‘The Expendables 2′ To Be Rated PG-13 Because of Chuck Norris [Updated]

Published 2 years ago by , Updated January 20th, 2012 at 8:47 am,

chuck norris expendables 2 rating The Expendables 2 To Be Rated PG 13 Because of Chuck Norris [Updated]

Considering that The Expendables 2 will feature a who’s who of macho male action icons, be chock-full of explosion-happy set pieces, and aims to embrace the model of testosterone-fueled blockbuster romps that were all the rage in the 1980s and ’90s – even more so than the first film – it is assumed that this would be a very hard R-Rated movie, right?

Well, apparently that might not be the case after all, as the screenplay for the Expendables sequel is said to have been watered down to a PG-13 Rating, thanks to (bizarre though it may seem at first) co-star Chuck Norris.

Norris was interviewed recently by the Polish paper Kazeta. That story was thereafter translated by Expendables Premiere into English, which fished out a comment from the Walker, Texas Ranger actor about how “playing in this movie was a lot of fun. I play a super hero, who saves everybody’s life” – along with the following tidbit:

“In Expendables 2, there was a lot of vulgar dialogue in the screenplay. For this reason, many young people wouldn’t be able to watch this. But I don’t play in movies like this. Due to that I said I won’t be a part of that if the hardcore language is not erased. Producers accepted my conditions and the movie will be classified in the category of PG-13.”

Now, Norris is not at all shy when it comes to letting people know about his Conservative outlook; so, the idea of him demanding that Expendables 2 not feature an excess of f-bombs isn’t so ridiculous. Seeing how star/co-writer Sylvester Stallone was reportedly very determined to get just about every aging, muscle-bound badass of the silver screen onboard for the second Expendables, it’s certainly possible he might’ve agreed to remove some of the more naughty language from the film’s screenplay, in order to snag Norris.

That said: seeing how the above quote was translated from English into Polish and then back again, some errors might’ve popped up, in the process. Hence, Norris might’ve actually meant that Expendables 2 just won’t feature anything worse than PG-13 Rated language – as opposed to the film itself being tailor-fit for anything lower than an R-Rating, as a whole (violence included).

[Update: Stallone confirmed the PG-13 rating with AICN but promises the film will deliver on the action. If the overall movie is better than the first and the action stars do what they do best, then it won't matter in the end. Below is Sly's quote.]

“…the film is fantastic with Van Damme turning in an inspired performance… Our final battle is one for the ages. The PG13 rumor is true, but before your readers pass judgement, trust me when I say this film is LARGE in every way and delivers on every level. This movie touches on many emotions which we want to share with the broadest audience possible, BUT, fear not, this Barbeque of Grand scale Ass Bashing will not leave anyone hungry…”

The Expendables 2 Maggie The Expendables 2 To Be Rated PG 13 Because of Chuck Norris [Updated]

"Remember, guys: no bad language while killing the terrorists, cool?"

For the time being (and for the sake of discussion) let’s just assume that Expendables 2 is going to be Rated PG-13. Is that, per se, a bad thing?

Well, on the one hand, studio heads should like the idea; after all, PG-13 movies tend to be much more lucrative than R-Rated films. Plus, seeing how a good chunk of the blood and guts spilled in the first Expendables flick was either CGI or digitally-rendered, it probably wouldn’t require an extremely different filmmaking approach to produce a PG-13 sequel. Not to mention, naughty language wasn’t really that big an aspect of the first Expendables movie, anyway.

However, graphic violence and cursing is a big part of many decades-old action classics (ex. Rambo, Commando, Die Hard, etc.), so for Expendables 2 to truly be a fitting homage to those kind of movies, it should arguably feature plenty of both. Otherwise, it seems to defeat the purpose of making an action movie throwback in the first place.

What do you think? Are you cool with the idea of The Expendables 2 being Rated PG-13? Or will you be skipping the theatrical cut of the film if it’s anything less than R-Rated?

