Grotesque - BBFC refuse to rate

The BBFC here have made it illegal for places to sell/supply this Japanese film. I find it odd though, you can get a UK version on one legal Asian dvd site, with the 18 certificate and everything...

Film chiefs in Britain have taken the unusual step of refusing to give a certificate to a sadistic horror movie.

Distributors of Japanese movie Grotesque had hoped to be given an 18 certificate for the film, which involves torture such as amputation and eye-gouging.

But the British Board of Film Classification said the film featured sexual sadism for its own sake. It said that giving the film a rating would involve a "risk of harm" to those viewing it.

Selling or supplying the film would now be illegal.

The BBFC rejects films only rarely, preferring to give advice about how appropriate cuts would achieve the preferred certificate.

The decision was taken by BBFC director, David Cooke and senior colleagues.

The board said the majority of the film focused on the assault, humiliation and torture of two victims. The main character takes them prisoner, restrains, strips and sexually assaults them before inflicting horrific injuries until they die.

Mr Cooke said: "Unlike other recent 'torture'-themed horror works, such as the Saw and Hostel series, Grotesque features minimal narrative or character development and presents the audience with little more than an unrelenting and escalating scenario of humiliation, brutality and sadism. The chief pleasure on offer seems to be in the spectacle of sadism (including sexual sadism) for its own sake."

The BBFC rates around 10,000 films for DVD release each year.

The last film which the BBFC rejected for an 18 certificate was the 2004 movie Murder Set Pieces, which was turned down last year. Until that, it had not refused an 18 rating since 2005 when the film Terrorists, Killers And Other Wackos - made up of real clips of execution and torture - was turned down.

Can see a poster for it here:

http://images.nipponcinema.com/news/grotesque_flyer.jpg

There is a trailer for it if you look around, not for the fainthearted. Don't think I will be bothering at all.

Trailer looks shit and the chicks aren't even hot.

This sort of coverage will have people scouting it out, hopefully coming to their own conclusion that despite all the hype it's crap. Most banned films usually are shite.

They don't really learn do they. Most times a film is banned it's all in the newspapers, complaining about it. Yet if they kept quiet, I would think the majority would know nothing about it. They did the same with Anti-Christ. I know quite a few people who wouldn't have thought twice about seeing it yet because of the hype over the disturbing elements, they wanted to see what all the fuss was about.

It does look like it's rather rubbish, a lot who have seen it have said it's complete crap and don't know why they bothered. Oh the majority of these saw it just because it has been banned here.

Although local councils still have the power to overrule BBFC decisions on what can be shown theatrically, it means widespread distribution is almost impossible, and video distribution illegal and liable for prosecution under the Obscene Publications Act. The film was due a DVD release by 4 Digital Asia, who’ve previously brought the likes of TOKYO GORE POLICE to the UK and clearly didn’t expect this decision given the marketing activity that’s already kicked off.

BBFC director David Cooke has stated: ‘‘Unlike other recent ‘torture’-themed horror works, such as the SAW and HOSTEL series, GROTESQUE features minimal narrative or character development and presents the audience with little more than an unrelenting and escalating scenario of humiliation, brutality and sadism. The chief pleasure on offer seems to be in the spectacle of sadism (including sexual sadism) for its own sake… Rejecting a work outright is a serious matter and the board considered whether the issue could be dealt with through cuts. However, given the unacceptable content featured throughout cutting the work is not a viable option in this case and the work is therefore refused a classification.’’

It is extremely frustrating that even in 2009 adults can't even choose for themselves what they can watch. Its ONLY a movie.

Knowing Britain, I doubt any councils will bother to show it in any cinemas.

http://www.dl.bestpatogh.com/film/citrin-grotesque.avi

Is this it?

Think the reason they'll be banning it in the UK is the exceptionally humourous use of "Land of Hope and Glory"...

What's that link, I don't like clicking on weird links on message boards that I don't recognise. 😛

It's the whole film streamed. Don't know if it's the uncut version though.

I only skipped through to see what the fuss was about.

