I read it, and I share the scepticism of Brendon Connelly there. Obviously, I'm in a bad position to argue it - I haven't seen the film. But I have to wonder how they can make a claim like this: "It is the Board?s conclusion that the explicit presentation of the central character?s obsessive sexually violent fantasies is in breach of its Classification Guidelines and poses a real, as opposed to a fanciful, risk that harm is likely to be caused to potential viewers.", emphasis mine. Okay, so explicit presentation of obsessive, sexually violent fantasies is a breach of their guidelines. I can't argue with that - I can, though, question their guidelines, then.Generic Gamer said:
And I also have to question how a film can pose a "real, as opposed to a fanciful" threat to the viewer. "Irreversible", for example, sounds way worse, and was not refused classification. I remember reading about people fleeing the theatre during the cruciual scene, too appaled to watch. And that's an artsy drama. It's far easier to walk into such a thing unprepared. I don't think it's as easy to walk into a horror flick designed to be explicit and revolting and marketed accordingly. I'd say any harm a film like that might cause can be easily called self-inflicted.
Don't get me wrong. Appaling as it was, I consider "Irreversible" to have more merit as a film per se than HC2 can ever hope to have, even without having viewed one scene. And although the Meta, so to speak, around HC2 appears to have been purposefully aimed at, it might have been sheer coincidence that it plays out so nicely. In fact, refused classification for cinemas, but a pass for DVD can be a godsend to the makers, since merchandise and dvds are way more lucrative than cinema releases as a rule of thumb.
I just don't see the justification. There's nothing there except for "We were disgusted, and we don't think people should go see a movie like that in the cinema.", or at least I really don't see any difference.
~Sylv
