From that European trailer "Cum Coma"

Rated R for sadistic scenes of torture and bloody violence, terror, nudity, sexual content, language and some drug content

Compared to the first films rating, which was :

Rated R for brutal scenes of torture and violence, strong sexual content, language and drug use.

So the torture went from being "Brutal" to being "Sadistic". And it went from "violence" to "bloody violence", heh.

Probably because there's female leads instead of males this time.

ahhh, good point. I didn't even think about that.

I think it will be more grahic than the first film, which is why it says sadistic torture and bloody violence. But you never know with all the double standards today.

Here's to hoping it will be better than the first. I hated all the fakey "guy friends" banter in the original -- if that stuff was better, it would have improved their characters and made the whole movie a better experience. As it is, it wasn't better than Cabin Fever, but I hold out hope that this could be an improvement.

I do believe this will be more violent than the first - but when you really watch the first and look at what it shows - it's surprisingly not that violent, it just 'feels' violent. i think it's because the torture areas are so grimey and dirty.

There doesn't seem to be any hype or excitement around this film at all. I really don't think it's going to do well.

Roth was just at the "Fangoria Weekend of Horrors" with an unseen promo clip he made for the show. It looks like it is going to be way more over the top than the first. A totally different view being the victims are female this time. He was very happy with what he said was only a couple of seconds that the MPAA wanted cut, and thinks it is going to be the hardest "R" released. The audience that saw the promo reel seemed very enthusiastic for it. Bijou Phillips said it may be a while before she does another horror film as this was very intense for her and that some of the sets for the film really freaked her out.

I've been saying that for months -- I honestly feel Lionsgate is going to screw the release of this film up. Summer is not a time for horror films.

And it gets an R rating for this ????

Come on you guys in the US - films like this should be getting the NC-17 rating. It will be getting the R rating here in Australia - which RESTRICTS the film to persons 18 and over (unlike the so call 'restriction' in the US).


Its incredible to think that a film like THE DREAMERS can score an NC-17 for some nudity - and films like HOSTEL PART 2 can get away with an R.


"Sorry sir, but you can't take you 10yr old son into to see The Dreamers... but there's plenty of sessions for you to take them to see Hostel Part 2" !!

"Thats OK - we'll wait til the uncut version of Hostel Part 2 comes out on DVD for for him !!"

Yeah, we need some real NC-17 versions of these torture-horror flix.

Here are the ratings reasons for The Dreamers...

Rated NC-17 for explicit sexual content

Rated R for strong sexual content and graphic nudity, language and some drug use


So you see, the R edit of The Dreamers is rated R for more reasons than the NC-17 version, just like Hostel 2. The NC-17 version of Hostel 2 would probably just read "Strong torture violence, sexuality" instead of the more detailed R listing reasons. + remember, Hostel 2 was NC-17 before cuts were made! And many films here do get NC-17 ratings for gore/violence and then are cut down to an R on a regular basis!

So attempting to say that certain films or themes should only get a specific rating and can't be cut to receive a lower rating makes no sense at all. All films are given the option here. Some may have to have drastic cuts to get an R over NC-17, and some minor. The same probably goes on in other countries with distributors making cuts to receive a different rating.


Also i'd rather have the freedom of the MPAA ratings(well minus NC-17) which allows anyone to see a film if they choose. Compared to other countries age based ratings which restrict films for people the age and above only. That is far more restrictive than here. And being a huge movie fan that has watched all sort of R rated and unrated(NC-17 level) and even films with actual NC-17 ratings on them since age 11. I'd hate to have all that taken away from me and miss out on all the great films I saw growing up.


+ keep in mind, human beings do much worse things to each other than any film will ever portray. So instead of bitching about a fake torture film where it's all special effects and no one is really harmed and traumatized. Why not worry about the real world instead, and go try to do something about it. Instead of acting 'morally outraged' at ficitious films subject matter? It doesn't solve a damn thing!

*Cue Full House music as Danny Tanner makes a speech to his daughters at the end of an episode*

I was lukewarm on the first. I felt it had so much potential wasted by shitty characters, Roth's sexist undertones, and a sloppy middle. Here's hoping he fixes these problems.

I believe this film is really tricky. Using girls to be caught and tortured as the main characters with Roth's already critics calling him sexist, this has to be handled correctly. We will see. (and don't tell me horror films that kill girls are sexist, not all are, but Roth's Hostel add scenes of un-needed sexism.)

I dread seeing this film; however, I'll probably have to review it for our paper.

I like horror films (hence the s.n.), but Hostel was just too much for me. I don't know if I can do it again. I'm trying to get hyped for it: I already have the stun gun charged incase any of the audience members follow me into the parking lot after the film, and I'll pick up a barf bag from Arbys later this week. The last roast beef sandwich I had from there might as well have been a set piece from Hostel. So, it's all good.

sorry - "more reasons" ???

explicit sexual content ??? where ?? a few breasts, bums and penises !!!

what 'are' the more reasons ?? Dreamers is one of the most 'tame' films ever.


thats right - they are CUT for the US audiences - and UNCUT in other parts of the world - where appropriate R ratings are available for more adult content (either sex or violence or gore). I find that movie studios are (pardon the pun) gutless when releasing these films for PURELY AN ADULT AUDIENCE ONLY - and that means NC-17.


Oh - here's another example of the 'weird MPAA ratings' system - Steve Martin's THE JERK getting an R Rating !! Restricted for what reason ??? - Australia had this as a Mature (recommened for mature audiences but no restrictions to any age group).


who is saying this ?? I suggested that there are so many films rated inappropriately in the US - you should watch THIS FILM IS NOT RATED to see what happens there (but then - I assume that you already have).

What are you trying to say here ??

I mentioned that your MPAA gives SEXUALLY EXPLICIT films EYES WIDE SHUT and THE DREAMERS NC-17 ratings - and GORE EXPLICIT films R rating (to the point where EYES WIDE SHUT was 'censored' with blurred scenes - so that US eyes couldn't see any of 'filth' that one Kubrick want to present.

Australia and the UK didn't have any objections to the film - and gave it a rating that procludes persons under 18 seeing the film. Its only the US that is paranoid by SEX (bearing in mind that it produces the most X rated films in the world!!)

Drastically CUT to get an R rating means that the original intention of the director gets 'comprised' to appease some farcially organisation - and to the studios. That NC-17 is so associated with sex shows how backward the MPAA, studios and cinema chains are.


Freedom ?? You are kidding aren't you ??

Would you take a child - say 10 - to see HOSTEL type films ?? Come on - these films are MADE for an adult audience. If not - then do away with ratings !!


It almost begs the question : as to whether you would prefer to see that the MPAA and film ratings NOT be made available - as you have stated that you have seen R rated, NC-17 and Unrated films at the age of 11. It almost seems like film ratings serve no purpose then ?? Obviously your parents didn't seem to 'care' about what they were - and if you have kids - you probably would do the same. There's freedom for you - no ratings - open to everyone. Is that what you would like ?? In any case - the R rating in the US is given because there was such a 'gap' between PG (or say 12/13 and the R of 17 and under).


Hostel Part 2 will be R rated in Australia - and probably 18 in the UK. These ratings are far more appropriate - and allow for an adult audience to 'enjoy' the film without having kids or anyone else under that age in the audience.



I've read your previous comments on film ratings and censorship in other threads - and what is your point here ? HOSTEL 1 AND 2 are 'Fake torture films" - sure - no disputing that - but - it's a film for ADULTS - not kids.


The NC-17 rating should be COVERING this type film - CUT OR UNCUT - and your studios should be having the 'balls' in PLAYING it with this rating - playing this film with ONLY PERSONS OVER 18 - and then ensuring that only persons over 18 can purchase the DVD. But no - NC-17 is ONLY FOR SEX !!! And cinemas wont show it (like ... WHY ???????????????).


I'm far from being "morally outraged at ficticous films" - hey we in Australia are BOMBARDED WITH FILM CLASSIFICATIONS on our DVD covers - far worse than what the US gets.

I'm not even going to respond to tonyjg's post. Damn foreigners trying to make sense of our ratings system.

However, I will say this. Once Valenti left the MPAA, the ratings system has started to become liberal and a lot more lax when it comes to giving out ratings, especially since filmmakers can appeal the ratings and compare it to previously released MPAA-rated films. This means we can have a lot more sex and violence in our films. Unfortunately for a film like The Dreamers, it was submitted to the MPAA during a time when Valenti was king -- and I can agree with the MPAA on it's NC-17 for the film. It's very sexually explicit and it's a film that most people under the age of 17 are never going to see (except for young boys who want to see Eva Green naked).

In America, sex is more taboo than violence, but it's going to be that way for a while. I'm not going to bitch about Hostel 2 not having an NC-17 rating. I don't honestly give a fuck. See, the great thing about America is that we have free speech. So if Eli Roth wants to make a film where a whole slew of people are tortured for 90 minutes and it can get an R rating, that's a-okay by me as long as it's entertaining.