[poll id="252"]

Source: Kazeta (via Expendables Premiere and The Playlist)

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: the expendables, the expendables 2

189 Comments - Comments are closed.

  1. I seem to recall a story about Michael Bay hanging signs around the set of Armageddon that said “no swearing” because the studio wanted to market a PG-13 movie vs. an R-rated movie. Personally I think a screenwriter worth their weight can make a story interesting without expletives. On the other hand, I think Mr. Norris might have been better off saying he doesn’t star in those type of movies ‘anymore’.

    • @ Jason. Thank You! he should just move on and be done with these types of movie’s.I hate to say it but Sly should’ve just went on and recruited Steven Segal.

      • I agree. I am praying that there’s a Steven Seagal Cameo in there somewhere.. Just make sure Van Damn is not on set that’s all!

        • Why do you say that? Do JCVD and Seagal have beef or something?..

          • Yeah they have serious beef with each other. Van Damn does not like Segal at all, and even stated to Stallone that he will not do the movie if Seagal is in it. They have had beef since the 90′s when Steve said that Van Damn is not being honest about his Martial Arts background. Segal said he never heard of Van Damn back in the day. Van Damn Challenged Segal to a fight at Stallones house party. He asked Segal to step outside, and Segal was not interested in fighting outside. Since then, they have not spoken.

            Segal might not want to be involved in the movie anyways, cause he has beef with the producer.

            • Lol!

              • I know right DJB?? You can’t make this stuff up!!! lmao :D

                • Egos are very, very big in Hollywoodland.

                  Vic

                • No wonder why they never made a movie together like some people had anticipated.

    • Agreed! This “I-can’t-enjoy-a-movie-if-it’s-not-packed-with-profanity” mindset is absurd. I recall the caterwauling that accompanied the last Die Hard installment: What?!?!? PG-13??? No fully enunciated “Yipee-eye- kiy-yayyy Mother F*****r”? Why, it’s gotta stink!

      Believe it or not, there is a sizable audience out here who actually find the pointless cursing that is de rigeur in much of today’s cinema an exasperating distraction. I applaud Chuck Norris for taking a stand. And, I have to say, I’m a little disappointed that Sly didn’t go this route with or without Norris’s input. Word is Stallone personally has taken a more conservative, religiously-traditional turn in the past several years. I’d hope that would be reflected in his films rendering exciting, inspirational and entertaining stories w/out bombarding our ears with f-bombs, scatological proclamations, and irreverant uses of God’s name. And, as noted in the article above, PG and PG-13 films tend consistently to win more at the box office than their R-rated counterparts. So Stallone could end up with a victory of taste, principle and ticket sales all in one in this sequel. Two thumbs up from me.

      • Principle? Are you kidding me? The hypocrisy is just exuding from that comment. Seriously?! So, what a person says while he’s blowing a hole through someones head makes any kind of difference? You’re serious about this religious stuff? That’s such nonsense! Golly Gee Darn, my semi-automatic is stuck. I guess I have to stab him in the chest 39 times then- Dag Nabbit- Sugar! Wow. So the movie reels could be dripping blood (CGI- or otherwise), but as long as there’s no cursing Stallone is moral? Chuck Norris is a @#$head seriously. He wants the poor little kids to be able to see his movie about testosterone overdosed guys blowing each other away with the most advanced weapons on the market. Wow great. I smell a guy that wants extra ticket sales that’s what I smell. I smell an elitist morally high perched person who’s hiding behind swear words to get more seats in the chair. Let’s call it how we see it. We’e not F@#$kin stupid. Gosh Darnit!

        • Wow, someone has a chip on his shoulder…

        • Hey, Wepz – is it your habit to go ballistic and attack people over things they *never* said? Who was knocking vulgarity while rationalizing gore and mayhem? Certainly not I. FYI, in my post I started another line of comment about Stallone’s toning down the violence in his films as well, but deleted it because I thought it was off topic and didn’t want to bury my original point (which was focused on language).

