criterionforum.org

It makes perfect sense once you factor in that this version (or the closest to it) has only been viewable in standard definition Digibeta up to now. "Remastered" covers that side of things.

I don't think I'm mistaking when saying remastering means that the presentation is based on an existing digital master (scan, master, whatever) which has been re-exported in a newer (theoretically better) version, eg Patton without the DNR, Aliens but with the AI sloppy upscale, now with moer clean-up, whatever.

As the Cannes Classics verbiage says it, The Devils' new presentation simply is a 4k restoration like so many others exist, which is why it doesn't need to state it's Remastered. It's technically not the case, except it's not a new full-fledge restoration but a retooling of a previous master which this is not, and it already states "restored and uncensored" anyway, which covers all the technical and content grounds.

Otherwise, it means most little-seen newly-restored movies could warrant using both terms... which they don't !

domino harvey wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2026 12:08 am

Never Cursed wrote: Mon Aug 10, 2026 5:35 pm One wonders if they specifically requested the NC-17 rating

Based on its prominence/proximity on the poster, they certainly courted it at any rate

Can anyone who has seen this remark on whether it's even warranted in this case? A Clockwork Orange, for example, if shown in theaters tomorrow, would be rated R (as it was re-rated as such in the US a few years after the initial X release). An NC-17 in 2026 does really feel like a publicity stunt type of thing. Is this film really as crazy as all that?

It’s been a long time since I watched the bootleg composite cut but you could tell quality wise which shots were reinserted and I thought at the time it wasn’t all that distinguishable from what was left in the released version in terms of salacious material. It’s still outre material for a film with big, respectable stars, but we see boutique labels release stuff 100X more shocking on a monthly basis

mfunk9786 wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2026 2:34 pm

domino harvey wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2026 12:08 am

Never Cursed wrote: Mon Aug 10, 2026 5:35 pm One wonders if they specifically requested the NC-17 rating

Based on its prominence/proximity on the poster, they certainly courted it at any rate

Can anyone who has seen this remark on whether it's even warranted in this case? A Clockwork Orange, for example, if shown in theaters tomorrow, would be rated R (as it was re-rated as such in the US a few years after the initial X release). An NC-17 in 2026 does really feel like a publicity stunt type of thing. Is this film really as crazy as all that?

I assume they actually went through the process of paying the MPAA to view and assess it, and that is how they garnered the NC-17 rating.

It was recently submitted for classification and received an NC-17, it’s actually included with the new ratings in the MPAA’s most recent bulletin dated 8/12/26

mfunk9786 wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2026 2:34 pm

domino harvey wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2026 12:08 am

Never Cursed wrote: Mon Aug 10, 2026 5:35 pm One wonders if they specifically requested the NC-17 rating

Based on its prominence/proximity on the poster, they certainly courted it at any rate

Can anyone who has seen this remark on whether it's even warranted in this case? A Clockwork Orange, for example, if shown in theaters tomorrow, would be rated R (as it was re-rated as such in the US a few years after the initial X release). An NC-17 in 2026 does really feel like a publicity stunt type of thing. Is this film really as crazy as all that?

The offending sequence that was added to the 2004 cut is frenetic, overamped, and involves a lot of nudity, but no, there's no real reason for the movie to share a rating with the uncut Pink Flamingos. I genuinely think they requested the NC-17.

As I recall from that doc about the MPAA, when you submit the board tells you what elements could be trimmed to resubmit for a new rating, so it could be something extremely minor that prompted the rating and WB just stuck with it. I do know that the MPAA has a history of encouraging “quality” films to keep their NC-17 rating to remove the stigma of it (Boogie Nights was one for sure) so while technically they shouldn’t be influenced to provide it, they may be incentivized to give it to a film that they have it on good authority would keep the rating

But I've also heard of movies asking for the higher rating in some cases. The most famous example I can think of, though obviously not involving an adult movie, is the MPAA offering the original Star Wars a G rating and Fox asking for a PG rating in part because they thought teenagers would find a G-rated film "uncool"

Yes, that has def occurred (I hadn’t heard about Star Wars but I recall some teen movies in the nineties who rejected a PG rating to get PG-13 for similar reasons) but I believe they still had to resubmit with new offending material inserted. I know there is an appeals process but it’s kind of funny if it also works backwards (can you imagine the defense in a criminal case appealing because their client’s punishment was too light?). But this is also a body who reasoned that the Remains of the Day merited a PG rating for containing, and I quote in full, “Themes”, so…

The new re-release trailer continues the short & sweet approach but has more content than the re-release teaser.

Would be nice to see these in theaters, they standout from the usual trailers and are quite effective.

GaryC wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2026 7:01 am For what it's worth, the copy of The Last of the Mobile Hot-Shots which is on a certain video-sharing site has a Warner-Seven Arts ident at the start,so as you say made before the change of ownership and released after it. (It has a 1969 copyright date.) The version of Stop on another video-sharing site, which begins with an X rating card, has a Warner-Kinney ident.