Spoiler:
There is a guy and a girl tied upright to boards. The torturer cuts the guys nipples off then proceeds to finger **** the girl til she cums. Then ties them both down. Cuts the guys fingers off with a chainsaw and makes them into a necklace which he ties around the girl's neck. Cuts the girl's nipples off and her fingers from one hand and her entire other arm. Stuffs one of her fingers up up the guy's nose. Nails his balls to the table and cuts his dick off. Pops the guy's eye out with a long poker thing.

He then nurses them back to health before torturing them again...

Generally quite brutal but to the point of being absurd and hilarious.

They cut nipples off in Ichi the Killer as well, nobody banned that flick!

Regardless of the brief synopsis given this films sounds just like pretty much every video nasty that came out of the US and Italy in the 60s, 70s and 80s. And again I reiterate that just like the vast majority of those it'll most probably be shite as well.

Jaden - Do you know if there was indeed a point or anything like that to the story? or was it just him torturing them and that's it?

Some normal persons review of Grotesque off their blog I found:

So earlier in the week I said how the BBFC have banned the Japanese horror film Grotesque from release, meaning distributing it or selling it in England is illegal. Im wondering if that also counts illegally downloading it and then watching it with fansubs. For yes yesterday afternoon I finally got around to watching the film. Was easy to fit in because of how short it is [1 hour 12 minutes]. So seeing how its such a controversial film im gonna do a proper full big review. So people say it lacks story which it sorta does but lets explain what happens.

Spoiler:
So you see a guy in a van and then these two people walk past and he knocks them out. They wake up strapped to these table type things upright. Anyway the guy talks to them for a while and we get a flashback. We see that the two were on there first date and the woman asks her date if 'she would die for her' which is one annoyance I have. Women, if you were on a first date would you say that? 'Would you die for her' is a big theme in the film because its the question the torturer asks the guy throughout. It makes sense for HIM to say it but not the woman 15 seconds before they get knocked out and shoved in a van. Anyway he said he would and the guy says he wants to be sexually pleasured. So he fingers the female and makes her squirt and wanks off the guy and makes him cum on the womans chest. Thats all the sex there is. the torturer doesnt actually penetrate or anything. So then torturing happens starting off with cutting off all the fingers and then arms and then nipples and yeahh. Theres only like two bursts of gore scenes lasting about 15 minutes and then about 10 minutes near the end. Whilst its true the gore is big when it happens its not that bad. We do see close up of the scissors around the womans nipple and it being cut but with penile mutilation you dont see a lot. Anyway cutting out [no pun] the restof the film till the end - We see the guy decapitate the woman whilst God Save The Queen is playing - I think THAT is the real reason why it was banned. Actually in regards to music there isnt a lot so its VERY strange that a soundtrack was released. Anyway then a stupid thing happens - The decapitated head bites him in the neck. I know they say the brain lives for a few seconds but come on .. It just made the film really stupid [it was dead serious up until that point]. Anyway let me talk technically - The cinematography was amazing indoors. The leveling of the shots is just amazing. The stuff outside [apart from the makeshift graveyard shots] looks really bland and washed out though.

It just has that really great grimey look which is what the film was going for storywise, so its really effective. The directing is schizophrenic. There is some really amazing shots but then theres a lot of bad too AND it does the whole shaky cam bullshit making me wonder if Paul Greengrass was behind the camera. Honestly the film isnt that bad and I enjoyed it, in a sick way. I dont think it should've been banned because honestly its not THAT bad and theres not even that much violence to women - ESPECIALLY not sexual violence. The controversy will get more people watching it and thats a good thing because they'll see its not just violence all throughout and gore. The film is open but I very much doubt we'll be seeing a Grotesque 2. Which for some reason im quite disappointed about. I'll give it a solid 6.8 due to schitzo directing, some lame acting and story lack. But still check it out, its only an hour 12 minutes after all.

I didn't get any kind of sense of a story to it, no. Then again, like I said, there were no subtitles so it was difficult to know if he was torturing them for a reason.

Overall it was just a bit silly. Some parts of the torture were cringe inducing but the ending just ruined any kind of impact the rest of it had.

The

Spoiler:
sexual assaults

Hot.