|
Toebone posted:Lots of films reference the oranges=death motif from the Godfather movies. Did the Godfather movies make it up, or did oranges have this sort of significance prior to the films, in some cultures? Not that I know of, though I am no expert on the subject to be sure. The few webpages I have found only discuss the usual symbolism of the color orange, as opposed to the fruit, and none of the things the color symbolizes are remotely negative. I remember reading somewhere (and unfortunately don't remember where exactly) that they used oranges in The Godfather because they showed up well in lower levels of light. Someone else might have a more definitive answer.
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2008 17:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 04:43 |
|
|
Mr. Gone posted:Can anyone pinpoint when/why DVDs started carrying the disclaimer that commentary tracks do not represent the views of the production and distribution companies? I don't know if there's a specific incident that gave rise to the disclaimers, but I've heard at least a few commentary tracks that could have caused the studio headaches if someone had thin skin. Off the top of my head, Kevin Smith specifically calls out some actors as assholes in his commentaries (like Linda Fiorentino in Dogma).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2008 06:37
|
|
|
ZenMaster posted:The end of French Connection: Well I guess if you really want to be fulfilled, there's always The French Connection II which ties up that story, but it's not even in the same ballpark as the original in quality. The foot chase at the end is the only memorable scene that I can recall, and the rest is pretty dull.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2008 21:36
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:Well, it's sort of like Flight 93 (which I don't think needs to be spoiler protected). In both films, people make plans to deal with the horrible scenario they are in and follow that to as far a conclusion as possible. In both cases, I think the filmmakers do a good job of making you get anxious because the plan might change things. Of course, more people know the result of the Flight 93 story than would know about a fictional character so I think you're generally meant to feel like the plot might lead to him getting the upper hand. Whether you consider it a twist, surprise, or merely a turn of fate, it is a progression of the plot. ..Or United 93, the much superior movie made out of that event  (Not trying to be an rear end, I just always champion United 93 because I think it's one of the best movies of the last few years).
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2009 16:27
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:What happened to Michael Keaton's career? He used to be a big draw, I mean he was Batman for god's sake, but he's barely done anything in the past 10 years. Because after he made Batman he starred in a bunch of mediocre movies that didn't make much money, and a couple that bombed huge (e.g. Multiplicity). It's not really a mystery that his run as an A-list star came to an end when he didn't have a single non-Batman hit after 1990. Though I confess The Paper is one of my favorite overlooked gems of the 90s. I'm a sucker for a good newspaper movie.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2009 00:08
|
|
|
mostlikelyme posted:I think Star Wars was notable for forgoing the intro credits, and George Lucas was penalized (removed from the Director's Guild?) for it. He was fined by the Director's Guild for it and then he resigned. Star Wars was far from the first film to forego opening credits though. The earliest film I can think of doing that is Citizen Kane (which has only a title card), and I'm sure there are even earlier examples. I'm not sure when the practice of listing out all the credits in the beginning of the film ended, but I'm guessing the late 1960's or early 1970's because I can think of a lot of film with more "modern" opening credits around then.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2009 19:43
|
|
|
The IMDb list isn't actually all that bad if you ignore most of the more recent movies on there (say, post-1995 though there are some must-see movies from that era on the list too). It hits most of the movies I'd expect people people who call themselves film loves to have seen at a bare minimum. The Criterion Collection has a bunch of must-see movies too, but also a lot of esoteric stuff that is cool, but non-essential. I'd check out the AFI, IMDb, and other similar lists, and make sure at the very least you see all the movies that pop up on all of them. There's about 100 to 200 movies that pretty much are always on lists like those.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2010 04:18
|
|
|
