Slumdog Millionaire Gets Rated R?! What!?

Danny Boyle’s Slumdog Millionaire is the type of film that will have everyone leaving the theater with both tears and a smile. It’s a beautiful film about first love, fate and destiny, and growing up in the slums of India. When I saw the film at the Telluride Film Festival last month, Alex from FirstShowing commented to me that the reason why there is no blood shown in a critical scene that involved a gun (not a spoiler, don’t worry), is because the film will be released PG-13. And that reasoning made complete sense to me. There were a couple instances throughout the film when the camera cuts away before any graphic violence is show. There is no nudity (aside from a little kid running to the shower). It iss a film that would appeal huge to teen audiences, if Fox Searchlight could somehow trick them into buying a ticket. But apparently the MPAA thinks otherwise.

The MPAA gave the film an R-Rating “for some violence, disturbing images and language.” I call bullshit. Fox Searchlight should have taken this one to the appeal process. If Two-Face in The Dark Knight got a PG-13 rating, than Slumdog should have been awarded a PG. It’s a shame that Searchlight didn’t want to take the extra time to fight this one out. I’m guessing that Fox are more concerned with getting the rating on the posters as soon as possible, so that they can meet the November 12th release date. You see, Searchlight also has to market Darren Aronofsky’s The Wrestler (out in December). And both films need to hit theaters by the end of the year for Award consideration.. They have given both films just enough separation to do so properly. But the lack of time before the release probably prevents an appeals process from happening. Just my own speculation. But it does make sense, right?

source: THR

  • krackajap
    Once all over again?
  • Indiefilm
    Fuck the MPAA

    We don't need them anymore.
  • Do they say "fuck" more than once in the film or does use of the word refer to the sex act. I believe those are both immediate grounds for R rating. I know that's what got Before Sunrise an R rating even though it's just two people walking around and talking for an hour and a half.

    Argh. I hate the MPAA and their stupid rating system. I hate them so very much.
  • Oi've
  • John
    I saw the movie last night, and I came out knowing that the MPAA would give it a "R" (even though I personally think it should be rated PG-13).

    I think it's the torture depicted in the movie that concerns the MPAA the most. It's not extremely graphic, but it's right there in the beginning of the movie, and once they saw it, their minds were probably made up.

    It'll hurt the film's Oscar chances, but not all is lost. Many people forget that "Little Miss Sunshine" was also rated R.
  • Autosuggestion
    No one forgets that Little Miss Sunshine was rated R. Look at Alan Arkin's character. Plenty of profanity, much of it sexually based, and heroin use is always hard to fit into a PG13.
  • lawrence
    nice movie
  • Another overly protective move from the MPAA. I like the BBFC (British version of the MPAA) because they tend to make much more adult and informed decisions, and aren't so biased to make decisions from the standpoint of "film corrupts children and we're parents" or "us god fearing people have a right to protect you all from yourselves".

    I think they forget they are there to classify, not to censor through certification.
  • so? Lots of teenagers sneak into R rated movies anyway.

    nobody at my cinema checks kids' ages when they buy tickets. Unless they looK REALLYYYY young
  • chuck
    So its ok in Batman to show a dude get a pencil shoved into his eye thus killing him, as well as everything else that happens in that movie....and it will get a PG13?
    The MPAA is full of shit, all they care about is rating movies that will sell well lower so that EVERYONE can see them.
    They could careless about an indie film, thus rating it an R, because who goes to indie films but "older" people.
  • George
    I don't see how films like "The Haunting in Connecticut" gets a PG-13 rating but this movie gets rated R. I haven't seen it yet but I really don't think it could worse than a horror film involving a guy getting a ton of things engraved on his skin...
  • Anna
    I saw this movie last week. I loved it (!!!) and think everybody should see it, the rating system ought to just be a suggestion rather than the rule. A 16-year-old should be able to see it without parents. It's way better for them than anything mtv has to offer them. If I were that age I would probably just buy a ticket to high school musical and sneak into Slumdog Millionaire, I had to do that a few times and I only regretted that the movie I did see, wouldn't make the money off of the ticket sale.
  • Cheryl
    Could someone please tell me if Slumdog is appropriate foe a 13 year old girl. My husband took both my 15 year old boy and 13 year old girl tonight against my wishes because of the R rating. I was very upset about this. Did I overreact form those of you who have seen it?
  • Sruti
    I think it is appropriate for her. There is no nudity, besides a little kid for a short moment. It's a really good movie.
  • julie
    We took our 13 year old daughter and it was more than appropriate. The film depicts the reality of living in a slum, so you may have to answer some questions, but nothing shown on screen is overly graphic, and the hope and good depicted in the movie far outways the bad. We didn't take our 9 year old, and are glad because it would have been too much reality for her, but it was perfectly appropriate for 13.
  • Alex
    Yeah totally! I'm only 12 and I saw it with my parents last night. It's WAY better than the PG crap in theaters. It's a wonderful movie! There's a bit of violence, but no nudity aside for the back of a little kid.
  • simondo
    ok hang on a second, i think this is film is not suitable for anyone under 15. There are scenes of true horror and torture, that are not easy to swallow. Yes the camera cuts away but even still it could be disturbing for a young teenager. I loved the film, but i do not think its been marketed well at all. "From the writers of full monty and danny boyle comes the best feel good film of the decade," yes it is a feel good film, but you have to go through some pretty harsh stuff to get there. I completely agree with the rating.
  • Kyle
    I disagree with the rating. If Taken is PG-13, this should have been PG.

