BBFC News

14s of cuts to Trainspotting have been waived by the BBFC. James Ferman's regime had a policy of cutting supposedly 'instructional' details from videos. Renton's (Ewan McGregor's) shooting-up scene suffered accordingly. The policy has now changed and we are able to view the complete scene on DVD. An increased running time suggests that other additional footage has been added but only 14s may be attributed to censor cuts.

1. The Driller Killer has finally been passed '18' uncut on video with all the 1999 pre-cuts waived. A DVD version is due to be released soon by ILC Prime (possibly February) and will include the uncut version of the film, a trailer and an Abel Ferrara commentary.
2. Tenebrae has also been passed '18' uncut on video with the 5 seconds of 1999 cuts waived. Anchor Bay UK will be releasing a special edition DVD in March next year featuring the uncut version of the film, commentary, interviews and documentary etc.
3. L.I.E . ( Long Island Expressway ) has been passed '18' uncut for cinema release. It received an 'NC-17' rating in the States and caused some controversy when shown at the Cambridge Film Festival earlier this year. It's about a 15 year old boy's relationship with an older man (played by Brian Cox).
4. The Trip has now been passed 18 uncut.  This marks the end of the longest standing BBFC ban (and the longest BBFC ban in history at 35 years!).  The Trip was rejected on film three times (in 1967, 1971 and 1980) and once on video (in 1988).  this is the first time it's been classified.
5. Ken Park has now been dropped by its UK distributor, Metro Tartan. The two London Film Festival screenings (supposed to happen last weekend) were also cancelled at the last minute. This had nothing to do with the BBFC or Westminster Council. Director Larry Clark tried to strangle the owner of Metro Tartan, Hamish McAlpine, after a row in a restaurant. Because of this physical attack, Hamish doesn't want anything to do with Larry Clark or his film! Whether the film ever comes out in the UK now depends upon whether it is picked up by another distributor
6. Mark Kermode has written a piece in this month's Sight and Sound about Ken Russell's The Devils , which is well worth a read. He has now found the footage the BBFC originally cut from the film in 1971 (for an 'X') as well as material pre-censored by Warners (before it came to the BBFC). Warners are being very difficult about restoring the footage to the film. However, a documentary on the film - including some of the missing footage - is due to be shown on Channel 4 later this month.

Thanks to the use of the word cunt, Ken Loach's new film is certificate 18. Scriptwriter Paul Laverty says the decision is a disgrace

Based on an article in The Guardian

The BBFC has been troubled by the rough language, especially the "aggressive" use of the word "cunt", in Ken Loach's new film Sweet Sixteen . They have decided that no one under 18 can legally see the film.

As the scriptwriter I have been presented with an arithmetical breakdown of naughty words and can only say I'm appalled by the repetition and lack of imagination. At this point I always like to blame Ken and improvisation with actors. So for the first time in Ken's long career, one of his feature films - his 17th - has been given an 18 certificate.

I realise the BBFC has an important job to do. So, with high hopes, I wrote them a little note, praying they would reconsider and give it a 15 certificate.

Here goes:

In my research before writing Sweet Sixteen I visited dozens of schools, children's homes and several secure units for teenagers. I also spent lots of time with young teenagers at clubs of various descriptions, and perhaps most useful of all were random street corners in various towns around the west coast of Scotland ...

I was amazed at how many had seen our previous film, My Name Is Joe . Some even quoted dialogue from various scenes. One schoolboy told me: "They speak just like us." The same issue came up again and again in many of the encounters I had. They recognised their own world reflected back at them via the story and the dilemma of the characters, principally because of the language we used.

I think there is another very important point of principle here; it concerns the world of the story. "Cunt", as used in polite Manhattan society, or at Wimbledon, or at Ascot, is of a totally different nature to the word as used by these kids on street corners in the west of Scotland. In many ways all they have in common is the spelling. In terms of its resonance, its rhythm, its acceptance, and many other cultural subtleties I genuinely do wonder if it is even the same word. To equate Hugh Grant using the word in one of his films with Stan using it, albeit aggressively, in Sweet Sixteen is not to compare like with like.

I am not blind to the predicament and the difficulty you now confront. But I do ask you to be bold and imaginative in the exercise of your discretion. There are tens of thousands of 15- and 16- and 17-year-old Liams out there. They are more important than any critic or jury, but, as usual, without clout. I hope you will give them a chance to see themselves, for once, as protagonists.