SuperKlaus posted:Hi, I have a sudden need for film noir movies. I'm looking for the noir-est of noir: dames, goons, Mr. Big, the whole nine yards. Cheesy is acceptable. What should I see? The standard noir recommendations are all great films, but you may want to go slightly off the beaten path for the ultimate noir experience. My personal favorite noir is Kiss Me Deadly, which feels a little more low rent than something like The Big Sleep, but it gains an edgier quality as a result. It's got plenty of girls, a classic wisecracking tough-guy protagonist (Mike Hammer, if you're up on your hard-boiled detectives), and a typically-confusing noir plot that doesn't make much sense but has an insane twist ending you probably won't forget. I can't recommend it highly enough. Schlitzkrieg Bop fucked around with this message at 10:08 on Feb 26, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2010 10:00
|
|
|
VorpalBunny posted:Is it necessary to watch the Bond films in any kind of order, or should I just start with the "best" ones and go from there? Is there an actual continuity to the series? Quantum of Solace was a direct sequel to Casino Royale, so you should watch those two in order if you haven't seen them. The rest of the series has a pretty loose continuity (Joe Don Baker shows up as two different people during the series for crying out loud), though there's some minor connections. A few minor characters reappear, and the Connery films actually have a little more continuity than the rest because the same villain appears for a few different films. Overall though you can watch them in any order and enjoy them just fine. The Bond films aren't exactly masterpieces of subtle storytelling so you won't ever be confused as to what is going on. I will say that the beginning of Diamonds Are Forever doesn't make much sense unless you've seen On Her Majesty's Secret Service. But you can spare yourself the trouble and just not watch Diamonds Are Forever at all, or just stop watching after the opening credits (it's the worst Connery Bond film). I guess the opening of For Your Eyes Only is a pretty direct reference to OHMSS too. Schlitzkrieg Bop fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Mar 16, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2010 06:02
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:And Donald Pleasance in You Only Live Twice, and then again in Diamonds are Forever. Neither I nor IMDb remember him being in that movie. And I didn't mean to say Diamonds are Forever is terrible, but it's probably in the bottom third of Bond series all in all. You aren't missing much if you don't watch it, except for a pretty good theme song. There's actually a little more continuity than in the Sean Connery era films than there would be later, mostly because SPECTRE shows up in five of them. But it's not like you'll be totally confused if you watch them out of order or anything (except maybe the stuff that happens in On Her Majesty's Secret Service). Schlitzkrieg Bop fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Mar 16, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2010 18:09
|
|
|
walkenator posted:Diamonds Are Forever is a Moore Bond film that just happens to star Sean Connery. Except that the new movies aren't part of the same continuity at all so it doesn't matter. Yeah it's weird they decided to keep one actress around in the same role, but she's the best person to ever play the role so why not?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2010 00:38
|
|
|
haveblue posted:It's a new technique for time compression. Rather than cut off a few contiguous seconds at a specific moment, you can have a computer cut single frames from all over the place, then speed up the audio so that it still synchs up to the action. It's not really that new. I know TBS and TNT were doing it in the mid-90s at the very least. I think it was slightly controversial back then so they added a disclaimer at the start of the film (where they normally tell you it's been edited for content, etc.) that it has been time compressed. Oddly, they also sometimes said the movie had been "Time Expanded", though I'm not sure how that works unless they just meant they stuck an assload of commercials into it. I'm pretty sure basically any TV channel that airs movies does stuff like this so that they can make the movies fit into a neat schedule. It was even fairly common on home video I think, back before DVD when there were real time constraints on VHS and laserdisc. Schlitzkrieg Bop fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Mar 23, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2010 18:39
|
|
|
Guns are a really small part of the movie as a whole, but I really loved the scene in Seven where Brad Pitt's character tells a story about another police officer getting shot. It highlights the difference between what typically happens in movies, where characters often shrug off gunshot wounds, and what happens in real life. Edit: Also someone mentioning Open Range also made me think of The Wild Bunch. Again, I don't know if it's what you want because there are definitely bullets flying everywhere, but those bullets tend to hit people with very graphic and realistic (for the time) results. It's definitely different from typical westerns that had tons of guys shooting at each other in a street with no one getting hit. Schlitzkrieg Bop fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Apr 18, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2010 23:38