          Just so you know, I also have a problem with films — Stallone’s and anyone else’s — that major in show-offy bloodshed and gratuitous sexual activity; blood and t & a for it’s own sake bug me big time. Modern cinema has serious problems, by my lights, in all of the above categories. I ache for writers, directors, producers who can provide movies for grown-ups, truly engaging, non-cheesey stuff — while maintaining commendable levels of tastefulness and restraint. Gritty, yes. Gross, no.

          Having clarified all that, am I now allowed to offer my objections to cheap profanity?

          (While we’re discussing Sly Stallone’s recent stuff and some of its shortcomings: I thought his last Rambo flick would have been much more effective without the steroidal waves of carnage. Yea, I get it: it’s a war flick, so a certain amount of gun play is necessary. Still, lots of it was simply cartoonish, over the top, and so a fairly serious film – not a comedy, not a satire – with a potentially quite moving story was largely smothered in red. Some folks might go for slasher flicks; I don’t, even when they’re marketed as something else — and I doubt that is what Sly was aiming for anyway. Violence in a film that warrants it is fine, but at some point it becomes goofy, counterproductive. And while I’m on the subject, Rambo’s script also needed another fifteen minutes or so of plot and character development. I remember leaving the theater feeling like I had just sat through a movie that could have been truly great on a number of levels, and instead was just an exceptionally blood-soaked action flick.

          And yes, Wepz, it featured too much swearing, too.

          • Yet you’re here, in an Expendables comments section. And your a fan of Chuck Norris.. No chip on my shoulder at all. I thought the whole thing was pretty funny actually. I figure that if there were still ‘like’ buttons, I’d get a lot of those like thingies, like they have on Facebook. (Bring it back Screen Rant!). I consider the fact that much of these action movies are not suppose to be Oscar material, if you want to see those kinds of movies WATCH SOMETHING ELSE. These are movies for people who like watching that kind of thing. Snubbing your nose at it, or making holier than thou comments here about it is just not going to win you over any fans k? You want thoughtfully written stories with deep compassionate resolutions go somewhere else,- watch something else.

            • BTW, I”m not saying your not entitled to your opinion. I totally respect your take on it, but I’m entitled to reply to it. Don’t take it personal.

        • Good point

      • Hey sjplwc next time you’re in a life and death situation and people are dying around you I want you to listen to the words any of the living are saying…most likely they aren’t the prettiest of words.

        Ever hear a guy screaming because his knee was just blown off? Think he has a censor?

        I love how religious folks crow about language in a movie glorifying killing. Go worship your dead guy on a plank.

        • @Dante..huh? “Go worship your dead guy on a plank”?? Sorry to say but that’s just one retarded comment there!

        • i agree

        • religion is overrated

          • Going with the flow and agreeing with everyone is overrated. So is being ignorant towards others views and beliefs.

        • I always thought the symbology was a little absurd.

          Using the symbol of a method used to kill a being as a way of remembrance is a little morbid.

          If beloved Grandma got ran over by a Mini Cooper, would you wear a Mini Cooper charm around your neck or bow to a Mini Cooper replica in a shrine?

          That is the extent of the logic in using a cross as a symbol in Christianity.

          • Not everyone that is a Christian wears or displays a cross and it’s not becuase they are ashamed or are hiding. Wearing a cross is a personal choice and can symbolizes many things. Jesus died for our sins and was the ultimate sacrifice, he changed things and that is part of what the cross symbolizes, not just his death.

          • And now we’re into bashing religious beliefs. Incredible.

        • Dante,

          That’s offensive and there’s no call for it. You could have made your point without your closing statement.

          If this thread devolves into religion bashing I’ll shut it down. I’ll shut down any thread where people can’t debate each other in a civil manner without insulting each other.

          Vic

          • I wasn’t bashing religion just saying a bit odd to have a symbol of a dead man for your religion then get up in arms over foul language.