Kind regards ...

I thought I could hear Liam's ghost whisper in my ear as I wrote: "Fat fucking chance, ya prick. Somebody wi' a name like Sir Quentin's no gonni get this." And so it proved to be.

We trust teenagers to get married, hold down jobs and buy property. They can drive fast cars and have a passport. We can send them to prison, and they can carry out the most complicated human endeavour of all - parent children - but we can't trust them to read a simple warning about language that some people might find upsetting.

The 18 certificate for Sweet Sixteen seems particularly British. (I have been told that since this is a decision of the BBFC, the Scottish Parliament has no competence to deal with the question. I hope the Scottish Executive will politely demonstrate that they have the talent to deal with such a matter.) It is unimaginable that the equivalent teenage population on the Continent would be similarly excluded.

It is now certain that the 15-, 16- and 17-year-olds - and many who were much younger - who shared their lives with us in preparation for this film will not be allowed to see Sweet Sixteen in a cinema by law. Is it important? I think it is. I believe it is censorship and I suspect, since it is impossible to prove, "class" prejudice suffuses the decision, the guidelines and the whole bloody apple cart.

Along with Liam, Pinball, Night-time, and his mates who run the fastest pizza joint in the west of Scotland, I'd like to add my own "two fingers" to the BBFC, and, as a contribution to freedom of expression, I'd like to attach the infamous little word used with all the aggression I can muster.

Natural Born Killers: The Director's Cut has been passed 18 uncut and will be released here on DVD on 18th November 2002. It's identical to the US 'unrated' release available from Trimark and restores all the MPAA-cut material. The distributor here is VCI.

Dario Argento's Terror at the Opera has also been passed uncut with all previous film and video cuts waived - and extra material added. Due for release on 7th October

A Japanese film by Toshiharu Ikeda has always been considered a seriously extreme film. Interesting therefore to see that it has passed through the BBFC. It has received 8s of cuts justified as follows: Cuts required to two close shots of a knife cutting flesh in a sexualised context

I have contacted the BBFC about this story and they inform me that the classification of this documentary is being carefully considered and may require legal advice. It has not been rejected.

I have read BBFC guidelines about drug use and have somehow accepted the wording about not promoting drug use in the context of fictional movies relating drug use to cool fashionable slickly dressed heros in shades suggesting that drugs are de-riguer. However I find it beyond belief that the BBFC can reject a documentary promoting drug use in a non fictional context. It is surely the very essence of free speech that we can verbally oppose a current law. I can even except that if there are a few genuinely instructional clips in the film then these could be cut. I cannot accept that the BBFC have any right what so ever to ban the expressions of views merely because they are contrary to Britsh law.

Hello, I am in independent film maker who has been refused classification on a cannabis documentary film. Check out www.Greenbritain.com.

It has taken 18 months of my life to complete the film and it is an incisive look into the debate, I have been accused of promoting illegal drug activities and encouraging people break the law. Bollocks.

They will have to tread carefully as their ban is barring, amputees, spastic paralysis victims, arthritic, ms patients the right to be heard. They want to know why their opinions are illegal.

The film also includes 2 MPs, ex head of Scotland Yard, scientists, Howard Marks, MS spokesperson, growers, how to make hash etc.

I would appreciate any advice on this issue. Contact Paul@greenbritain.com 

From The Sunday Times

(The is the biggest pile of tripe I have read about for a long time. Can't the censors just fast forward through the material like anyone else!).

The BBFC has called in a psychotherapist amid fears that its censors' minds could become corrupted by their daily diet of sex and violence.

Hard-core porn, martial arts violence and vampire horror has proved too much for the 16 full-time censors who work from 9am to 5pm five days a week for the film and video watchdog. Now the board has hired a therapist who held her first group session with the censors at their London headquarters last month. Those who are worried they are being "desensitised" through a near-continuous exposure to gore and sex were told they could book a private session at any time.

The censors are freaking out, said an insider last week. The throughput is extraordinarily high. They are often having to do solid hard-core porn all day . . . the intellectual content of the job is not what it was .

Fine news from the BBFC. Straw Dogs has finally passed unscathed for video and DVD. The film has been demonised by the censors for years now with an ever increasing sense of incredulity. It seems a good time to stop the silliness and we should give a pat on the back for the dogged persistance of the film's many supporters.

