Last edited by a moderator:
wait, THAT was the cut version?!...jesus!!
agreed - fairly differing tones but would have to say Atomic Blonde was better as a result
have to drastically disagree there - loved both this and Atomic Blonde, but the latter is by far the better.Watched this last night and while its no John Wick is miles better than Atomic Blonde. I'd give it a solid 4/5
same as myself and a friend then - we both enjoyed each movie, but if had to choose, ignoring differance in tone, we both rated Atomic Blonde much more highly.Indeed
Like I said I'm not sure they should be compared however if I had to choose I'd easily go with Atomic Blonde as well, mainly for how visually it was shot, the sound track and the fact it's an easier watch. Red Sparrow still a good film though
same (last night) and agree was slow - still enjoyed it though.Went and watched this last night! Thought it was decent and you see plenty of J-Law!!! but is a little bit slow for me.
Not rushing to grab a steel for ot but would rewatch it next year sometime on bluray!
how did it hold up on second viewing?Saw it twice last weekend. It felt shorter than its length due to the heavy plot, and you have to pay attention to fully appreciate the ending!
It was only cut by a few seconds in one scenewait, THAT was the cut version?!...jesus!!
I don't know as I not been giving this release any attention@paulboland do you know if this UK edition will have a censored version ? I get always confused about UK releases and what is edited or not
Like a lot of recent films the BBC has only advised film makers on how to achieve the bffc cert they want to release it under. They're not actively cutting anything - it's distributors deciding they want access to a wider audience...It was only cut by a few seconds in one sceneThe BBFC seem to be making a lot of arbitrary cuts recently.a garroting
I know, but advising before the official submission is still censoring, and for the most part what they advise is nonsensical. It's like they randomly throw in a bit of mainstream censorship every so often so they don't look like they're only targeting porn. In a way it's good for the consumer as they aren't butchering films to the extent they used to, however, given the extent of violence that they do leave in tact they could have just given the lower rating without changes in something like John Wick 2 and I highly doubt there would have been any complaints.Like a lot of recent films the BBC has only advised film makers on how to achieve the bffc cert they want to release it under. They're not actively cutting anything - it's distributors deciding they want access to a wider audience...
It is a little I suppose, but again it's only advisory and more often than not to determine the difference between a 12A and 15 (I know a couple like Red Sparrow & JW2 have been between 15 &18) but they're not imposing cuts to get a release like the bad, bad old days. And to be fair they are a lot more lenient on what constitutes a 15 rating than previously, so some scenes will inevitably still nudge a title into 18 rated territory for just going that little bit too far (or being too easily imitatable - Like 'Every Day' recently here)I know, but advising before the official submission is still censoring, and for the most part what they advise is nonsensical. It's like they randomly throw in a bit of mainstream censorship every so often so they don't look like they're only targeting porn. In a way it's good for the consumer as they aren't butchering films to the extent they used to, however, given the extent of violence that they do leave in tact they could have just given the lower rating without changes in something like John Wick 2 and I highly doubt there would have been any complaints.
I think it's the leniency of the 15 rating that confuses me, only the classification bodies will ever truly understand how a second or two can make such a difference when 15 and 18 almost indistinguishable now. Something like Every Day I can understand as it seems like that one scene is tonally out of place given that it appears to be aimed at a younger audience, and changes to imitable techniques at the lower ratings is one thing I do sometimes agree with. I wouldn't mind the changes to higher rated films if we were guaranteed a full release on home media, I'd rather be able to save a little money and get it domestically, but like you say, at least most things are freely available elsewhere.It is a little I suppose, but again it's only advisory and more often than not to determine the difference between a 12A and 15 (I know a couple like Red Sparrow & JW2 have been between 15 &18) but they're not imposing cuts to get a release like the bad, bad old days. And to be fair they are a lot more lenient on what constitutes a 15 rating than previously, so some scenes will inevitably still nudge a title into 18 rated territory for just going that little bit too far (or being too easily imitatable - Like 'Every Day' recently here)
If distributors weren't simply interested in hitting as wide a range of age wallets as possible and let a title stand on it's own merits it likely wouldn't be an issue - and it's not just a UK phenomenom, it's just as prevelant in the US as well - look at New Mutants which we were promised a hard-R for then started talking about trimming/seeking filming advice on how to have it to hit the PG-13 rating to get a wider audience...
The real problem is when lazy distributors take the BBFC certified version and roll it out worldwide At least with John Wick and Red Sparrow and a few others we have the option to get the uncut version from other territories
Plus, to keep this thread on track - yeah Red Sparrow was decent so pre-ordered anyway
Clean, simple design... I like it! Loving the added feather effect on the front too. If I were to make any changes, then I'd switch the colours (black & red) around.