What's new

L.I.E. - Question about Canadian vs. US release (1 Viewer)

Rain

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2001
Messages
5,015
Real Name
Rain
I just picked up the Canadian version (released by Alliance Atlantis) of this DVD yesterday. Unfortunately, I found out shortly thereafter that the US release contains a director's commentary and deleted scenes, which are absent from the Canadian version.

I was hoping there might be someone out there who could answer a few questions about this:

- Is the transfer the same on the US disc? (The one I have is VERY nice)

- Is the Canadian disc the "unrated" version?

- Out of curiousity, does anyone know the difference between the "rated" and "unrated" versions?

Thanks!
 

DeeF

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 19, 2002
Messages
1,689
I couldn't say anything about the Canadian release. I have bought the U.S. release, and it says right on the cover "unrated." I think the only thing different are a few shots of the friend in his underwear.

The transfer is indeed perfect.
 

Rain

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2001
Messages
5,015
Real Name
Rain
I think the only thing different are a few shots of the friend in his underwear.
htf_images_smilies_smiley_jawdrop.gif

Alright, that settles it, I'm importing one!
 

Matt Pelham

Screenwriter
Joined
Mar 13, 2002
Messages
1,711


???????

I'm sorry, but there's now way a couple of undie shots can be the difference between an R-rated movie and it's unrated (NC-17) equivalent.
 

Steve Tannehill

R.I.P - 4.28.2015
Senior HTF Member
Deceased Member
Joined
Jul 6, 1997
Messages
5,547
Location
DFW
Real Name
Steve Tannehill
If I recall the commentary correctly, some of the dialogue was cut from the first visit to Big John's lair. I believe the rest of the movie is intact (i.e., no other differences).

The movie's web site has some publicity articles on the troubles this movie had with the MPAA. If I can track down the link, I'll post it here later.

- Steve
 

Rain

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2001
Messages
5,015
Real Name
Rain
Thanks, guys.
I'm still not sure if the Canadian DVD sports the "unrated" version, but either way I've decided to import one, as I'm very interested in the commentary and deleted scenes. So long as I know that the US version is NOT an inferior transfer (and it sounds like it isn't--in fact, it's probably the same one), I'm sold.
The link to the film's official site is: Link Removed
According to the site, there are 3 additional scenes in the "unrated" version, though I can't find anywhere where it's specified what they are. :confused:
 

Rob W

Screenwriter
Joined
May 23, 1999
Messages
1,233
Real Name
Robert
Most of the time these films with sexual or controversial content end up playing in their original cuts in Canadian theatres, since we don't seem to be nearly as paranoid about these things. Monster's Ball & American Psycho were two recent examples. I'm fairly sure the original, "unrated" cut played in Canada ( with various provincial ratings applied ) and thus the DVD can't be accurately advertised as 'unrated" in Canada.
 

Jeff Kleist

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 4, 1999
Messages
11,266
Gay sex is automatically an R rating, and they love to give it NC-17

meanwhile bare breasts and horrific violence continue to be PG-13
 

Daniel J

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
May 8, 2001
Messages
186
"Unrated" does not necessarily indicate NC-17!
It simply means the studio added footage and didn't submit the new version for rating, hence 'unrated'.
You could make a film "unrated" by removing scenes, IIRC.
Gay sex is automatically an R rating, and they love to give it NC-17
meanwhile bare breasts and horrific violence continue to be PG-13
First, which PG-13 movie was it which had bare breasts?
Second, Why shouldn't "Gay sex" be R-Rated? The ratings system is designed to warn people about scenes which are "disturbing"/"inappropriate for young viewers", and I'm pretty sure explicit portrayals of homosexuality are high on any sensitive person's list of scenes which fall under those categories. (The same goes for explicit heterosexuality).
Then again, this discussion probably isn't supposed to be happening (sorry, Ron), so I'll let my point stand and not push this debate.
 

