Saw 3D is a 2010 US horror by Kevin Greutert.
The BBFC passed the film 18 uncut with the consumer advice: Contains strong gory horror.
The BBFC explained their 18 rating:
Saw 3D is the seventh film in the horror franchise and features a vengeful killer torturing selected victims with elaborate purpose-built devices. It was classified 18 for strong gory horror.
There are several scenes of strong gory horror. The killer often constructs elaborate devices or rigs up machinery to kill his victims. For example, circular saw blades slice into the victims causing blood and intestines to spray from the wounds. In another scene, a man has to remove a fish-hook, attached to a piece of string, that is lodged inside a woman’s stomach. As he attempts to retrieve it, the woman coughs up blood until the fish-hook, covered in viscera, is finally removed. The horror and violence throughout the film is often prolonged and sadistic, dwells on the infliction of pain or injury, and also features the strongest gory images. The BBFC’s Guidelines at 15 state that Violence may be strong but should not dwell on the infliction of pain or injury. The strongest gory images are unlikely to be acceptable. Strong sadistic [...] violence is also unlikely to be acceptable. Therefore, like its predecessors, the film was only permissible at 18.
SAW 3D also contains some strong language.
Comment: Saw 3D ups the ante on R-rated gore
See article from newstimes.com
There are seemingly no restraints on the graphic violence that can be shown in a movie within the framework of an R rating.
Last weekend, I had the misfortune of seeing the No. 1 movie in the United States, Saw 3D, and was appalled by the nonstop torture-related violence in this sixth sequel to a popular series about a madman and his cronies who force their captives to mutilate themselves if they are to have any hope of living.
What really shocked me, however, was how graphic the violence can get now without pushing a movie into NC-17 territory. The MPAA appears to believe that there are still sexual elements in movies that are simply too much for anyone under the age of 16 to witness — with or without parental consent — but those same teenagers can handle moments of excruciating mutilation and death that leave nothing to the imagination.
Did the MPAA ratings panel watch all of Saw 3D or did they ask that it be turned off after the teaser opening in which a young woman is sliced in two on camera (perhaps the least graphically violent killing in the film)?
I’m not proposing censorship of horror movies...[BUT]…just hoping to make parents aware that their teens might be seeing a lot more than they should when they are dropped off at something like Saw 3D.
Comment: Violence on screen – is it worth the risk?
Based on article from mediawatch-uk.blogspot.com
The final instalment of the horror franchise Saw has topped the box office in its opening weekend. Saw 3D is the seventh film in the ultra-violent series which has been described as torture porn.
Saw 3D has been classified by the BBFC as suitable viewing for people over the age of 18. Once a film has been passed by the BBFC with an 18 certificate it is then able to be shown on television in due course. We are concerned that once this film is shown on television (as previous films in the franchise have been) it will be very easy for children to access – particularly on video-on-demand services such as iplayer, itvplayer and 4OD. Ofcom research shows that fewer than a third of parents use the password protected services available to screen what their children have access to.
We can no longer ignore the fact that what viewers see on screen has an effect. Even the Government recognises this and is reported to be asking the producers of soap operas to include safe sex messages in their programmes. There are numerous studies linking exposure to violence in the media with violent behaviour.
If drug companies now have to pass the most stringent test to show their products don’t harm even the smallest proportion of takers, should violence on the screen be any different?
Bearing in mind the cost to society, and the misery of the victims of violent behaviour, if there is the slightest possibility that media violence can cause harm is this worth the risk in the interests of entertainment?
Comment: Mediawatch UK Cannot Quite Say That Saw 3D Should Be Banned
Based on article from mediasnoops.wordpress.com
Why can’t they just say what they think! That Saw 3D and other films like it, in their view should be banned. Maybe they are afraid of appearing as the self appointed moral guardians who think they know what is and is not good for the public to be allowed to see that they are.
…Read the full article
The nutters of Mediawatch-UK have urged the BBC to introduced a TV style watershed for radio.
Mediawatch-UK, the nutter campaign group, says children today are the polluted generation. It will launch a campaign tomorrow to alert parents. Acting with the charity Safermedia, it will put up 10ft-high letters reading Block Porn outside BT’s headquarters in London as part of a drive to encourage providers to restrict access to pornographic content.
A Channel 4 programme described as a frank exploration of the love and sex lives of today’s teenagers, has predictably wound up the nutters of Mediawatch-UK.
