This is soooo last month.

The '15' certificate has killed this film at the UK box office.



Young teenagers (who it seems to be aimed at) can't see it because of the '15' rating.



But the adult market are not going to come for it because from the trailers it looks like a kids/teens film.





We might have got better attendance with a 12a rating.

@Mikeyb: I think more likely the promotion budget has more to do with that. As much as we all hate advertising and it's ilk, the fact remains that a sizeable proportion of the target demographic will not go and see the film unless an advert is beamed directly from their ayeTelephones into their credulous brainboxes.



I'm not saying that advertising guarantees a film's success though - one only has to look at this list of box office flops for evidence of that - just that in most cases it's generally considered a pre-requisite, with some notable exceptions...

Pretty much agree with the good doctors analysis thought it was a enjoyable piece of work with something for people of most ages. The writing was very clever and witty and the references were well judged and smart.



My only negative was the last 20 minutes which lacked the ingenuity of that preceded it. Hence I didn't feel it was a satisfactory end to the story but not enough to detract my enjoyment.

The otherwise good Dr is never more laughable than when he tries to get down with the kids by defending trite teenage flicks.

@Vincent Kane- quick suggestion. Try seeing Easy A before you snark. It's no Twilight, that's for sure. It's actually rather excellent.

Can anyone explain why it is 15 certificate? There's no nudity, certainly no violence, the only possible reason can be bad language. But maybe I just hear so much swering that my ears are deadened to it because I didn't notice any in the film.

But despite the lack of sex, violence and bad language I still enjoyed it, so it must have been really good.

I saw Easy A this afternoon and pretty much agree with all the positive comments made so far.

It's a good film, which has got enough in it to appeal beyond it's teen / high school setting. An excellent main performance by Emma Stone (she's going to be a big star) and good support from Stanley Tucci, Patricia Clarkson and Thomas Hayden Church - who all manage to deliver memorable characters from rather small roles.

Recommend checking it out.

(For Lidhead) The BBFC rated it 15 for "frequent moderate sex references"



"The sex references occur throughout the film and there is almost-continuous banter between the teenage characters about such matters as losing one's 'v-card' (ie virginity), orgasms, breast-size and sexual fantasising. The film also contains a few references to sexually transmitted infections, with a rumour circulating that the imaginary boyfriend of the lead character "gave you crabs" and another character accusing the girl of giving him chlamydia. In one scene, a boy and girl pretend to have sex at a party, while others listen at the door. We hear them whooping and moaning and the girl pretends to beat the boy on the buttocks. The boy says "I'm gonna turn you round and take you from the back" and the girl punches him in the stomach in order to mimic the sound of climaxing. The scene is comic, but is quite lengthy.



In another scene, the lead character receives a present labelled 'Something to screw yourself with'. It is a box containing a wrapped, dildo-shaped gift. Although we do not see the object, it is quite clear what it is. The BBFC's Guidelines at '12A'/'12' state that 'Sexual activity may be briefly and discreetly portrayed' and that 'Sex references should not go beyond what is suitable for young teenagers.' The frequency of the sex references and the inclusion of cruder references to sex toys, STIs and similar meant that the film was more appropriately placed at '15'.



The film also contains some moderate language, including uses of moderate language. There are also some drug references, when the lead character is offered a marijuana bong by a friend's parent. However, she refuses the drugs and the parents are not likely to be regarded as role models."



Fair enough i guess i think its a shame it didn't do better though, i went to see it in an almost empty screening room. I thought it was very good and a fitting tribute to John Hughes which was elevated by a lovely lead perdormance from Emma Stone.

Am I missing something? Teens follow age-restrictions? and would never dream of carrying fake idea or lying? When I was 14, I would only watch 15 and 18 films. I just think the distributor and studio don't get it - another surprise, Hollywood is out of touch with it's audience.

(Rosko) Nobody is saying that teenagers dont lie about their age but allot of people are dettered from going going to see film which they are not old enough to go see. What do you mean the studio's dont get it? I wouldn't have wanted them to take and of those things out to lower the rating because it would have made the film less enjoyable.



It is also the BBFC's job to classify films and weather people are going to lie to get into those films their purpose is to give them a rating.



Are you saying the BBFC just shouldnt bother because youger audiences are going to see them anyway and let toddlers go see I Spit on you Grave?

all* of those things

I think the BBFC do a reasonable job - did I criticise them? Mark has pointed out examples of big mistakes they have made in the past (e.g. in relation to horror) but nowadays they seem to be generally one of the more progressive 'censors'.



The point, which you've totally bypassed, is that the studio's advertising campaign misunderstands the film - as a result, I would not have thought twice about the film if Mark had not reviewed it. If the advertising had understood the artistic merit of the film and how its wit might have particularly appealed to younger people from 13 to 21 (approx.), then the rating would be fairly insignificant in hindering the success - particularly for DVD rental, because young people don't aim to watch 'age appropriate' films anyway. Judging by Mark's review it does not deserve to be a flop, but because the money men don't know where to place the film, it looks like it will flop. Juno was rated 15, but I'm sure plenty of 14 year olds saw it, because of the word of mouth and net coverage. Basically, the film maker should be able to do their own commercial and direct the campaign rather than being at the mercy of the madmen.

You want to put Donald Draper out of a job?



i only saw one trailer for it and i guess certain films just hidden behind other films whith huge advertising campaghns. I do recomend you see it eather now before it leaves the cinema or get it on DVD it realy is worth watching.



As for the BBFC i would be weary of then because they have started cutting films again and i am pretty worried.

On the strength of this review I did go and see it and was surprised to hear myself, and others, laughing out loud at unexpected delightful moments in the script.



It was a shame the rating was '15' but this will become a successful dvd as the teen market will watch it at home; a natural follow-on from Mean Girls.



I was surprised and pleased to see some fun making of the Jesus squad at the school, how daft they can be and overdue in Hollywood comedies. A fantastic night out at the cinema.