Page Summary
Active Entries
- 1: Interesting Links for 23-09-2025
- 2: Interesting Links for 24-09-2025
- 3: Photo cross-post
- 4: Oddly recurrent stomach issues
- 5: Interesting Links for 22-09-2025
- 6: Photo cross-post
- 7: Life with two kids: International Demon-Hunter Shipping
- 8: Interesting Links for 19-09-2025
- 9: Interesting Links for 21-09-2025
- 10: Interesting Links for 20-09-2025
Style Credit
- Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2011-06-07 11:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-07 11:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-07 12:16 pm (UTC)Judging by the BFBC's comments, the sequel is nothing like the first. Also, it is very rare for a film to be refused a licence nowadays. I just checked and only 1 other film has been "banned" since 1993.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-07 01:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-07 02:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-07 01:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-07 11:24 am (UTC)Refusing a certificate doesn't mean 'banning' a film. It means it won't be approved for general release in cinemas or on DVD. It is not illegal to download it (well, y'know, it is, but...) or watch it at all if you go the extra mile to obtain it.
It does mean that you can't wander into your local picture house, say "oh, that looks like an interesting film," and wind up seeing - well, a more disturbing sequel to Human Centipede.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-07 11:49 am (UTC)Bailey Report
Date: 2011-06-07 12:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-07 12:21 pm (UTC)