The BBFC have issued the following press release: BBFC passes STRAW DOGS uncut on video

The BBFC has classified the 1971 Sam Peckinpah film Straw Dogs '18' uncut for video and DVD release. When Straw Dogs was previously considered by the BBFC for video release in 1999, it was refused a classification certificate. This was because its distributor at the time declined to make the cuts requested by the Board to the film's rape scene. The version on which the Board then based its judgement was a pre-cut American print of the film.

In the central scene, Amy, played by Susan George, is raped by her former boyfriend and then by another man. The pre-cut American version deleted most of the second rape in which Amy is clearly demonstrated not to enjoy the act of violation. The cuts made for American distribution, which were made to reduce the duration of the sequence, therefore tended paradoxically to compound the difficulty with the first rape, leaving the audience with the impression that Amy enjoyed the experience. The Board took the view in 1999 that the pre-cut version eroticised the rape and therefore conflicted with the concerns expressed in the Video Recordings Act about promoting harmful activity.

The version considered in 2002 is substantially the original uncut version of the film, restoring much of the unambiguously unpleasant second rape. The ambiguity of the first rape is given context by the second rape, which now makes it quite clear that sexual assault is not something that Amy ultimately welcomes.

For the current submission, the Board showed the video to leading clinical psychologists specialising in work with sex offenders and to a panel of members of the public. The response of the clinical psychologists was that the present version of Straw Dogs was not harmful and was not likely to encourage an interest in rape or abusive behaviour towards women. The psychologists agreed that the ambiguous first rape was in fact a fairly realistic depiction of a quite complex situation. They also agreed that, by the end of the second rape, any general messages reinforcing 'rape myths' were undermined by the lack of ambivalence shown in Amy's reaction to the second attack. It was also noted that Amy's flashbacks later in the film further undermined any impression that she might welcome rape or that it has no serious effect on its victims. The psychologists commented that the scene was filmed in a relatively discreet manner, with limited potential today for titillation.

The issue of context was also important to the members of the public to whom the video was shown as part of a research exercise into the acceptability of images of sexual violence. A focus group of 26 people viewed Straw Dogs , with 20 people accepting '18' uncut as the most appropriate category, 5 suggesting only minor cuts, and only one favouring rejection. No respondent asked for major cuts of the kind required by the Board in 1999.

Significantly, respondents saw the manner in which Amy copes with her experience as essentially positive and concluded that the present version of the scene - as well as the flashbacks shown afterwards - reinforced the idea that rape is not to be taken lightly because of the serious effect it can have on individuals. No concerns about possible harmful effects were identified.

The Board recognises that the rape scene in Straw Dogs has lost only part of its power over the years, despite the age of the film. Nonetheless, in this restored version, and in the light of the evidence of expert opinion, our own conclusion now is that the film has no significant potential to cause harm to viewers or, through their actions, to society as a whole. We have also taken account of the evidence of the public acceptability of the work.

The Board maintains a strict position on depictions of sexual violence that endorse or eroticise harmful behaviour, and will continue to do so. The Board does not believe that the present version of Straw Dogs is in breach of that policy.

The film had previously been passed 'X' uncut for cinema release in 1971 and '18' in the pre-cut version for cinema reissue in 1995.

FilmFour have started a hopefully regular column in the banned section of their web-site. SEX, LIES AND VIDEOTAPE will document the whole sorry episode of the Last House on the Left appeal , presenting the arguments, with accompanying evidence, as they were put forward to the Video Appeals Committee.  

So the Video Appeals Committee have turned down the Last House on the Left Appeal. I guess that we will just have to accept that 'classifiers' will always be 'censors'. Especially in Britain where privacy, liberty and respect are so readily withdrawn from the people in favour of the Government puppetry of the BBFC, Food Standards Agency etc.

As always the BBFC are allowed their say, this is their press release:

The Video Appeals Committee (VAC) announced today the outcome of the appeal by Blue Underground Limited against the BBFC's decision to reject the video of The Last House on the Left . The VAC was unanimously of the view that the appeal should be dismissed.

The BBFC had required 16 seconds of cuts to scenes of sexual violence before the video could be given an '18' certificate. Blue Underground Limited refused to make the cuts, and the BBFC therefore rejected the video. The distributor then appealed to the VAC.

The Board argued that the scenes were harmful under the terms of the Video Recordings Act and were in contravention of the Board's published Guidelines. It also took into account convictions of the work under the Obscene Publications Act.