For the production history of Stop I'm going off of Christopher Sieving's Pleading the Blood, which states that shooting started in December 1969 (after the sale to Kinney) but credits WB-Seven Arts head of production Kenneth Hyman for giving the green light. It also says that WB was still planning release the film even in late 1971 and that it may have held test screenings in Texas, but they finally buried it in the spring of '72 after deciding to sell some of its unwanted Seven Arts inheritances to television—since no TV outlet of the time would touch something like Stop, it just got shelved instead.

Lowry_Sam wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2026 5:08 pm The new re-release trailer continues the short & sweet approach but has more content than the re-release teaser.

Would be nice to see these in theaters, they standout from the usual trailers and are quite effective.

I wondered if they hired the editor who did the opening credits of Enter the Void. Now that I think about it, The Substance comes to mind as well.

domino harvey wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2026 3:22 pm But this is also a body who reasoned that the Remains of the Day merited a PG rating for containing, and I quote in full, “Themes”, so…

Reminds me of how many kid-to-family films nowadays (that certainly would've been G-rated a few decades prior) receive a PG on the basis of "thematic elements".

Captain Paranoia wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2026 5:20 pm

domino harvey wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2026 3:22 pm But this is also a body who reasoned that the Remains of the Day merited a PG rating for containing, and I quote in full, “Themes”, so…

Reminds me of how many kid-to-family films nowadays (that certainly would've been G-rated a few decades prior) receive a PG on the basis of "thematic elements".

The G-rating essentially going extinct is insane. It was a huge deal when films like The Black Cauldron garnered a PG, and now every single Disney/Pixar film gets it

HardNight'sDay wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2026 5:17 pm

Lowry_Sam wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2026 5:08 pm The new re-release trailer continues the short & sweet approach but has more content than the re-release teaser.

Would be nice to see these in theaters, they standout from the usual trailers and are quite effective.

I wondered if they hired the editor who did the opening credits of Enter the Void. Now that I think about it, The Substance comes to mind as well.

I wish films always credited whoever cut the trailer. I know the same guy did Pulp Fiction and Clerks, which are both brilliant. I read a memoir from the man responsible for making Castle Rock’s golden years trailers, including for Misery and The Shawshank Redemption

A 35mm print is getting a weeklong run at the American Cinematheque’s Aero Theatre in Santa Monica.

In case there remained any doubt: NYFF’s page for the new restoration gives it a runtime of 114 minutes (the same as the 2004 version), and notes that it was made from the original negative to conform to the 2004 restoration. So the material that Warners and the BBFC mandated to be cut (further details of injury, torture, and sexual contact, the “red crotch” mummer) appears to still be gone, and probably destroyed permanently.

beamish14 wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2026 6:08 pm

Captain Paranoia wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2026 5:20 pm

domino harvey wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2026 3:22 pm But this is also a body who reasoned that the Remains of the Day merited a PG rating for containing, and I quote in full, “Themes”, so…

Reminds me of how many kid-to-family films nowadays (that certainly would've been G-rated a few decades prior) receive a PG on the basis of "thematic elements".

The G-rating essentially going extinct is insane. It was a huge deal when films like The Black Cauldron garnered a PG, and now every single Disney/Pixar film gets it

The shift mainly happened after Shrek got a PG. Which was actually earned due to its sometimes crude parody comedy. But it gave license to studios getting PG for any animated film with "mischief" and "themes," and now they basically avoid G like live action all ages films learned to avoid it in the 70s. They used to have a slight exception for a series that started G, which is how Toy Story 3 and Toy Story 4 got a G rating, but now even that is too far with Toy Story 5 being PG even though it's no more troublesome than the previous four. But lookout! - there's "some thematic elements and rude humor."

So now PG basically means "for kids, but cool, so you don't have to be embarrassed in public because you're a person that we assume lacks self-confidence in your entertainment choices," and G means "for toddlers and parents forced to watch something that barely has a story."

Which has also led to nearly all live action films abandoning PG for PG-13. So we're basically where we were in the early 80s. G isn't really used, animated films for families get PG, all live action get PG-13 and R, and then a few outliers get NC-17. They've just shifted 1982's G/PG/R to PG/PG-13/R, but slowly enough for most average people to not notice.

No one's really looking at the ratings anyway except some parents who haven't discovered far better content guides online, so no real big deal, but I find it a fascinating social and marketing phenomenon.

Wow I hate that.

I'm not a fan of the editing either.

In all fairness to the BFI, it was Clockwork's trailer first

I love it and the previous trailer. My favorite trailers of the year. It does make it look like a Gaspar Noe flic & that propbably adds more appeal to the yungins who weren't around when it came out & know nothing about it, whereas the old folks are more likely to go based on its reputation.

Although they did miss a trick by not going with a slowed down, sad and mournful, tinkly piano version of Bye, Bye Blackbird, or maybe the jazz version!