|
|
|
Waroduce posted:What was Nikki (blonde girl, the original dispatcher) and Jason Bourne's relationship in the Bourne series? I thought they were married and they were gunna drop that bomb in the little cafe scene they share where he asks why she is helping him. Her reply was something along the lines of " Its was always difficult for me with you". We're they like sleeping together? dating? she just wants on his D? Haven't seen the movies in a while, nor have I read the books (which I understand have very little to do with the movies, so that may not matter anyway), but as far as I remember they just imply in The Bourne Ultimatum that she and Bourne used to be involved romantically. It's not really filled out more than the scene you mentioned, though there may be undercurrents of it in other scenes in the films that I don't remember. ServoMST3K posted:What you described in The Wild Bunch is exactly what I'm looking for. I just tend to hate when films utilize enormous shootouts and the imminent danger doesn't really impact the maneuvering of the characters/ nobody ever seems to get hit in the hail of bullets. I'll have to add your rec to my list, thanks! Definitely check it out...even if it's not exactly what you are looking for, it's one of the absolute best westerns ever made and finds a place on a lot of all-time best lists. There's definitely enormous shootouts which sometimes border on over-the-top, but the film was controversial at the time because it didn't have the clean, sterilized violence people expected from westerns. Schlitzkrieg Bop fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Apr 19, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2010 03:04
|
|
|
Factor Mystic posted:Is there a thread for Triangle? I searched and couldn't find anything. If not, does anyone know of a decent analysis/discussion anywhere? Trying to make sure I'm adding the right movie to my Netflix queue...you're talking about the 2009 movie set in the Bermuda Triangle I assume?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2010 00:50
|
|
|
Factor Mystic posted:Is there a thread for Triangle? I searched and couldn't find anything. If not, does anyone know of a decent analysis/discussion anywhere? Just finished watching it on Netflix. I can't say much about it without a big block of spoiled text, so here goes: The movie seemed to be going in a pretty predictable path up until the last 20 minutes or so, especially because I've already seen Timecrimes and this follows almost exactly the same pattern. It's a little more ambiguous than Timecrimes was though, and I'm not sure if that's an intentional choice or there were some decisions made in editing that interrupted the flow...basically, the movie seems to follow the same "version" of Jess for the entire time. But there are still a few scenes we are never given an explanation for (the Jess that takes her mask off and murders Downey and Sally is never explained, and later we seem to see that same Jess killed in a different death scene, etc.), which seems impossible because the time loop apparently completes itself with Jess re-boarding the boat at the end. Overall I thought it was pretty good, but the things I mentioned above feel like they add unnecessary ambiguity to the plot. One of the things I enjoy about films like this is the ingenuity they show in creating really intricate scenarios and showing how they happen piece by piece, so I wasn't a big fan of the loose ends here. I will say the end managed to surprise me when I thought I had the story all figured out at least. I guess a lot of the issues I mentioned are dealt with on the director's commentary on the DVD (the FAQ page on IMDb discusses this a bit), so that might be worth checking out if you want some more discussion of it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2010 03:08
|
|
|
Factor Mystic posted:Continuing the huge Triangle spoilers you definitely should not read: I'm already out of my depth because I watched this movie like two days ago and I can barely follow along with your questions  I guess I'd have to rewatch it and carefully note things in order to answer, but it really isn't that important to the overall theme of the film I think.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2010 01:26
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Alright, so why isn't Mad Max 2 a Criterion film? Or, as long as we're naming bad films, why is Armageddon Criterion but not ID4? It's a pretty good question that I don't think has ever been explained adequately. Well for one, Mad Max 2 and Armageddon are two totally different movies from two different eras. And it's not like Criterion needs to explain why they release each DVD. I guess I come at it from a different angle than a lot of people do because Criterion DVDs never necessarily indicated the movie itself was great, but rather that it was something notable worth some serious analysis. Armageddon is a bad movie, but it's not the only bad movie in Criterion's library. I don't know what goes on behind the scenes at Criterion, but when you take into account a) films available to them that they could feasibly secure the rights to, that b) gave them enough material for the fairly hefty DVD packages they like to do, Armageddon might have been a better choice than a lot of the movies people have in mind. Of course, I've also heard that they didn't necessarily pick Armageddon and The Rock so much as the studios came to them and asked them to make DVDs for those movies, so maybe that's the reason. Even still, if the movies were "forced" on them like that, they still did really awesome packages for both. Schlitzkrieg Bop fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Apr 27, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2010 00:40