In upholding the Board's rejection of The Last House on the Left, the VAC in its Judgment expressed the opinion that the Board's Guidelines were "a sensible and accurate reflection of public concern especially where violence and sexual violence are concerned and we endorse them. We believe this video work is substantially in conflict with the Guidelines."

The VAC also agreed with the Board's contention that there was a danger that parts of the work may be imitated. The Committee found that the "viewer is asked to relish the violence, the violence is relentless and the parts to be cut are at the extreme end of that violence and humiliation". It found that harm may be caused in the case of a significant number of viewers. The VAC was "firmly of the view that the Board was right in refusing to certify it without cuts."

And Carl Daft of Blue Underground, the distributor:

It is with a mixture of astonishment and utter disgust that I regretfully have to announce that Blue Underground's recent appeal to the Video Appeals Committee in the case of the cuts required to THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT was not, in fact, successful.

Contrary to the evidence before them, and indeed whilst completely overlooking the Board's blatant inconsistencies as demonstrated throughout, the VAC have, in their wisdom, concluded that THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT does still pose a danger to adults in society, and therefore upheld the Board's decision to require cuts. I wonder if the head of M.G.M in the States knows that he is about to put out such harmful material to an entire continent? Or the distributors in every other (civilised) European country - in most of which the film has been available for years: don't they know the 'harm' they are causing?

I am of the view that there was absolutely no point whatever in us turning up on the day. The Committee had, for whatever reason, made up their minds beforehand and no amount of hard evidence and legal argument was to sway them from that outcome. In their judgement, they barely conceded a single point to us ' everything was written in the Board's favour. Such an approach not only shows a blatant disrespect for the word of leading Counsel David Pannick QC, it is also a sorry indictment on the concept of 'fair play' whereby everyone outside of the Board was seemingly there to make up the numbers. This is further a terrible day for the Independent Film Industry in this Country and for Freedom of Expression in the U.K: doubtless the Board will continually hark back to this judgement when making future censorship decisions on our behalf. The result was shocking in every meaning of the word.

We will be making official comment in the arts section of The Independent this coming Friday, and also on the FilmFour web-site and other publications in due course. The film will be now be released in the BBFC friendly version in October.

The cinema version of A Ma Soeur was uncut but the video has been substantially cut by 1:28s with the following BBFC justification:

Cut required to scene of sexual assault on young girl to address the specific danger that video enables the scene to be used to stimulate and validate abusive action.

Given that it is not considered obscene I cannot see why we shouldn't be able to watch this film on video. Note that is available in France with a 12 rating albeit without an English soundtrack.

The BBFC have responded to further questions with the following response:

The cinema version was passed '18' uncut following expert legal advice. Nevertheless the Board was concerned by the film's climactic scene, which shows an underaged girl - played by a 13 year old actress - being raped. Our legal advice confirmed that the scene was not indecent within the meaning of the Protection of Children Act 1978 and the Board therefore agreed to pass the scene intact.

The Board also took the opinion of a leading consultant clinical psychologist at the time of the original cinema submission. He expressed a concern that, in his clinical experience, the rape sequence could potentially be used by paedophiles to 'groom' their victims. The Board was satisfied, however, that this concern about potential abuse was minimal in the context of an adult cinema release where the possibility of children being taken to the cinema for grooming was remote.

Videos, by contrast, are more easily accessible for personal use by abusive individuals and the risk of the video's use for grooming was felt to be far higher. Furthermore, the potential for the scene to be played repeatedly and out of context on video concerned the Board far more so than on film. It was felt therefore that, on video, the scene presented a particular problem as both stimulus material and to validate abusive behaviour. The Board's concerns were confirmed by a further opinion from a second consultant psychologist specifically in relation to the video release, which echoed the opinion of her colleague. The scene was therefore removed in its entirety on video.

Star Wars, Episode 2 - Attack of the Clones has been cut by 1 second by the BBFC to remove a headbut. The cut was to achieve a PG rather than the 12 that would otherwise have been awarded.

As observed by goatboy: And the really stupid thing about this is according to theforce.net the headbutt is in one of the TV ads, so we all get to see it anyway. Well done BBFC .

Bill Lustig's Maniac has  finally  been approved for video/DVD release by the BBFC. The  film was originally rejected outright for cinema release in 1981.  Although it was available on video pre-VRA (in a version watered  down by the distributor) it wasn't formally submitted for video release until 1998 when it was once again rejected outright.

