R- Rated Movies: How Young Is Too Young? Ken Evans. April 1. There is something very wrong going on at our local theaters across the nation. However, the theater is where this problem is cultivated and not where it begins. The origin of this atrocity starts in our homes, the moment a decision to go see a certain film is made; when parents make the choice to see an R- rated movie in the theater and bring their underage child.

The Tomatometer rating – based on the published opinions of hundreds of film and television critics – is a trusted measurement of movie and TV.

Bill Paxton, the versatile actor who appeared in films incuding "Aliens" and "Titanic" and starred on TV in "Big Love," has died.

One of Harry Dean Stanton’s most iconic roles for readers of io9 is bound to be his turn in Alien. In Ridley Scott’s 1979 sci-fi horror film, he plays a mechanic. · There is something very wrong going on at our local theaters across the nation. However, the theater is where this problem is cultivated and not where it. This article uses two films as catalysts to discuss allegorical storytelling in film. Thusly, spoilers for Darren Aronofsky’s “mother!” and, to a lesser extent.

Over the last two years I have seen a major increase of underage children in R- rated films and I can't keep quiet any longer. This issue must be addressed. I'm not bringing up this issue because I think anyone under the age of 1. R- rated film. On the contrary, I believe that to a certain extent, that decision should be left up to the parents or guardian. As it stands now, the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) defines an R- rated movie and their suggestions regarding such films as follows: An R- rated motion picture, in the view of the Rating Board, contains some adult material. An R- rated motion picture may include adult themes, adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually- oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements, so that parents are counseled to take this rating very seriously. Children under 1.

R- rated motion pictures unaccompanied by a parent or adult guardian. Parents are strongly urged to find out more about R- rated motion pictures in determining their suitability for their children. Generally, it is not appropriate for parents to bring their young children with them to R- rated motion pictures. They have come up with a fine definition with which I have no problems. What I want to focus on is the last section where they say: "Parents are strongly urged to find out more about R- rated motion pictures in determining their suitability for their children. Generally, it is not appropriate for parents to bring their young children with them to R- rated motion pictures." Two key points are brought up by the MPAA here. They highly urge parents to learn more about the movie before they decide to take their kids, and they say that overall it probably isn't a good idea to take younger children to an R- rated film.

These are great suggestions which don't seem to be followed, at least not in the films I have been seeing. Do most parents spend any time researching a movie before taking their kids to see it? I highly doubt it.

If they did, would they knowingly subject their 1 to 1. R- rated films? In today's day and age, it shouldn't be hard to at least get some sense of what content is going to be in the movie they are considering seeing. Spending just 5 minutes online learning about a movie could save the child from seeing something that they shouldn't see. That research might also save the audience from having to endure the presence of an underage kid while watching a film they paid to see.

Like I already said, in most cases the decision should be left up to the parent. Hopefully the parents have a good relationship with their kids and have an understanding of their maturity level. I don't think it's my place to tell a parent who brings their 1.

R- rated film. I just always assume that the parent knows what that kid can handle and what would be too much for them at their age. However, I also believe that that line can and has been crossed when I'm sitting next to a 5 or 8 year old while watching Good Luck Chuck or Sweeney Todd.

For those who didn't see The Heartbreak Kid or Good Luck Chuck, they are extremely raunchy comedies. They are filled with adult situations, numerous scenes with graphic nudity, and lots of sexual innuendo in the dialogue. My problem isn't with those films, but with the fact that I was sitting next to some parent who had decided to bring their 8 year old daughter with them for the screening of Good Luck Chuck. Not only were the parents totally fine with their daughter being there, but the agency hosting the screening was giving out beverage holders and t- shirts to many children anywhere from 7 to 1.

They actually brought the kids to the front of the theater to give them their prizes. I felt distracted and uncomfortable during the whole movie knowing that there was this 8 year old child next to me. The parents were laughing away while this young girl just sat their watching without any kind of response. Some might not be bothered by this situation, but for me and many others, it is shocking. Numerous times after movies finish, I hear other people talking about this same issue. Statements like, "Did you see those little kids in the audience?" or "How could parents let their kids see that kind of movie?" It's not just me that's experiencing this and having a problem with it, is it? The problem isn't just that it's distracting having really young children in the theater.

It's also the problems that come with having little kids in the audience. During the showing of Sweeney Todd, the mother of a 9 year old girl sitting to my left had to keep getting up and leaving during the movie. Afterward she apologized for her having to walk in front of me at least three times. She explained by saying that her daughter kept getting scared. I had even noticed while the movie was playing the girl was covering her eyes. Even the little girl had an understanding that she shouldn't be watching Sweeney Todd.

The mother should have known this and decided not to come in the first place. As bad as my experience was during Sweeney Todd, it only got worse.

Later that year I had another experience during a showing of Aliens vs Predator: Requiem. This time some parents not only brought their 4 year old, but also their 1. The baby started crying and every time the dad would get up to take the baby out in the hall, his 4 year old would get up and run out to follow. This pattern probably repeated a total of 1. This was actually a movie I had paid to see since their wasn't a press screening. It's like these parents only think about themselves and don't realize the impact they might have on the audience by bringing their underage children.

Something has to be done for the sake of the other people in the theater. We pay to see these movies and expect a carefree and enjoyable experience for that price. Even during free screenings, the audience is paying with their time, having possibly already stood in line for at least two hours. Audience distractions aside, I believe that there are just some kids that are too young to see these R- rated films.