|
|
|
I'd rather watch Armageddon three times in a row than ever watch Salò again.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2010 01:53
|
|
|
kapalama posted:Is there a worthwhile Netflix available documentary movie about miniature set design (history, evolution, best examples, etc)? In recent memory, I believe the scene in The Dark Knight where the Batmobile wrecks a truck by driving head-on under its wheels is a miniature effect that a lot of people swore was done with full-size vehicles. Some miniature effects hold up better than others, basically the same as CGI effects. There are some major movies that came out in the last couple of years that have less convincing effects than 2001: A Space Odyssey, it's just really variable by how much time and money they sink into the effects.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2010 22:30
|
|
|
haveblue posted:The only CG in the entire underground chase sequence is the bat-cycle unfurling as it leaves the wreckage; everything else was done with full-size vehicles or practical effects. I'm fairly certain the Tumbler killing the garbage truck was done with miniatures. Granted the 'miniatures' were still relatively large, but they definitely weren't full-sized vehicles. Schlitzkrieg Bop fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Apr 30, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2010 22:44
|
|
|
haveblue posted:That would be in the "practical effects" category. There's a whole special feature on the Blu-Ray specifically about that one scene. Pretty much every moment that doesn't involve something being destroyed uses full-size vehicles, the ones that do use models, and the sole CG shot is singled out. Guess my terminology is messed up because I thought practical effects referred only to things created live on-set, while miniatures still fell under the term of special effects.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2010 22:52
|
|
|
Dr_Amazing posted:Did they build a giant wheel and strap everything down so it wouldn't fall when it was upside down? Pretty much, yeah.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2010 18:18
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:This is more about politics, but what does Lucas and Speilberg have against Blu Ray? I've heard over and over that both of them hate it and refuse to release anything for it. Spielberg has a few movies on Blu-Ray now (Saving Private Ryan just came out this week), so I don't know that he has anything against the format. My guess is he's just slowly putting his back catalog out on Blu-Ray so that it's a bigger deal when each individual movie comes out, which was pretty much what happened when DVD came around too. The films he made after DVD became popular always came out on a regular release schedule, but the big films from the past like Close Encounters, Jaws, E.T., Schindler's List, and the Indiana Jones films took more time. Lucas is also probably taking his time with Star Wars for the same reason. Supposedly they're working on them now. The rumor I've heard is that they are doing one last pass of restorations and Special Edition-esque loving around to make the whole series "archival quality" and then they will put them on Blu-Ray.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2010 07:00
|
|
|
DocBrown posted:There are a lot of trailers that feature scenes that never end up in the final film. Iron Man 2 is a recent example but in the originial Transporter there is a scene in the trailer where the main character deflected a RPG with a dinner plate and that awesome scene never made it in. That really annoyed me and kinda felt like a bait and switch. Anyway, scenes like these are they just scenes they filmed and decided not to use or are they shot on purpose to tease us in the trailer? Trailers are cut months before the movies are ready to screen (in some cases, before the whole movie is even filmed or written), and the people who make the trailers are almost never the same people who are making the creative decisions on the movie, so you always run the risk of stuff appearing in a trailer then being taken out in editing for some reason.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2010 03:04
|
|
|
The Machine posted:Having just recently read it, has there been any serious attempt to get a Snow Crash movie off the ground? Wikipedia says it got to pre-production in the 90s, with a writer and director attached, but that's about it.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2010 17:38
|
|
|