            • Dante,

              With your not being religious, perhaps you don’t understand that “worship your dead guy on a plank” is very offensive to those who are. I’m not going to get into an explanation here as to why the cross is the symbol. To those who believe and have read the New Testament, it makes sense. I just ask that people be respectful (note I also chastised someone here defending religion).

              Speaking to the point, I don’t know the details behind this whole PG-13/Expendables 2 thing – that’s between Stallone and Norris. Personally, I’m not a fan of gratuitous graphic violence or foul language – note I said “gratuitous.” There are times when both/either can be appropriate to get a point across in a film. But I do think that dropping 42 f-bombs just because that “makes it real” is kind of silly. As to the extreme violence – a drop to PG-13 will curtail some of that along with language. Again, who knows what the conversation between them really involved?

              Now is that a GOOD thing in terms of THIS film? I don’t know – haven’t seen the film at this point. But I can tell you that a friend has read the script and that he thinks the PG-13 will hurt the film because the only reason TO go see it was going to be the extreme violence.

              Regards,

              Vic

    • Just for the Heck of it, Chuck Norris doesn’t read scripts, scripts read Chuck Norris.

  2. I assume they’re gonna kill a lot of people though aren’t they? thats fine though, as long there’s no bad language

  3. If it’s just the language that’s kept to a PG-13 level, that’s fine, but as the author says it’s supposed to be an homage of sorts to the action movies of the ’80s/90′s, so I don’t see why they would try to keep the rating down to attract the younger audience who likely have little to no idea who these old guys are. Most teens now know Arnold as a politician, not an action star; probably the same for Norris, unless they watched the infomercial for that whole body workout contraption during a summer vacation.

  4. uh….what???

  5. I personaly prefer not alot of cursing in film and raunchy thins just makes a film harder to watch unless those words are added to make emotion in the film.

  6. Chuck Norris is a b*tch.

    • Gary,

      That’s what I love about the internet, everyone is a tough guy from behind their keyboard.

      Vic

      • Gary,
        I don’t understand what Gary said that makes it sound like he’s acting like a tough guy. He just said that Chuck Norris is a B@#%$…. lol Did he touch a nerve? Do you think Chuck Norris could catch a bullet with his heath? You’ve been watching too many World of Warcraft Commercials.

        If Gary said he could elbow smash Norris then I’d totally agree with you. lol

        • Wow, someone REALLY has a chip on his shoulder… o_O

          • Yes, it’s a slowly growing chip and so far it’s spelled out K.E.N.-_ lol :)

        • Wepz,

          I’m saying, that standing across two-three feet from someone at a party, much of what gets said online would never get said face to face.

          Especially calling Chuck Norris a name like that. 8)

          Vic

      • hahaha,that´s right!(am i one of those?)

  7. Could’ve just left Norris out of the film.

  8. could go either way, i won’t miss the bad words, just hope they don’t cut back on the blood and start a sunday school sermon somewhere in it

    • Wakka wakka wakka

    • lol

  9. To be honest the amount of f-bombs in a movie doesn’t really bother me either way. But Chucks stance does seem a bit hypocritical doesn’t it? So it’s ok to blown the s$&t out of something or someone but you can’t say s$&t while doing it?
    I’ll see it regardless, I just am confused in regards to his policy…

    • This is what I was thinking, too, Kevin. It’s as bad as the people who think it’s ok for people to be blown to kingdom come, but God forbid there is a woman’s breast exposed on the screen. No wonder society is so screwed up.

  10. When ex 1 came out here in canada it was rated pg 13, so does this mean that when ex 2 hits canada it will be rated G ?