    Come on. Dark Knight, for all its last minute camera turns and slight of hand photography was worse than Slumdog Millionaire.
  • Cyber Ninja
    Seriously, Taken should be rated R... I have that ever since I saw it over 7 months ago (it was released in Paris a year before America) and the dark Knight show ppl hitting women, blowing women up, cutting ppl's face open, Some dead hanging by a noose off of a building, the Joker going psycho making psycho noises ect. ect. ect. (Love the dark Knight... favorite actor of all time is Heath Ledger) but if batman and taken get a PG-13 rating... seriously why in the hell is this movie rated R? It is completely insane?! I watched it not knowing the rating and later looked online... I am pretty shocked at it's 'R' rating. So freaking DUMB!!!
  • Val
    I really want to see it.It looks awsome but no since its rated R im not allwed. From what it told me IT SHOULD BE RATED PG 13! my parents would let me see that even though im not 13
  • Vivian
    This reminds me of how The Darjeeling Limited was rated R, and it was amazing with very little swearing and nothing intense. I think it deserved a PG-13.
  • Want to see movie
    I havent watched the movie yet but is it worse than the torture part in Casino Royale or the dark knight because i am a teen and want to see it in theatres but im not sure if my parents will let me and i want to see it bad reply fast.
  • The movie was intense to say the least, but no less intense than The Dark Knight, and far less violence. It should have (in my opinion) received a PG-13 rating. There are a couple of scenes that would be questionable for a 13 year old (depending on maturity) but if you have seen The Dark Knight and not been traumatized/ your parents thought it was fine, then this movie is nothing... PLUS it is sooooooo much better than the dark knight or Casino Royale.

    Basically, if you liked the Dark Knight, you will love this film as it has soo much more meaning, the intensity/ violence are so worth it in this film.
  • Cassie Hoogendoorn
    I'm on the internet right now having just watched "Slumdog Millionaire", to find out why the R rating. No nudity or sex; no vile languange; I would say it must be because of the short scenes of torture. I don't get this rating at all. I don't watch R rated movies normally and I would have missed a perfectly good movie if I weren't advised that the R rating was unjust.
  • mr.english
    the F word is used once but that is it.i'm twelve but my parents allowed me to watch it because its NOT intense at all.
  • carly
    we watched it at a sleepover im 13 by the way and all 3 of us are mormon which is against our religion anyways well we watched it by accident. and i thought it was one of the best movies of all time. You would cry of happiness and sadness. and the f word i didn't catch it anyways. I thought it was amazingly written and should be re-rated!!!!!!!! UGHHHHH
  • trina
    It' rated R because of the profanity, you have a child getting there eye's burn of of his sockets. The ratings system is so off. I see PG13 movies that should be rated R. But this movie I don't think so. I am 33 and I totally see a difference in what's Rated R now versus when I was a teen. Kids today are expose to too much sex and violence. That why most of them don't have respect for anything and think they should be having a sex life.
  • B Smith
    it should stay R for Ridiculously stupid
blog comments powered by Disqus