It's practically a parody of talk shows. It's not to be taken as 'real' or 'serious',since the show certainly isn't.

So it is beyond hilarious when I see people such as yourself use it as the sole example of the 'decay' of modern society. If you don't like it,turn the channel. Pretty simple and easy solution which many people don't bother with(since I guess it's less fun to not complain and be a hypocrite).


+ Mike if you hate homosexuality completely which you claim you do. Then there is no reason for you to be less offended by seeing lesbians get it on than gay men. It is a double standard and shows you are more hateful towards gay men,than lesbians...since you find women attractive. So somehow it is 'ok' in your eyes,but it makes you a hypocrite. If you hate homosexuality,then you must hate all forms of homosexuality male & female.



:)

It's exactly those beliefs that make people move away from Christianity. When all you do is EXclude instead of INclude, sooner or later you're going to lose your audience.