    • If there’s an Ex3, and it comes out in Canada it’ll premiere on Nickelodeon. ;)

  11. hopefully its still bloody.
    careless about bad words.or chucks being in movie.
    jus let it be bloody

  12. you can really tell that the 1st was pg-13 but later moved to R b/c of all the dodgy special effects used (most notable when sly saves the girl by cutting off the limbs of 2 people then stabbing one guy in the throat revealing some poor VFX work) >:(

    i don’t really care for profanities in movies as they don’t really effect the mood or anything, what i do hate is dodge camera work, fast cuts to hide action and poor choreography, that of which ever all present in the 1st one (leading back to my 1st paragraph and how the movie was originally pg but then changed to R due to fans hating on sly).

  13. I didn’t think the first Expendables was overly expletive, I really liked it.
    That new action flick SINNERS & SAINTS waaay overly used the fbomb and it made what could’ve been a good movie, seem pretty amateur.
    Same thing with Rob Zombie’s flicks, especially Halloween 2. Who actually talks like that? Every other word is f@#$. Its ridiculous.
    Swearing is great if done well. PULP FICTION, HEAT, etc. These wouldn’t be the same without it.
    I don’t think Expendables will lose anything by losing the fword….but it also doesn’t gain much by adding Chuck Norris

  14. I couldn’t care less if they are not randomly dropping the f-bomb every minute as long as the action is good, and bad people die, lol. Seriously, are we 15? Are curse words really still “cool” to you kids? Grow up already, I think you sound more intelligent if you can complete a sentence without cursing. Not saying that when I stub my toe select four letter words will not be gracing my mouth, but just saying it’s not completely necessary in a movie for me to enjoy it…

    • i dont think that’s the main issue here (lack of profanities), i think people (i for one am) pissed off b/c there is a good chance everything will be toned down thus this movie not being a ‘tribute’ to old school action, where there was alot of good practical effects and steady action. ex1 was an all out terrible movie, poor camera work (b/c the movie was originally set to be pg13), alot of CG blood (again with the pg13) and hardly any decent action segments (end one being the best and the boat in the beginning being 2nd).

      imo the movie should still be rated R minus the language, if i recall right, commando didn’t have alot of profanities and that was a bloody movie, so i don’t see why they cant do the same here. i think they’re using this norris issue as an excuse to give it a low rating in a weak attempt to make more $$$, which doesn’t make sense b/c the 1st one did decent for a terrible movie.

      • @jwalka

        I am not making any predictions about the movie, I’m simply saying that IF they didn’t dumb down the action and the curse words are the only things taken out I’m perfectly alright about that. I agree with you, if they dumbed down the action too, then that would suck.

        And I made a reply to the guy below that obviously lack reading and comprehension skills and made a reply to me based on something I never said, but it’s awaiting moderation, lol. Something tells me when it’s published I’ll be calling him butterflies instead of what I really called him, hahaha. :-D

    • Hey Ken,
      People who disagree with this decision need to “grow up already”? Really? So it’s okay to instinctively unleash profanity when you stub your toe, but not when a crazy, gun-toting Van Damme is shooting at you and your buddies? You sir, are hilarious.

      • @snapperhead

        Ooh, do you know what else is hilarious? People who don’t know how to read and then reply based on something that was never said. :-D

        I never said that people who disagree with this needs to grow up, I said that people who NEED to hear a bunch of curse words in a movie because curse words are still “cool” to them need to grow up. I never said curse words are “bad” but just are not required for me to think a movie is good.

        Do you know who else needs to grow up? People who don’t know how to read, lol. :-D

    • I didnt really notice the cursing in the first one. The thing is it takes away from the dialouge that would likely take place in thier situation..if I want a Disney movie ill use my lil sister as an excuse…(not that I have….-_- dnt judge me)

  15. If Chuck Norris says no cussing…..I don’t think we want to know what would happen if they crossed him *Insert every chuck norris fact* Too many F-Bombs make it unrealistic anyway (and even annoying cuz it sounds forced half the time in R-rated movies)

  16. How is voting “no” to a question that asks “does it matter” different from voting “doesn’t matter”?

    • Pedram,

      Ha! Good point – I created the poll in a hurry late at night. Guess I wasn’t quite thinking – you’re right, it didn’t need that option at all. :-P

      Vic

  17. This is the most disappointing news I have heard so far all year. To think this is one of the movies I was so looking forward to watching. This movie is about mercenary killers with huge guns killing hundreds of bad guys.