I think the movie meant to show that their lifestyle of crashing weddings and going on a series on one-night-stands was hollow and emotionally unsatisfying, but yeah they do a lovely job of delivering that message. bad movie knight posted:Yeah, The Wedding Crashers made me feel really icky. It's funny in parts, but goddamn if it isn't morally repugnant and not in a good Bad Santa sort of way. I thought the movie was really enjoyable and hilarious until the creepy stalker gay brother showed up. The movie pretty much gets lovely in the second half anyway, but that one character bothered me enough to lose my interest.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2010 01:23
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I was wondering who was spitting out the Shrek sequels. I'm guessing there never were any concrete plans for what Halloween 4 would have been if they kept going with the series sans-Michael Myers since the third one was unpopular with fans and didn't do all that well at the box office. The Wikipedia articles for the movies has some decent info on their production if you are interested. Ape Agitator posted:Basically, the cachet that a film's title has probably reflects the characters involved in it. What you're describing would probably be more appropriately done as a "Wes Craven Presents" to link a bunch of horror movies that otherwise have no connection. I think it could have worked with Halloween if they did it from the beginning. Once Halloween II was a direct sequel to the original, you kind of expect the same thing from the rest of the series. Unless I'm mistaken, this was the initial idea behind the Friday the 13th films too.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2010 07:37
|
|
|
Mmbra posted:Here is something thats been bugging me. My dad used to rent this sci-fi/horror movie when i was a kid and i can't remember the name of it. It came out around 90 ish would be my guess and i think it was a series of movies. It was about this tiny gunslinger guy, he was like a foot tall in our world, but he had this shotgun that would take out huge chunks of fools. His arch-enemy was a decapitated head that hovered around using some scientifical gizmo. The gunslinger may also have been a time/inter-dimentional traveler. Yeah this is better suited for the 'Identify a Movie for Me' thread. P.S. The movie you're talking about is totally called Dollman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollman_%28film%29 I swear that or one of the Trancers movies used to be on cable like every night back in the day.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2010 04:53
|
|
|
That must be how Predator is apparently the pinnacle of its genre as opposed to Aliens or Terminator or something.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2010 06:49
|
|
|
codyclarke posted:Yall hatin'. It's not a bad question or anything, you just framed it in a funny way by starting with three movies from a director who had a run of above-average action films in the late 80s, then saying you were drawing a blank with any other directors who had similar hot streaks. penismightier posted:I give Bergman a lot of poo poo, but gently caress that's a great run. I didn't realize they were that close. The Kurosawa run that Peaceful Anarchy posted is pretty amazing too, though I guess not at all surprising given the number of classics he directed from the late-40s through the mid-60s. Yojimbo - Sanjuro - High and Low is an amazing streak too. And I guess someone would argue it doesn't count because three of the movies are ostensibly one series, but Sergio Leone strung together 4 of the most important westerns of all time in 5 years with the Dollars Trilogy + Once Upon a Time in the West. Another personal favorite streak of mine is Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, and Silent Movie (bonus points for the first two movies coming out in the same year).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2010 18:51
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Anyways, I was watching Blade Runner last night, and I never clued in on Zhora being the kill-bot, and Pris being the Hooker-bot, but Zhora is working as the stripper, and Pris goes after Decker with ninja moves. Did they mess up on the descriptions or do all Replicants have crazy martial arts abilities? Pris' function is actually listed as "Military/Leisure", so she probably has some combat abilities too. Her being a leisure replicant is supposed to be shown by the way she latches onto Sebastian. Also, don't forget that Zhora kicks the crap out of Deckard when he comes to confront her at the strip club. I have the book Future Noir which goes into detail about pretty much every moment of the movie, and it doesn't mention the roles of the two replicants being switched around in the dialogue (which I thought was possible at first, given the mess that the whole writing and editing process of the movie was). Schlitzkrieg Bop fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Jul 11, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2010 22:31
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Heh, it's nice to have a different question about Blade Runner. A friend of mine says that EVERYONE is a Replicant, except Tyrell. Oddly in the original script, the Tyrell we see for most of the movie was to be an impostor, and Batty would find out after he killed the fake Tyrell that the real Tyrell had been dead for a long time.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2010 23:12
|
|
|
Blompkin posted:It just doesn't make any sense, and to me, always sounded like something the director decided after the movie was finished. As a final nail in the coffin, the author of the original story, Phillip K. Dick, has him test himself at the end, and he discovers that he is human. Scott actually bought into the idea of Deckard as a replicant during the screenwriting process, problem was just that he was the only one who had that theory. One of David Peoples' drafts ended with Deckard killing Gaff and preparing for the police to come after him, and musing in a voiceover about how whoever had designed him hadn't done much better than Tyrell could have, and how he is a "combat model" and brother of Batty in a way. It's pretty obvious Deckard is drawing a metaphysical parallel between his humanity and being a replicant, which is what Peoples intended, but Ridley Scott really loved the idea of Deckard being a replicant and that's where the hints about it during the movie come from.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2010 02:12
|
|
|
You Are A Elf posted:Forgive me if this has already been asked (oh God, don't let it be on the last page or two), but can someone please tell me the difference between the rated and unrated versions of Hot Tub Time Machine? I bought the Blu-ray when it came out and just re-watched the theatrical version today after first watching the unrated version and didn't find much difference. The only differences I noticed are a longer shot of some breasts during the "Louder Than A Bomb" hot tub sequence, and an extra bit of dialogue between Lou and Nick before Nick goes up on stage to sing that went something like this (not exact): I haven't seen either version yet, but it's pretty common for studios to add a couple seconds of footage to the DVD release, then call it the "Unrated version you couldn't see in theaters!" or something stupid like that. They don't need to add much, or even add anything that would have changed the rating at all, just as long as they're adding footage that wasn't in the cut the MPAA initially rated. It's a sales tactic that happens all the time, especially for comedies.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2010 23:18
|
|
|
Zogo posted:And actually who invented the system? Were there movie reviewers one hundred years ago using some other primitive metric? I know a really old man who saw The Jazz Singer when it first came out..maybe I could ask him. According to this article from the Wall Street Journal, the first review with a star rating was in the New York Daily News in 1928, but the practice didn't really become popular until the 50s. I don't know much about the TV Guide channel, but if you go to TV Guide's website, they have star ratings and mini reviews for movies that are airing, so maybe they take the ratings from there.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2010 04:52
|
|
|
Sorry I'm late to respond to this comment but...regulargonzalez posted:We'll just have to agree to disagree. I doubt many people watching Big, as great a movie as it is, thought that Hanks would go on to win multiple Academy Awards. Hanks was nominated for an Oscar for Big, so I'd say it's definitely his breakthrough role, or at least the role that really showed he wouldn't be stuck doing mediocre comedies for his entire career.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2010 04:33
|
|
|
Wild T posted:The scene with the robot arm cutting torch/scanner deal? If I remember correctly, Cameron said he put up some of his own money for that scene in one of the DVD commentary tracks. I think he's referring to the scene of all the Marines waking up, which was filmed last so that the actors had a more natural sense of camaraderie together. According to IMDb, the rest of the movie wasn't shot in sequence though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2010 01:13
|
|
|
Squid Hat posted:I watched Cronos last night and the whole movie had this kinda jerky stop-motion-esque thing going on with the motion in it. I dunno if I can explain it better than that. I'm curious about this because I started to watch it the other night on Netflix and the same thing was going on. It was really distracting, so I turned it off after a couple minutes.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2011 00:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 04:43 |
|
|
LucyWanabe posted:Hopefully this isn't a dumb question: It's a catch-all term to signify themes that some parents might find objectionable for children to be exposed to. In general, it seems like a handy way for the MPAA to justify giving a movie that might be a little too "mature" for young kids a PG-13 rating when there isn't much else in the movie to warrant the rating.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2011 05:55
|
|