Steve Tannehill

R.I.P - 4.28.2015
Senior HTF Member
Deceased Member
Joined
Jul 6, 1997
Messages
5,547
Location
DFW
Real Name
Steve Tannehill
Airplane! had bare breasts, and it was only PG.
L.I.E. has a few seconds of vigorous sex between a man and a woman, and talk (not sex) between two male characters, one of whom is a minor. There is a later scene where sex might be an end result, but it is not consumated. And for this, L.I.E. was going to be given an NC-17.
American Beauty was very similar except that the minor was a girl. American Beauty was only R-rated.
The issue with L.I.E. is what distinguishes an R-rating from an NC-17 rating, and whether that standard applies to other movies that don't cross into "gay" territory.
- Steve
 

Mark Pfeiffer

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 27, 1999
Messages
1,339
I'm pretty sure L.I.E. was released unrated during its theatrical run in the U.S. Lot 47 put a big explanation in the press kit about why they did this and the hypocrisy of the NC-17 rating. I'd post some of it, except I have no idea where it might be (and chances are I probably pitched it after I didn't need it).
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
I'm pretty sure L.I.E. was released unrated during its theatrical run in the U.S.
That's correct, and it's part of the reason why the release was so limited. It was at only one or two theaters in NYC. Having never seen the R-rated version, I have no idea what the differences are between the two.

M.
 

Jean-Michel

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 28, 2002
Messages
769
I should point out that Airplane was PG because there was no PG-13 at the time. Jimmy Hollywood was PG-13 and it had bare breasts. Radioland Murders had them and it was only PG. I can't think of any relatively recent PG or PG-13 movies that had them, though.

L.I.E. was actually released theatrically with an NC-17 rating. I double-checked an old newspaper I had lying around with an ad for the movie in and the NC-17 is prominently displayed. As pointed out, though, Lot 47 didn't take it lying down and launched a campaign to do more or less what Roger Ebert is doing and create a new "A" rating (which I think is equally problematic but I won't go into that here). Unfortunately, Lot 47 subsequently threw their edgy anti-PC credentials out the window when they pushed waydowntown back three months and eventually denied it anything approaching a wide release, apparently because they were worried it might offend some people in the wake of September 11 (?!??!). Hopefully New Yorker will release it on DVD fairly soon, I actually ended up importing the VHS (ugh) from Canada when it became clear it was never going to leave NYC.

Okay.......I seem to have run off on a tangent there. Sorry. Anyway, um, uh, down with the Man, and that, yeah.
 

Daniel J

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
May 8, 2001
Messages
186
I'm sorry if it seemed I was commenting on this movie in particular, I've never heard of it before. I was simply commenting on a statement made.

As for the PG-13 movies mentioned with partial nudity, that's pretty scary! I'm glad they've changed the categories to make them 'more' realistic, but I also agree that there's lots of room for improvment (I dislike the R rating, it's far too vague to tell you anything about the movie)
What specifically is the problem everyone has with the NC-17 category? Does it force restrictions on where the movie can be shown, or does it simply make the theater owners hesitate to show the movie?
 

Rob W

Screenwriter
Joined
May 23, 1999
Messages
1,233
Real Name
Robert
Many theatres also have lease restrictions with landlords that prohibit the exhibition of x-rated or NC-17 films.
 

Rain

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2001
Messages
5,015
Real Name
Rain
For the benefit of anyone who cares, I can now confirm that the Canadian DVD does feature the unrated cut of the film.
Still I would recommend the US version, as the Director's commentary is quite interesting. Haven't listened to the Brian Cox commentary yet, though, and the deleted scenes are nothing to write home about.
(Thanks to Elizabeth S for sending me the DVD :) )
_________
For the benefit of anyone who doesn't care, you should see this film! :emoji_thumbsup:
 

Gary Tooze

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2000
Messages
3,055
I found this to be an amazing DVD (The New Yorker Video R1 version)

• 2 Audio Commentaries. One by director Michael Cuesta and one by actor Brian Cox.
• Trailer: Non anamorphic ( 1:56 )
• 2 Trailers for other New Yorker Releases :
"Happenstance" - non-anamorphic ( 1:40 ), "Life is to Whistle" - non-anamorphic ( 1:40 )
• 3 Deleted Scenes totaling ( 3:29 )
• No subtitles
My full graphic review of the DVD is HERE
Probabaly the best New Yorker DVD I own... (and I own a lot :) !)
 

David Lawson

Screenwriter
Joined
Sep 11, 2000
Messages
1,365
Location
Cincinnati, OH
Real Name
David Lawson
A quick follow-up on bare breasts in recent PG-13 movies, if I may...Titanic is obviously one. And, yes, I'm ashamed to know that.

L.I.E. was in Cincinnati for a week theatrically, NC-17 and all, which is quite something, considering that the theater playing it was busted for discretely removing a (heterosexual) scene from The Center Of The World which was deemed "inappropriate for the community" by the theater owner.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,818
Messages
5,123,899
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top