    But you gotta be moralistic, no bad words and blood even though the story is about killing many many bad guys. This series was about making action movies that were inspired from the 80′s, and action movies from the 80′s were all about violence. Blood and gore is what I want. I can not believe they would alienate the original audience just to appease under 18 punks at a Multi Plex at the mall. This sucks. PG-13 killed Alien vs Predator and Die Hard 4. This is Horse crap(I am saying this because I do not want to offend with my profanity or else I may just be banned.)

    And Chuck Norris sucks, to think he had no problem using a real rat in Missing in action 2 when his head is tied with sack and the vicious critter inside)creating a bloody mess.

    I AM NOT PAYING TO SEE THIS MOVIE IN A THEATER. NO WAY.

  18. This is ridiculous…if you feel a certain way about it, then don’t do the movie…or make your own 80′s tribute action flick thing. With your own rules. But people (mostly meaning “I”, although I’m pretty sure i’m not alone) are going to see this looking for a true rendition of an 80′s action movie. And, lol, i’m sorry, but that comes complete with lots of blood, fighting, big muscles and yes…cursing. If it was me, I’d tell ol’ boy to kick rocks…

  19. Stallone’s statement on the PG-13 over at AICN (he’s fine with it):

    http://www.aintitcool.com/node/52774

    But apparently a lot of you know better than him about his own movie. 8)

    Vic

    • How come it seems like whenever someone brings up a good point about how this movie shouldnt be dumbed down to PG-13, you defend it? With opinions like that, what are you doing reviewing movies?

      • +1

      • If his opinion is it has to much (insert whatever) and he states it as such isnt that a review?

        His opinion is it doesnt need it. Tada!

        Also this is a movie NEWS site along with review site. This is news and has nothing to do with the review of the movie.

      • Davjs,

        I don’t review movies on the site any more.

        And “how come”? I think I’ve made my point of view clear. If it makes you feel better, the person who will probably end up reviewing the movie here disagrees with me. :)

        Vic

    • If he wants to make it PG-13 that’s how own prerogative. I don’t think he’s stupid enough to water down the violence to make it unrecognizable from a Saturday Morning Cartoon. His record reflects that, and he’s built a strong credibility rating in my book.

      But if he does to it, he’s wrong. Regardless of if it’s his movie or not. Hardcore action movie fans will vomit up and down the isles and run home to take cold showers washing the traumatic memories off.

      • Wepz,

        Actually, I don’t disagree. I heard last night (unfortunately) that the script for this movie sucks – but that at least if they had retained the latest Rambo movie level violence it would have satisfied hard core action fans.

        So, maybe I’ve been on the wrong side of this one – don’t know.

        Regards,

        Vic

  20. So if a movie comes out with blaring f-bombs and blood galore and it finds an audience then that same audience is expected to be stoked for a movie sans f-bombs and blood?

    This is ridiculous, it’s not a matter of knowing better than Stallone (which probably isn’t that difficult) – it’s a matter of knowing your audience.

    I’ll laugh when this movie falls flat on its bloated Stallone-esque face.

    • And his reason to make the first one was a HOMAGE to his PAST!!! By buckling down and “convinced” that making it PG13 was a GreaT idea is like lucas forcing Solo shooting SECOND since the little tykes would go cry to whatever they cry too now about how naughty the movie is!!!!!!
      +
      sly needs to find his nuts and I do believe it’s still back there in his LAST TWO movies!!!!!!