However, the Board has now relented and passed it 18 after 58  seconds of cuts.   Cuts have been made to two sequences.  A  strangulation scene (around 13 minutes in) has been reduced to half its original length and a scene in which a bound woman is killed on a  bed  (around  65  minnutes in) has been cut to remove four shots of the killer's knife in contact with the skin between her breasts.

The video and DVD will be released by Anchor Bay (UK) later in the year.

The BBFC have just announced the rejection of Hooligans with the following justification:

Hooligans is a video compilation of actual football hooliganism, which it endorses and celebrates. The Board has concluded that the work has potential to cause harm within the meaning of the Video Recordings Act and is therefore not suitable for classification.

While the Board accepts that some of the material contained in Hooligans has previously appeared in the public domain, its concern lies in the manner in which the material is presented. Hooliganism is an entirely valid subject for critical documentary treatment, and in that context illustrative news footage has a legitimate function. That, however, is not what is on offer here. Hooligans presents a series of violent and antisocial acts in an exciting and exhilarating manner. Such material may appeal to and validate the behaviour of real life hooligans, confirming them further in their violence. It may also assist in encouraging others who are attracted to such antisocial activities.

The impact of the repetitive and brutal acts of violence is further compounded by the driving musical soundtrack, with its potential to raise the level of viewer excitement. No alternative option to the violence is offered and police efforts to control hooliganism are even criticised by the commentary.

The lack of any real contextualisation or analysis of the behaviour shown leaves the clear impression that the video merely seeks to exploit the phenomenon of hooliganism for the purposes of entertainment. The commentary is supportive of what it refers to as the 'so-called' hooligans and the vox pops provide no alternative critical dimension. Indeed they are proud of their violence. The Board was also concerned by an apparent racist and xenophobic dimension in the video.

It is the Board's conclusion that the video is likely to be widely viewed by the people whose behaviour it celebrates. It may well have the effect of reinforcing and validating their behaviour or of encouraging those on the fringes to join in next time.

The Board did not feel that the problems could be usefully addressed by the provision of a cuts list. The issue is not only the great number of specific visual images, but the overall tone and construction of the tape.

Another of the video nasties is returning to the video shop shelves. Nightmares in a Damaged Brain has just passed through the BBFC for an 18 certificate. It will be released on DVD & VHS on April 22nd. Further details at www.nightmareinadamagedbrain.co.uk. It will be marketed as Nightmare .

Initial indications were that it had passed uncut. The version submitted was in fact slightly pre-cut and the BBFC passed it without requiring further cuts.

A little further research revealed that the version submitted was obtained from US distributors and seems to be about 2 minutes shorter than the uncut version. Maybe an R rated version.  This has not been confirmed as there seems to be some running time lost in the transfer. It has not been cut by the British distributor.

The end result is a version with a few small cuts along the lines of the UK cinema release. However there are less of them so it is about half way between the uncut version and the cinema version. The fact that there are some pre-cuts has also made the life of the BBFC a little easier. ie the released version is not that prosecuted during the panics of the video nasty era. Unsurprisingly, it took several viewings by the BBFC before the decision was reached.

Thanks to Sergio

An old porn film was recently classified R18 after the removal of an entire scene. Boogie Down with John Holmes loast an 8:08s scene with the following BBFC justification: Cut required to all sight of possibly underage girl (no proof of age available).

After a further email query the BBFC added:

We queried the actresses' age - as we quite regularly do with '18' and 'R18' porn films. However, because of the age of the material (1970s) the distributor was unable to provide us with any assurances, so the scene was removed. The scene was not removed because the actress 'looked' possibly under 18 but because the distributor couldn't prove how old she actually was.

(I am fascinated to know what law prohibits 16 and 17 year olds from appearing in porn films anyway. Given that the Americans have always been very strict about their 18 age limit it would seem unlikely that 15 year olds have ever featured in films from reputable producers. Traci Lords may have fooled because she looked over 18 but she was still over 16. It would seem to me that the BBFC are playing a little overcautiously on this one),

The BBFC have recently passed Emanuelle and the Last Cannibals with 1:58s of cuts. They explain as follows: Cuts required to sight of woman's nipple being sliced off, sexualised rape and sexualised evisceration of women.

According to HM Thieves & Excise, the uncut Emanuelle and the Last Cannibals is an obscene film liable to seizure. With the cuts it is considered totally legal. In fact I have just received 2 reports of the US DVD being stolen by customs.

Also good to see more from Herschell Gordon Lewis. The latest videos submitted by Tartan have all been passed uncut: The Wizard of Gore , The Gore Gore Girls and She-Devils on Wheels. Interesting to note that a nipple slicing has been left uncut in The Gore Gore Girls . Okay so chocolate milk gushes out of the tit, but it's still a nipple slicing!

Videos spotted progressing through the BBFC.

10s of cuts to Road House were required by the BBFC in 1990. (ie a double ear-clap along with some dialogue and a punch to the groin).  The BBFC have now waived the cuts and substantial additional footage has also been located.

Thanks to David for spotting another video nasty finally getting a BBFC certificate.

I have just noticed that the BBFC have just passed The Grim Reaper , which we all know is really Anthropophagous Beast , with a running time of 82m 13s and no cuts are stated. However, before we jump for joy, the running time is considerably less than the uncut running time of 88m 14s stated by Dark Side magazine. I very much doubt the foetus scene is in the film.

I can confirm that The Grim Reaper as submitted  is the cut US release missing a couple of the more gory scenes, ie the foetus eating and the climactic entrail munching.

Thanks to Adam for spotting the uncut The Good Son. The video release was delayed for some time on the back of worries about press hysteria. The BBFC allowed a version cut by 33s in 1995. Cuts were to a scene where two 10 year old boys engineer a motorway pile-up by dropping a lifelike dummy into a stream of traffic. The BBFC felt that the possibility that such a scene could be viewed and copied by mischievous children was too great to ignore. The BBFC also cut the sense of mounting excitement with which the boys greet the escalating devastation. It has now been passed uncut

I mentioned earlier that The New York Ripper has remarkably been passed by the BBFC with just 22s of cuts. The certificate has now been added to the BBFC website with the following comment: Cuts required to detailed, close up sight of a woman's stomach, breast and nipple being cut with a razor blade

The BBFC have taken action against the Ban the Board of Film Censors website. This campaign cheekily used the address www.bbfc.org.uk compared with the official BBFC site at www.bbfc.co.uk .

The BBFC tolerated a previous version of the campaign, Bulletin Board of Film Censorship at the same address for a long time. However the later version of the campaign promised to be far more critical perhaps expediting BBFC action. The BBFC registered a complaint with Nominet resulting in the hopefully temporary loss of Ban the Board of Film Censors.

I feel that the official BBFC site should carry a prominent link to the relocated Ban the Board of Film Censors website so that readers are not inconvenienced by an enforced change of address. The Melon Farmers will of course help in the redirection of people trying to locate the new address.

Thanks to Shaun Hollingworth for putting his views to the BBFC and obtaining the following statement from the BBFC.

It is true that we took action to take possession of the domain name "bbfc.org.uk". This was purely in order to avoid confusion with our own site. However, we had no problem as such with the content (inaccurate though much of it was) provided the site could not be confused that of the BBFC. As soon as our complaint was registered with Nominet (regarding the domain name, NOT the content of the site), bbfc.org.uk announced that all content would in future be mirrored at 'www.britishboard.com', a name with which we were perfectly content. And we fully expected them to continue with exactly the same material under their new domain name. However, it appears that the site has now closed down altogether. That is nothing to do with us and is perhaps only temporary. It is not fair to say that the Board cannot take criticism - we are perfectly happy to do so and quite used to it. However, when misleading and inaccurate information (which we're afraid bbfc.org.uk contained more than its fair share of) might be confused with our legitimate site [and this was fairly obviously the intention behind taking that domain name] we were not prepared to accept it. We have no difficulty with criticism of the Board on sites such as Melon Farmers, which cannot be confused with us.

Thanks to Gavin

The BBFC have confirmed for me today that the upcoming DVD Criterion Collection Region 2 release of The Rock will be fully uncut and still retain it's '15' rating. Now the public can see the full version as it was originally seen in the theatres back in 1997. I noticed the extras had been through the board a few days ago, so I decided to question them about what rating it would be. So now we know.

(Hardly one of the glorious decisions of the byegone BBFC. The Melon Farmers now "expect" the far more reasonable stance of the Board and can but hope that other distributors resubmit any stupid cuts from days gone by so that we can see a few more films in that way that was intended).