Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: scott7278
The Wachowski brothers tried to fit more into that "R" rating, that's for sure.

A hard "R" vesus a soft "R", perhaps? It just struck me as odd that the existance and level of the violence was acceptable, while the addition of the sex was not. Each to their own? 8-)

Interestingly though, the W brothers didn't follow the normal plot device of exposing the female character more than the male character in a love scene, it seemed that they were careful to treat both charcters equally.

159 posted on 05/23/2003 1:11:20 PM PDT by bobwoodard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies ]


To: bobwoodard
A hard "R" vesus a soft "R", perhaps? It just struck me as odd that the existance and level of the violence was acceptable, while the addition of the sex was not. Each to their own? 8-)

Keep in mind that the violence was not gory -- it simply involved a sizeable body count & LOTS of gunplay. I always attributed the first movie's 'R'-rating to anti-gun attitudes within the MPAA. The sequel, however, is a much more typical R-rated movie.

Anyhow, I think there is a strong cultural difference between violence as entertainment & sex as entertainment. Most rational people don't worry if their kids go around pointing their fingers (or toys guns) at each other and pretending to shoot... but they'd be pretty freaked if the same kids were simulating intercourse.

160 posted on 05/23/2003 2:08:41 PM PDT by Sloth ("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobim Mugatu, 'Zoolander')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson