Sweet Movie (Dusan Makavejev, 1974) (Merged)

[aasmund]

Dusan Makavejev
Country of Origin: Yugoslavia

This is a great movie, a twisted, weird, sexy and violent.
Released in many versions, hardly uncut in any country.

"Rating Sweet Movie is like trying to rate a headache, a bout of nausea, an orgasm, or a nightmare, all experienced simultaneously"
This would have been fun to get unedited, fully uncut on dvd from
ab.

[MarioBanana]

I'm surprised nobody ever mentions this classic film by Dusan Makavejev (you know, the guy who made WR: MYSTERIES OF THE ORGANISM).

It was banned by the BBFC in 1975 and has never (as far as I know) been resubmitted to them for cinema or video release. I've heard people say that it was available pre-VRA but I've never been able to confirm this.

At the moment it's only available on VHS in the US (from Facets Video) and doesn't seem to have had a DVD release anywhere. How can you go wrong with a film that features cameos from John Vernon and George Melly and includes scenes of the Otto Muehl ensemble crapping, pissing and puking all over the shop? Not to mention Carole Laure rolling around in chocolate.

A definite 'must see' for everybody. I would have thought the rights were available somewhere and it has a certain cult/arthouse crossover appeal. Makavejev himself is still knocking about in Paris and would probably do an interview or something. Or George Melly....

Andrew.

[MarcMorris]

I have SWEET MOVIE on video from Holland. I feel there is no chance of an uncut release of this one here in the UK. The rights are available though.

[MarioBanana]

It would certainly be a 'tricky' one!

However, I'm not so sure that it couldn't be released uncut. I don't think that the scene showing Anna Planeta stripping in front of the children would necessarily be in breach of the Protection of Children Act. If you look at what has been permitted in some other recent reissues (including the recent uncut R2 releases of THE TIN DRUM and RAMBLING ROSE) I don't feel it's totally out of the question. As for the other 'dodgy' stuff (i.e. the scenes involving bodily functions), surely this would be more likely to be accepted in a 'serious' context. After all, look at what's shown in SALO [although I know that was simulated].

Can't you do some kind of deal whereby you submit it but don't actually buy the rights if it's cut? I would certainly buy it if it got through and I'm sure many readers here would out of curiosity....

It's an interesting film and it's a real shame more people don't know it. Anyway, I'll shut up now - unless anybody else here has seen it and wants to comment.

Andrew.

[MarcMorris]

It's not possible to do a deal like the one you've suggested. I just can't see an uncut UK release ever happening, and nobody wants to take a gamble on it.

[MarioBanana]

OK. Thanks anyway.

[Mark Y]

Originally posted by MarioBanana
I don't think that the scene showing Anna Planeta stripping in front of the children would necessarily be in breach of the Protection of Children Act.

Well who, knows. The BBFC have cut the innocuous Doris Wishman nudie movie Nude On The Moon by 42s due to the 'sight of naked child in a sexualised context', whatever that means.

[SicCoyote]

Originally posted by Marc Morris
It's not possible to do a deal like the one you've suggested.
That's a bit annoying for Video Distributing companies I bet.

[MarioBanana]

People may (or may not) be interested to know that Dusan Makavejev's notorious SWEET MOVIE (1974) is getting a long overdue DVD release, courtesy of Criterion.

http://www.criterionco.com/asp/release.asp?id=390

The film was refused a cinema classification by the BBFC in 1975 and has yet to be submitted to them for video or DVD release.

Certainly worth checking out if you like films featuring people being sick and going to the loo all over the shop. Oh, and it's got George Melly and John Vernon in it.

UK release anyone?

[MarcMorris]

I spoke to Criterion about this one last year and they said they were working on a DVD release. I can't see this one being passed uncut by the BBFC any tiime soon.

[tobiaswragg]

Sounds like good, clean family fun.

Can I recommend James Roy MacBean excellent book FILM AND REVOLUTION which has a very good essay on Makavejev?

[claire]

Watched the Criterion disc earlier tonight - it's fully uncut per my old bootleg video, and the transfer is simply gorgeous.

The 22 minute interview with the director is priceless too, if you're a fan, as is the 28-page booklet.

A worthy investment for people who like a little challenge. :)

[MarcMorris]

I received mine last week - I'll be putting my once priceless Dutch video release on eBay some time soon.

[damatotomato]

I think it's long overdue that both these movies get a proper DVD release, Dusan Makavejev may be one of the hardest directors to actually spell, but is also one of the very greatest directors of serious cinema ever. I think it's fantastic that US film fans can get classic movies released uncut in their country, and think it's shameful that the BBFC would even consider still rejecting some of the more challenging films this man has made such as Sweet Movie or Mysteries of the Organism, while passing soul-less and heart-less horror movies such as SAW sequels that don't have anywhere near as much justification to exist. How in this country can any film fan exist with any kind of real knowledge of truly challenging films and controversial themes if at every stage the UK censors bury their heads in the sand. I know many great "controversial" movies that challenged the history of cinema, like Clockwork Orange and Straw Dogs, Salo and even Death Wish, were eventually passed by the British Board Of Film Cuttinguppers (!) but frankly - they should never have been banned in the first place. Well, let's hope the UK gets to see more Makavejev in this country, like our American cousins get to see. Otherwise all the film fans over here will end up dumb, brain dead, and boring. The American film fan has no right to be cleverer and less shockable than us!!

Now when will Montenegro get a re-release on DVD in this country?? It's crazy that this film - one of the greatest ever made - is unavailable. I will propose such urgent matters to our next PM, One Eyed Jacks. Err, I mean Gordon Brown,

damatotomato

[damatotomato]

And we need Coco-Cola Kid on Region 2 DVD as well.;)

dt

[claire]

I've not seen WR ... but I'm tempted.

On the strength of Sweet Movie, and my appreciation of Bunuel, Jodorowsky, Arrabal - would anyone recommend it? Or not?

[tobiaswragg]

I had a couple of Makavejev films off tape dating from the early, cutting-edge days of Channel 4, A LOVE DOSSIER, OR THE TRAGEDY OF A SWITCHBOARD OPERATOR. Can't remember the name of the other one.

Mary Whitehouse dealt with SWEET MOVIE in her book WHATEVER HAPPENED TO SEX? 'Heaven help us!' was her considered response to Makaveyev's claim (quoted out of context perhaps) that his aim was to 'tone up the orgasm'.
First saw stills from W.R. MYSTERIES OF THE ORGANISM in FIESTA magazine btw.

Anyone interested in Makaveyev should check out MacBean's article I mentioned above.

Jean-Luc Godard uses a famous still from SWITCHBOARD OPERATOR in PRAVDA, his political film shot in Czecheslovakia.

[Dracucarr]

I ordered this for less than £13 from Amazon - one of my cheaper Criterion purchases

[damatotomato]

Mysteries of the Organism on Channel 4, was, the one where weird bubbles (courtesy of BBFC) filled the screen over the erect penis shot, and ever since then, I believed that's what really happens when a man has rumpy;)

Oh how times have changed. Every film that comes along in arthouse cinema these days has an erection.

I think, if W.R and Sweet Movie were submitted to the BBFC today, they could well be passed. The film's images are in context, and the film is a serious work of art, nobody is harmed (are they?) and no raincoat person will seek such a movie out, and would be bored to death by it.

Last year I watched Taxi Zum Klo on Film 4. That movie had more material in it to shock your granny with than a Dusan Makavejev movie from the '70s believe me!! The BBFC allow that one through. Sweet Movie and W.R should be allowed too. They aren't movies dealing with exploitation, they are movies that deal with politics, social behaviour, sexuality, death and the need to laugh or die trying.

You know - so many films in the UK are unreleased because of stupid BBFC rejecting policies in the 70s and 80s and sometimes in the 90s. We are - as a nation - much less intelligent compared to other countries when it comes to film appreciation, because all we have grown up on have been the movies the BBFC allowed us to see. We became a sterile film-going nation, it's only just started to change. Critics were ok, they got to see the films, and those not adverse to importing movies did ok too. These days, world cinema not on region2 is available to download, buy off Amazon.com, and on ebay and other online sites and in Central London shops, such as the Cinema Store.

The BBFC have no mandate to censor mercilessly any longer. They can only do so in extreme circumstances, by quoting laws unique to the UK and driving away at us with that old - peculiar and unique to the British, stiff (though flaccid would be better) upper lip principle that sex and violence is a combination we just can't be allowed to see, because we will all go out and do the same. Sex&Violence combo is today's video nasty. In ten years time it'll be yesterday's laughing stock of historic quaintness. God bless the BBFC!

dt

[damatotomato]

Cut the BBFC some slack time: Under John Trevelyan, Mysteries of The Organism was passed by the BBFC in full with absolutely no cuts or visual 'modifications' whatsoever on its original submission in the early 70s.

The 'bubbles' were added specially to the print commissioned by C4 for their 1991 broadcast, due to the prevailing stigma about erections on telly (which in themselves are not fundamentally 'illegal', despite popular urban myths to the contrary). This same print was submitted for video classification soon afterwards.

What is debatable however is whether the video release, during James Ferman's reign, would have been passed without the helpfully obscuring animations. The BBFC were becoming a lot more lenient in the 70s, up until 'Fuhrer' Ferman's arrival, and had the establishment at that time carried on into the 80s things might have turned out very differently.

The version that was passed uncut was the cinema version, a whole different ball game, by the time videotapes came along, and the pre-cert area was gone, with tapes having to be classified, the BBFC has a real strop-on, and this lasted until the dawn of the next century. In the mid-80s or 90s I'd say there was no chance W.R would have been passed uncut/ digitally bubbled. Hey - even today we get digital bubbles/ blurring on movies such as Debbie Does Dallas in the UK while the US get the full uncut remastered treatment. No wonder we are known as a nation of shuffling macs hanging around Soho sex shops, it's the only way we get to see grown-up movies. Even the films of Radley Metzger that are considered too rude for HMV are given R18 ratings and so restricting the works of genuine mavericks, and respected auteurs.

The BBFC have got better but only as a result of : court cases that they lost, the expansion of the internet, local councils ignoring their classification decisions as being archaic, the rise in importance of human rights and creative freedom, and the feedback from their own surveys across the country.

I guess the main feedback from surveys was that sex&violence don't mix, but if you were filling in a survey and had to say something YOU didn't want to see much of, then you might say the same thing. It doesn't mean that the rape scene in Emmanuelle is going to harm the population. Finally the BBFC realised this earlier this year, 30 years too late.

I like the way film experts always say "no chance this film will be passed by the BBFC anytime soon" and then review the region 1 release so we can all know what we are missing. We never became a great film-making nation, because we were packed in cotton wool and surpressed. It's no wonder that we became known mostly for nudge nudge wink wink movies and Four Flipping Weddings at a Funeral :eek:

dt

[damatotomato]

You've missed the entire point I was making: The BBFC had begun to become a LOT more progressive in the early 70s. Then JAMES FERMAN arrived and it all went to 'cock' (literally, in the case of sexual material). What I was pointing out was that, if the early 70s' establishment had continued as it was, the 80s' era of film and video censorship might have been far less draconian that it was under Ferman. When you talk about the 'bad times' of the 80's and 90's, several BBFC insiders have since testified that this was Ferman's doing, and his alone.

I believe that where they picked up in '99 (or '97 or whenever it was he retired) was probably roughly tantamount to where they would have been, had the same attitudes of the early 70's board prevailed to that time.


I don't mean to contradict you, I agree with what you are saying, just emphasising my take on it! But I'm not altogether sure that it's all down to who was ruling the roost at the BBFC at the time. The reason videos came under such restrictive control in the early 80s was down to pressure groups and government. The BBFC became a poodle to the establishment. It already was in a way. They cut many, many films for theatrical release in the 70s. Before this they cut and rejected many films since the dawn of film-making. Most of the rejected movies were pre-1980s. It's only really in the last few years that the BBFC have grown up. Although, I don't think that's entirely true, I think they were dragged through the hedge of a modern world kicking and screaming. But they are better now they are through and on the other side. But my point holds: we are a repressed and unaware nation when it comes to film knowledge mainly thanks to the likes of the BBFC. When Marc Morris says that Sweet Movie wouldn't get passed by the BBFC even today, I think it shows up the "us" and "them (much of the rest of the free world)" situation that has seen us sink to being a mediocre and mostly dumb film-making nation. Sure, there are mavericks, and what happens to them? They get to make the odd film and may get it seen at Fright Fest. But nothing else much happens. It's all low budget typical horror stuff. We should be world-leaders in film. In all other areas of creativity we either sometimes are, or actually are. But film in this country has no support - the BBFC never supported creative freedom and banned movies or cut them to shreds, and the government never gave much financial support. I think, really, aside from costume drama, the odd low-budget horror pic (there are exceptions: one or two directors are top of the league, I admit), and the occasional weepie about a famous writer with a crippling disease that may pick up an award or too, we are a repressed and backward nation of film-makers thanks, in big part, to the BBFC. Even the mavericks like Ken Russell and Michael Winner were battered to death by the film censors. They, and I, must often have thought: what's the point?

dt

[Mark Y]

Cut the BBFC some slack time: Under John Trevelyan, Mysteries of The Organism was passed by the BBFC in full with absolutely no cuts or visual 'modifications' whatsoever on its original submission in the early 70s.

Actually not true - WR was passed under Trevelyan's successor Stephen Murphy. Trevelyan recounts in his book What The Censor Saw that he 'didn't think much' of Makavejev's earlier film Switchboard Operator and asked for numerous cuts to the film, although it eventually got released with one cut.

In the mid-70s a golden opportunity to liberate UK film censorship was lost when the GLC took a vote to end censorship of films for adults totally. Unfortunately the motion didn't go through, so things carried on pretty much as they were for another 20 years or so...

As for The Devils at 15? I'd be surprised, I think the content is still shocking enough to warrant an 18.

[damatotomato]

Actually not true - WR was passed under Trevelyan's successor Stephen Murphy. Trevelyan recounts in his book What The Censor Saw that he 'didn't think much' of Makavejev's earlier film Switchboard Operator and asked for numerous cuts to the film, although it eventually got released with one cut.

In the mid-70s a golden opportunity to liberate UK film censorship was lost when the GLC took a vote to end censorship of films for adults totally. Unfortunately the motion didn't go through, so things carried on pretty much as they were for another 20 years or so...

As for The Devils at 15? I'd be surprised, I think the content is still shocking enough to warrant an 18.

From the trivia section on IMDb, you can probably see why he "didn't think much" of the movie!!.....

'The film was initially refused a UK certificate by the BBFC owing to shots of pubic hair, though the distributor himself partly ruined its chances by ignoring the film's creative aspects and instead telling censor John Trevelyan "I am sending you a film with a few tits in it. I don't think much of it but I can sell it to the sex theaters". It was eventually passed with minor cuts in 1969 and released fully uncut on video in 1996'

lol - good ol' Dusan, and good to see that the BBFC came across as a bunch of old duffers, even back in the olden days:D :D :D :D

dt

[MarcMorris]

You mention all this about the BBFC but fail to mention anywhere that the government have elected twice to strengthen video censorship in the UK, plus there's the OPA, the protection of children's act, the animals act, the sexual offenses etc.

The BBFC cannot pass material which falls foul of these laws.

[dr death]

It is also hard to argue against these acts without in someway appearing suspect to other people as well. That will always be the conundrum and, the ultimate reason why we will never get everything through completely uncut. It is annoying at times perhaps, but if I am honest, I can't see a way around it- perhaps we should just be gratefull for what we can see uncut in comparison to the 1990's. I still can't get my head around the 16 seconds cut from Blind Dead though! That was riddiculous. Even given the strictest interpretations. No children involved, no animal cruelty so, what the F***!!!!

[damatotomato]

You mention all this about the BBFC but fail to mention anywhere that the government have elected twice to strengthen video censorship in the UK, plus there's the OPA, the protection of children's act, the animals act, the sexual offenses etc.

The BBFC cannot pass material which falls foul of these laws.

Animal cruelty is a no-go for me. I don't like the scenes of cruelty to be found in Italian cannibal movies, though I love Italian horrors and giallos to be uncut in all other respects. In my opinion, if a live animal is killed purely for the film, then it should be cut, or rather - the version I would buy would preferably be cut of aniumal cruelty, otherwise I won't enjoy it as much. But the BBFC vary in what they cut. Eating live Octopus is ok, but horse trips are banned, as are cats being swung, but Snatch can show killing as a country pursuit, because, presumably the film-makers say it would have happened anyway? Yeah right!

Remember - linking the government to the BBFC does the BBFC no favours. Many critics would agree there should be no link between government and film censor. There is none in America. Films over there are rated or not rated, but not censored or cut, except by film-makers and/or studios. Not by film censors. This is probably the way the BBFC should be going - an advisory body, rather than a censoring one.

Of course some films - in exceptional cases - should and could fall foul of legal restrictions and of the law, that's obvious. But most films are filmed in context, as artistic works, under controlled conditions, and little is probably really that open to actual criminal activity or imagery as such, and if it is, then fair play: something should be done. But when the BBFC cuts or rejects films, it doesn't then urge authorities to pursue a conviction of the film-makers involved. Why? - because it's only a movie. Wes Craven isn't going to be tried and hung for Last House On The Left, he just gets cut.

Of course the protection of children is something that most film fans and critics of the BBFC, or opponents of censorship, would agree on, and agree with the government and BBFC on, and I agree too. Nobody of right mind would argue that children don't need to be protected as a priority. But in the UK, actresses or actors who are over 17 years old are now seen as "children" thanks to a recent update in UK laws, that seems to have caused more problems than it could possibly have been worth, mainly problem for dvd distributors, and back catalogues that may now need revising - quite a bonkers situation! I'm sure there's a reason for the current legislation, perhaps a knee-jerk to the lurid tabloid headlines of those supposed weirdo types prowling our every street (next to the mass murderers who have just watched Death Wish, Child's Play, Clockwork Orange and Henry: Portrait Of Serial Killer no doubt!), who knows. But there seem to be faults and loose interpretations involved here that can only cause pointless headaches to UK film distributors and film-makers out there. And indeed - Anchor Bay have already fallen foul of the updated legislation with their older Jess Franco releases.

Remember - the BBFC follow laws and acts on these laws, but their opinion is subjective. They interpret the law. The law could be an ass: Sweet Sweetback is cut as a result of stronger laws governing exploitation of youth, even if it's your dad doing the directing bit! The protection of children act was changed a few years back - where previously those under the age of 16 were seen, quite rightly, as being "children", suddenly it was raised to include those actors and actresses who were under the age of 18. Most film critics at the time saw this as being ludicrous. Films that were previously passed by the BBFC uncut suddenly risked being banned. Is a 17 year old actress straight out of film school showing nudity really breaking the law in a controlled movie environment - is an actress of that age really a "child"? Not in the case of the underage Christian Slater simulating sex in The Name Of The Rose, which the BBFC saw as being justified by context, after much debate, unlike Jess Franco's Love Letters Of A Portugeuse Nun, whose similarly aged actress's activities was deemed to fall foul of the act shortly before it came into effect! But Christian Slater and Umberto Eco is "art" isn't it, and Jess Franco is just trash, in BBFC eyes. Because they are - at heart - a gentleman's club of film snobs.

Yes, there are some BBFC examiners who are decent, quite a few probably (Marc I'm sure knows some nice ones!), but they are working and ruled by ridiculous laws that are carried out in the name of protecting the country from anything obscene. They can't pass anything that may be considered obscene in support of the law, but one man's obscene is another's high art. I personally find Hostel quite obscene and desentisizing to women, and I Spit On Your Grave quite justified by context and empowering to women, but guess which film the BBFC allows through, and which it cuts to shreds.

Some directors who believe the BBFC and UK censorship to be an ass: John Waters, Dario Argento, Ken Russell, Michael Winner, Jess Franco, Alex Cox, Dusan Makavejev, Melvin Van Peebles. Enough said;)

dt

[damatotomato]

OK, I'm out of this debate now:cool:

As a result of having the classic masterpiece of social and sexual satire: SWEET MOVIE, criticised as being of no merit, and totally justifiably rejected by the BBFC, with red tape and laws quoted back at me, totally destroying the notion of artistic freedom and so deriding the existence of challenging cinematic projects, I shall hold back on purchasing this movie that even croaky old Roger Ebert likes, (and he is one of Dusan's biggest supporters), and instead I shall buy another more cosy film involving the torture, humiliation and killing of semi-clad women, such as Hostel 2, which comes to video uncut courtesy of the BBFC, those fine protectors of our moral wellbeing.

dt

(actually I rather liked the first Hostel, but you get my point, and I really won't be purchasing the Criterion DVD anytime soon, that's no joke - I will spend it instead in A Soho drinking establishment while smoking a fag in a no-smoking environment, as a small tribute to the anti-establishment vibe of Dusan Makavejev. Long live the revolution!! ;) )

[MarcMorris]

I'm sure if it were to be picked up for the UK and submitted to the BBFC it would pose few if any problems today.

[damatotomato]

I'm sure if it were to be picked up for the UK and submitted to the BBFC it would pose few if any problems today.

Montenegro is far more lusty!

Actually, I was looking at the list of Rejected titles from the BBFC the other day, and how many have now been released, or would surely pass through if submitted. Most posters around here no doubt have all or own many of the titles on that Rejected list, and they've been released in lovingly prepared and remastered region 2 DVDs in many cases, I think it's more a question of how soon distributors are prepared to get around to re-submitting to the BBFC, and there are few labels that would or could - Redemption, Nucleus (of course!), Arrow (I love Arrow films!), ABUK (I love ABUK even more than Arrow films!!), Hardgore (still going?) are among the few. Most would pass easily. Well, I say ABUK gets the UK rights to all the Dusan Makavejev back catalogue ASAP!! Apparently, the man likes distributors and journalists and invites them round for a massive booze session that lasts a few days. Am I right? Anyway, I hope you are right about Sweet Movie, and also W.R, that they would be passed by the BBFC today, because if they aren't, then - it'll be time to revolt: the revolution is my girlfriend!

dt

[damatotomato]

I'm sure if it were to be picked up for the UK and submitted to the BBFC it would pose few if any problems today.

Montenegro is far more lusty!

I remember watching that on the channel 4 red triangle season, what a movie. I couldn't wait to buy it on VHS.

I'm going to buy Sweet Movie now, I already ordered W.R.

I think I'm too hard on the BBFC - I mean, they have released Shortbus and Je t'aime..,in the last few weeks, and Venus in Furs, 99 Women, and the Jess Franco boxset uncut on ABUK. They aren't all bad. They have changed. I think;)

They also have a cool job (although how cool that job is after watching bad porno after bad porno and endless kids cartoons and bad cinemax movies of the week, is anyone's guess! They probably cheer when they get a Dusan Makavejev movie to watch instead!) Wasn't there a film, called The Adjuster, that took the michael out of film censors getting off on bad porn? :p
dt

[damatotomato]

It's a good point though, that the fact a film like Sweet Movie is effectively banned and rejected in the UK, that rejection was 30 years ago, yet even still on the IMDB it reads "banned in the UK", which doesn't really tell the full story. Which is: the movie was once banned but probably wouldn't be today. But everyone reads the bad stuff and negative press when it comes to the BBFC. Sometimes quite rightly: if you go through the listings on the IMDB, chances are you will come across more trivia or alterate version info regarding UK film cuts or rejection than any other country, which is worrying. Why us? This is why my original point that we are a nation of less knowledgable film-goers than many other countries thanks to the BBFC and the government, nannying us, still holds as valid. Although the current young generation and upcoming ones, won't have such problems. They probably can't imagine a time when films like The Exorcist, Evil Dead and Straw Dogs and Clockwork Orange weren't easily available. These days they sell for £4.99 in Woolworths :eek:

dt

[damatotomato]

update: actually, 99 women isn't uncut, it's cut by a minute, according to bbfc site! something to do with snake cruelty.

dt

[SicCoyote]

Agh too many words!

Get back to the 20th century they miss you.

Also maybe there's more on the imdb about UK cuts because they actually say what those cuts are and probably People from English speaking nations contribute more to the imdb, and maybe more of them care about the cuts, which goes against your argument.

Do you listen to punk music?

Also personally I don't care what the imdb says about the banned unbanned status of films, and frankly if it's wrong you've only got yourself to blame as it's maintained by the public.

[SicCoyote]

No wonder we are known as a nation of shuffling macs hanging around Soho sex shops, it's the only way we get to see grown-up movies. Even the films of Radley Metzger that are considered too rude for HMV are given R18 ratings and so restricting the works of genuine mavericks, and respected auteurs.

Are you calling the director of Misty Beethoven an auteur?

This guy rants to Anthony123 proportions.

[damatotomato]

Agh too many words!

Get back to the 20th century they miss you.

Also maybe there's more on the imdb about UK cuts because they actually say what those cuts are and probably People from English speaking nations contribute more to the imdb, and maybe more of them care about the cuts, which goes against your argument.

Do you listen to punk music?

Also personally I don't care what the imdb says about the banned unbanned status of films, and frankly if it's wrong you've only got yourself to blame as it's maintained by the public.

what do you mean go back to the 20th Century, I'm already there. Evil is eternal....

I think the reason it looks like the UK IMDB is very English-centric is because it's the UK IMDB, but there is also a Spanish version, German, French, Italian etc....it depends how you log on, but these other countries do have their own database too, in their own languages!! I think Spain, Italy, France, Germany are all MUCH more passionate about movies than we are, and I'm often having to translate with babelfish, foreign language reviews, as I don't speak that many languages, only a few;)

The IMDB isn't "wrong" about "banned" or "rejected" movies, it just doesn't take into account time sensitivity. Something rejected by the BBFC 30 years ago, probably wouldnt be today.

The IMDB isn't as "maintained" by the public as you may think. Check out how many messages are deleted and reviews altered.

Do I like punk music. No, I only dig the Smurfs.

dt

[damatotomato]

Are you calling the director of Misty Beethoven an auteur?

This guy rants to Anthony123 proportions.


Yes, I am calling Henry Paris/ Radley Metzger an auteur, and if you have seen the uncut version of Misty, you would too:p

dt