Reading Film 1. 01: Where “Antichrist” succeeds and “mother!” fails. This article uses two films as catalysts to discuss allegorical storytelling in film. Thusly, spoilers for Darren Aronofsky’s “mother!” and, to a lesser extent, Lars von Trier’s “Antichrist,” ensue. The unspoken standard that underlies Hollywood’s method of film distribution leaves no air for high- risk filmmaking, ultimately saturating the market with palatable products that, more often than not, are guaranteed to earn a healthy sum larger than their budgets at the box office. Films like Darren Aronofsky’s (“Requiem for a Dream,” “Black Swan”) “mother!,” are procedurally released on smaller scales to avoid the risk of tanking their revenue.

But once in a blue moon, studios like Paramount Pictures take the road less traveled, foregoing risks in order to “celebrate original filmmaking.” The divisive word of mouth over “mother!” was galvanizing enough to rush filmgoers to the local theater, eager to determine for themselves whether Aronofsky doubled down on his pretensions of high brow filmmaking or if his latest work was the marvel some claimed it to be. Aronofsky’s “mother!” is, at best, an ambitious psychological horror whose technical feats almost mask its obtuse storytelling.

In more than a few ways, it recalls Lars von Trier’s 2. Antichrist,” as well as Andrzej Zulawski’s 1.

Possession” (“the best break- up movie ever made” per Max Landis). Both films before Aronofsky’s approach the genre in unconventional and humanizing ways before dancing with audience expectations in startling, yet effective, ways. Specifically, the parallels between “Antichrist” and “mother!” are striking enough that viewing both in close succession of one another helps to provide a clearer frame of reference for how filmmakers can create daring arthouse films without alienating viewers via lack of plot.“mother!” can’t be that bad, can it? Courtesy of Paramount Pictures.

No, it’s not. In fact it’s a great film suffocated by its creators ego — not unlike Jennifer Lawrence’s character in the film. The first half successfully establishes an intriguing narrative set in a mansion doubling as Eden about a woman (Jennifer Lawrence) whose husband (Javier Bardem), a writer, refuses to say no to uninvited guests. Where it falters is in its second half, which piledrives its thoroughly engaging plot in the interest of untethering its footing in pseudo- reality and falling to surrealist shock value and shallow symbolism. Adding to the film’s failure is Aronofsky’s disregard for subtlety and open interpretation, opting instead to divulge the film’s entire essence in interviews.

Imagine my surprise leaving the theater, stunned but elated at what I then believed was a densely layered film oscillating between themes of addiction and cyclical existences — only to read Aronofsky essentially state “yeah it’s like a movie about mother nature and the bible and shit.”In hindsight, the film I thought I saw that day wasn’t the one I actually saw; my limited biblical comprehension blinded me to its gauche retelling of stories like Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel. But crediting a character as Him, with every other character lacking any proper name? Not fooling anyone. What’s “Antichrist” got to do with anything? Courtesy of Nordisk Film Distribution.

A lot, actually. It’s easy to watch a film like “mother!,” leave confused and immediately respond with praise simply by virtue of confusion. Royal Crush Season 4 Episode 7 there. Pull the curtains, though, and you got a man on a vintage typewriter, sipping an IPA and replicating the stories of the Bible onto a screenplay, saying nothing new or challenging.“Antichrist” is concerned with how a husband, He (Willem Dafoe), and wife, She (Charlotte Gainsbourg), cope with the grief brought on by the death of their toddler son.

Between the two films, the surface- level similarities are plentiful. Both films follow protagonists with generic names, with the female protagonist entering a state of mania owed to some degree by their male partners; both films take place in an area surrounded by greenery serving as a metaphor for the garden of Eden; both films make reference to the bible; both films delight in shocking the audience with scenes some would label obscene. But what’s more important is how each film’s director decides to go about telling their metaphorically dense stories.

Like “mother!,” “Antichrist’s” second half is not fully lucid, yet it isn’t seeped in allegorical storytelling as to dissociate its plot from its artistic vision. So what does it do better?“Antichrist’”s second half is not fully lucid, yet it isn’t seeped in allegorical storytelling as to dissociate its plot from its artistic vision. Chiefly, the task of following a story to its conclusion. Antichrist” is a story about a man and a woman who penetrate the deepest reaches of Eden and discover the frailty of human nature. It’s about depression and it’s about misogyny and it’s about perspective.

It isn’t an easy film to consume by any stretch of the imagination — recommendations should arrive with a disclaimer of its gruesome depictions of violence, most notoriously that which is aimed at genitals in full view of the camera. Watch Dragon Nest: Warriors` Dawn Download Full. It’s vile yet beautiful, pretentious and rich at once.

Courtesy of Paramount Pictures“mother!” isn’t really about anything. It’s a retelling of biblical stories whose aim is to tell its audience, slackjawed, that “mother earth good, human bad.” When it unloads its symbolism, it’s disguised about as well as Von Trier disguising his absurdity (read: insanity). Granted, it’s a visual and sonic tour de force for Aronofsky and his crew; denying the director’s ability to create tension is simply a lie, and the mystery surrounding a recurring powdery substance is reason alone for some degree of credit. But substantially, it doesn’t have the lasting power of an “Antichrist” or a “Possession.”A fine balance has to be drawn between the obscure and the tangible for an arthouse film to succeed. A film inextricably bound to its allegory, like “mother!,” leaves little for audiences to appreciate and even less space for interpretation in its rigid symbolism. What’s the deal with the three beggars in “Antichrist”?

Don’t ask von Trier, because he won’t tell you; follow the clues and trust your intuition and find substance in the abstract. What’s the deal with the baby in “mother!”? It’s Jesus. Donezo, no personal resonance, no reason to revisit and reconfigure the story to view that aspect differently.