      • I agree with you about how this is an homage series etc. But same time Sly promised fans that he’d add as many action stars to this as possible. He said to fans glee that he will do whatever it takes to get as many action stars in one movie as possible. He’s doing this for the fans. He has kept his ears to the streets to find out what fans really look for. He approached all the biggest actions stars. He didn’t get nearly as much as he thought he would in the first go round. This second time around, he managed to get more action star than before. He figured (and I think he figured right), that adding one of the old school action stars like Chuck Norris was going to bring this movie to another level. To be honest, he got almost ALL the bigger action stars in this movie and he really achieved something awesome seeing as how many of these action stars have ridiculously gi-normous egos. The only guy he couldn’t get unfortunately is Seagal. Other than that, getting Arnold,Bruce,Jet-Li,Van Damn, Chuck Norris, etc is akin to a bullseye 60 yard shotgun throw.

        • Agreed Wepz

  21. ratings to me dont really matter. aslong as it either keeps up or is better than the first one. ratings mean nothing to me.

  22. I wish I wasn’t behind a keyboard because id tell Vic how much of a prick straight to his face. Someone needs to but hey I’m betting its already been done…. how bout being a little humble and not lashing back out with a shot or smarta** comment about someone else who verbally offended you over the Internet. I mean geeze guy I would hope being the senior and creater of this site would make you want to set a good example for other ranters but I guess I expected too much. Some random person you’ll never meet now thinks less of you… I bet that’ll keep you up at night. But seriously dude smoke a bowl and relax its not that serious. Just trying to give some advice but hey what do I know… you be the judge, the evidence is everywhere. Goodday and goodbye screenrant its been fun

  23. You mad bro? Actually I kind of agree. Lol

  24. I’m not a fan of Chuck. I would of loved to see Steven Seagal in this movie!!!!!! Clint Eastwood should be in it too….maybe not killing people but at least play some part. If Charles Bronson were still alive then it would have be awesome to have him too. hmmmm whoooo elseee???…. Kurt Russel is badass as well.

    • >EDIT< I would of loved to see Steven Seagal *ROLL with crispy creme in both hands and stuffed mouth into* this movie~~~~

  25. I like the decision. Never a fan of too much swearing in any movie, as you can make a great action movie without any swearing at all. No one sees a movie that has no swearing and later complains ‘Man, I didn’t like the movie, it had no swearing!’, do they? So if something like swearing is there in a movie, people enjoy it. If it’s not, they aren’t gonna point it out (most people that is).

    • Abhijeet Mishra wrote: **No one sees a movie that has no swearing and later complains ‘Man, I didn’t like the movie, it had no swearing!’, do they?**

      Actually, Abhijeet, this site is full of people saying that – weirdly and sadly.

      What the heck – I say we start a campaign for more bowel movement and people-staring-off-into-space-doing-nothing scenes in movies. This all happens in real life after all …

  26. Sorry but Bruce Willis with attitude minus swearing is a fail.

    • Compare his last Die Hard (EDITED) to the UNEDITED version. Write what you will on the story, but dare me to not notice the difference in tone between!

  27. and so it goes.. do them hollyweird folks ever wonder why people DON’T drop greens at the bijou these days? Sad be it that I’ll be RENTING out the UNEDITED version of this movie at the end of this year~ I have the UNRATED Die Hard 4 movie because it’s more like Die Hard 1 with the actions and swear words and it pisses me off I don’t have a Blu-ray copy of it still!
    +
    Lethal Weapon (1987) even had a Loooong shot of breasts at the beginning and the typical ’80s shoot’em ups to top it off and overall the franchise didn’t suffer for it. I’ve already read about how “women-power” has de-balled men, and chucky demands an ’80s homage be DE-balled because it hurts his ancient dusty old ears now?

    …sad indeed…

  28. People have to accept that Chuck Norris doesn’t read scripts, scripts read Chuck Norris.

    • LMAO

  29. I’m actually very disappointed that this movie’s rating was put down to pg-13. NOT because of the language, it really isnt necessary to drop f bombs every 4 seconds while shooting an AK-47, however.. removing the r rating will no doubt make the violence ALOT less graphic, which is honestly the reason why people enjoyed the first one to begin with..