If you didn't notice, the R rated version of The Dreamers has more information listed than the NC-17 version. The R version says 'graphic nudity, strong sexual content'...and other things(language etc). That is what I meant with 'more information' being listed for that particular rating, just like Hostel 2 has a lengthy R rating reason. The point being, material was cut from each film. The NC-17 rating listing would probably be short one word reason, while the R version has a longer listing.

They're two different types of films as well. So saying 'why did this get this, and this didn't' is kind of unfair. You'd be better off comparing Hostel 2 to other violent films which may or may not have received cuts to avoid an NC-17.

Also I did catch bits of the R version of The Dreamers on HBO and the NC-17 version on Cinemax. A masturbation sequence for example was cut down heavily to a few seconds in the R version deleting the side shot where you can see the guy holding his penis and masturbating. And yet some bits of graphic nudity was still left intact in this version of the film from a few scenes I saw, even though they still had cuts to them.

So it's still a pretty explicit film, though the NC-17 version is more explict and the better version. But considering how strict the MPAA is with ratings and stuff when it comes to sex/nudity. It's still a surprise to see what they left intact in the film despite being cut.

Language,plenty of swearing and sexual humor. That is why it got an R rating, and it would still get an R if rated today.

Does that mean absolutely no one under 17 should not see the film? Of course not. I saw the film as a kid and loved it, and definitely wouldn't have a problem with my kids seeing it,if I had any that is. Though teenagers would get the film better than younger kids. So i'd be totally cool with my teen kids seeing the film than if they were much younger. But either way, I'd not freak out if I found out they saw this film. It's quite a harmless flick afterall regardless of rating.



I have seen it and thought it was a disappointing documentary that didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. I was also turned off by how the film 'cheated' with the clips they used and information given to the audience.

A good example is the section dealing with supposed 'anti-homosexual attitudes' of the MPAA and their rating reasons.

They use UNRATED(NC-17) clips from American Pie and then ask like you did "Why was this NC-17 and this R?". Yet they fail to mention American Pie did get an NC-17 rating before cuts were made. So instead, they make it appear American Pie was always R rated with everything intact,when that is not the case.

But if they did that, then they'd have no real arguement to 'prove' their theory that the MPAA is more ok with 'heterosexual' sex than homosexual sex. The MPAA is strict on sex/nudity in general,not the orientation!





As mentioned, various gore flicks are cut to avoid NC-17s, along with the sexually explicit films. Only more sexuality explicit films have actually accepted the NC-17 ratings. Which is why more are listed on the MPAA website than other reasons. Since the majority of the violence/gore flicks either were released unrated or cut down to an R for theatrical release. And then unrated versions were released on dvd. And all the NC-17 rated films,or at least a good amount of them,also had alternate R edits made available on home video to get into certain retail chains.

So to say their is an unfair advantage of sex over violence isn't being totally honest. Yes sex/nudity can get rated pretty strictly unfortunately. But the cuts are sometimes becoming smaller than ever before, just like with the violence.



I'm now of the opinion that it's the theater chains and various stores that are too blame. and not the MPAA. If theaters,stores and the news paper and tv advertised and showed NC-17 fare. Studios would be more willing to release films with that rating.

But that is not the case, and studios do need to make money in order to stay in business. And that means depending on the budget of a film, nothing higher than R is doable. Otherwise they cut off a drastic amount of revenue from what little exposure an NC-17 release has in marketing.



Nope,that is just jumping to conclusions assuming people would take kids into such films. Yes there are stupid people out there that would do that. But i'm not one of them.

I see no problem with teenagers seeing Hostel and a variety of other horror films though. If they think they can handle it, and are mature enough and all that. I won't tell them it's off limits just because of the rating.

Also in terms of actual graphic content in terms of torture and violence. Hostel 1 is not 'that bad' anyway. There is alot of out of frame violence in a few scenes, or quick barely noticeable glimpses of carnage. Along with a few sporadic onscreen violent/gore moments for maximum impact. It's not an all out torture gorefest like the detractors make it appear.



I think ratings and information on what a film contans are helpful and a good thing. I do not think ratings alone should be used to censore/ban someone from seeing a film just because they're not a specific age. There are some exceptions of course depending on the film and content itself.

But by and large,it's up to the individual and or parent in some cases to decide what is and is not ok for them to see.


