Tuesday, September 02, 2014

"Inherent Vice" Receives "R" Rating

There's reportedly quite a bit that separates Inherent Vice from the rest of Paul Thomas Anderson's body of work, but one thing it shares with all six of the features preceding it is that the MPAA has deemed it ill-fitting for anyone under the age of 17, dispelling a slightly distressing premonition we had recently.

Inherent Vice has been Rated R, and if the description is any indication, the film has something for everyone: drug use throughout, sexual content, graphic nudity, language, and some violence.

Sounds like this one's got teeth!

IV (theatrical premiere): 101 days
IV (world premiere): 32 days

Find more information about the film on our Inherent Vice page. 
Stay tuned to Twitter and Facebook for the latest news and updates


  1. Awww yeah, I expected none the less from PT but this only gets me more pumped

  2. The man could make a G Rated kids film in which eight cats cross paths in Canoga Park and I'd still watch it. I was curious though, after reading Vice, how it could possibly receive less than R. Very excited for the trailer. It feels close.

  3. A PG-13 treatment would have been completely, utterly, shockingly wrong for this material but I wouldn't mind seeing PTA try something more accessible or "family-friendly" one day. I don't mean in a compromising way, but just that he has that old-school Production Code era sensibility in him and would probably turn out something rather charming and still completely identifiable as his voice. Like his "Straight Story" or "Hugo".

    Also, wasn't There Will Be Blood's R rating really just for that shot of Eli at the very end? That one's pretty much a PG-13 movie.

    1. There Will Be Blood was originally rated 12's in the UK but the film-makers/studio actually requested a 15's because they didn't think 12 year olds would be mature enough for it or something like that.

    2. Same thing went down in the states it got a PG-13 and they petitioned for an R.

    3. How do you guys know this? It seems hard to believe that the studios would petition for more restrictive ratings.

    4. Hm yeah, I don't know. I actually remember hearing something about that but it does seem crazy that a studio would deny themselves a wider audience. Did it have any test screenings beforehand? Maybe it didn't go down well with teenagers and Paramount Vantage was afraid of bad WOM since it's "slow" and "boring."

    5. According to IMDB:
      The film was originally given a 12A rating in the U.K. for cinema exhibition, meaning that children of any age could see it, with adult supervision if they were younger than twelve years. In a curious move, the distributors subsequently appealed to the British Board of Film Classification to consider raising the certificate. The B.B.F.C. agreed, and the film was subsequently uprated to a more restrictive 15, preventing those younger than fifteen years from being admitted to screenings regardless of parental supervision.

  4. http://fillermagazine.com/culture/film/celebrity-news-interviews-sasha-pieterse-of-pretty-little-liars-and-inherent-vice/

    Sasha Pietrese says a little about the movie

  5. first official image of Katherine Waterston released!


  6. The rating has its basis. I am sure many will watch this.