As for my parents. My dad was pretty damn strict and hypocritical when they were married. He wouldn't allow us to watch most R rated films, especially 'horror trash'. But he'd let us watch violent R rated action films for some reason. Then would complain if we watched Die Hard and Lethal Weapon alone after we watched it once with him and figured it was 'ok' for us to view whenever.

Once they got divored at age 11 for myself. The floodgates opened for myself and my mom let me rent anything I wanted. Of course she was hypocrite as well in allowing violence/gore(i loved horror and rented that all the time), but kept saying to shut my eyes or fast forward the 'naughty' parts(ie-sex/nudity).

Being the smart kid that I was. I decided on my own, if I'm going to watch a movie. I'm going to watch it, regardless of what the content is. If it's a violent film and their is a sex scene or nude scene. I am not shutting my eyes or fast forwarding it. Why is sex/nudity viewed worse than violence and gore I would think?

Usually I would watch the films late at night or in the basement so mom wouldn't see. Since she'd bitch up a storm at some of the content in the films,mainly the nudity though. But since I was mature and handled the films well. She kept letting me rent what I wanted instead of question it and saying 'no'.

Eventually it got to the point,that if I were watching a movie on cable or something. And there was a sex scene or glimpse of nudity. I wouldn't try to hide it and turn the channel or anything. If mom said anything, I'd say "yep,that's a breast, so what" and that was it. Also I became more open minded regarding sex and nudity in cinema. While other people were just discovering the 'forbidden taboo' nature of seeing a breast in a movie. I was more interested in the storylines,entertainment and stuff while also enjoying some eye candy. But I'd never become a drooling idiot raving "Wow,that movie was soooooo coool, I saw a breast, I've never seen one before, amazing,wow!" like the sheltered guys I knew in high school. It amazes me even today at 26, running into people still sheltered and amazed when they see a breast in a film as if it's 'forbidden' still.


Now if the film were extremely sexually graphic and stuff(Y Tu Mama Tambian). Then I'd definitely not want to watch it in the presence of mom or anyone. But something like Lethal Weapon 2 with the sex scene,or a variety of other films like that. I see no point in trying to 'hide' it. And we'd end up watching such films together and just realise it's apart of the film and there are far worse things in the world than seeing some nudity or a sex scene.


Anyway my dad has now come around and is happy with how mature I am about all this stuff. And admits he was wrong for being such a tyrant when I was little and trying to make me think I'd turn into a serial killer for liking horror(he used to make fun of me all the time, and be violently serious with "Horror trash,turn that shit off,you'l become a killer if you like that garbage!"). So now we see a variety of films together from horror,to action,to comedy and dramas.

The most sexually in your face film we saw in theaters together was The Rules of Attraction which we both loved.



And this is another thing I highly disagreed with about This Film Is Not Yet Rated. Where some of the interviewees advocated the UK and other country aged based rating system. Which would restrict people not of the age from seeing the film. It takes away their choice to decide whether to see it or not. And instead has a government enforcing such rules and that is truly taking away freedom in my opinion!


You can't say just because a film is PG-13,that someone who is 12 can't see it yet. Or if something is rated 15,that someone 13 or 14 can't see it..and so on and so forth.

This is where our US system is superior in my opinion. You have some age suggesstions of appropriatness. Information on why the rating is what it is. And then it's up to the parent or individual to decide whether to see the film or not.

At least that is the case with all ratings up to R. NC-17 is the only one that 100% restricts people under age from entrance or purchasing it on dvd(unless a store doesn't enforce it of course).

Also Tony, here is an example of a new horror movie being rated NC-17 for gore alone. So you see, this does happen here in the US. Of course the chances of this film being cut and rerated R are great. It did originally get an NC-17 as evidenced here, taken from www.filmratings.com

Hatchet (2007)
Rating: NC-17
Rating Reason: Rated NC-17 for extreme violence and gore.

Actually Roth stated only a few seconds had to be cut to make the "R". And he kind of stood up for the MPAA. He said that here in the U.S. the MPAA acts as a buffer between the film maker and the government. In other countries the government tells him what has to be cut or the film cannot be shown in their country, period. With the MPAA there is a lot of wiggle room without government intervention.

I feel Hostel II will do pretty well. It may not have a lot of hype, but I still see a 20M opening.

Leaked clip, NSFW...

http://wwtdd.com/post.phtml?pk=2366

Okay so I have to ask, the new tv spots state that this is the most shocking ending in horror movie history (or something to that effect), so can anyone who's seen this 'spoiler' this for me? I have no interest in sitting through this film, but I'm curious as to how it ends. Thanks.