Over the past few weeks, movie ratings have been a popular topic for discussion. While Kevin Smith's upcoming Zack and Miri Make a Porno appealed an NC-17 rating (and won), The Dark Knight was enjoying a record-setting box office take and a pretty controversial PG-13 rating. Once again, we ask: Why is sex more inappropriate than violence? Should raunchy language and a few "thrusts" be condemned while a dude with half his face falling off and a psychopathic, murderous clown get off practically unscathed? And are there other issues at work here? Does a film with a giant budget and an all-star cast get it "easier" than a smaller film with a lesser-known cast and a director who chain smokes profanity?

No doubt there are shady politics at play here (as is all over this fine country of ours), and over the years there have been a number of films that deserved a different rating. Over on OMG Lists, they currently have up a list of six wrongly rated movies; films that, for one reason or another, deserved either a lower or a higher rating. It's a weird system, for sure -- these days, if you're a comedy, you kinda want that 'R' rating because your box office take will most likely be higher. However, if you're a horror flick, you want to try for a PG-13. Strange world we live in ...

But anyway, among the films featured on their list are Planes, Trains and Automobiles, which, at the time, received an R-rating because of a few profanity-laced scenes, but totally could've gotten away with a PG-13. Or what about Jaws ... with its PG rating! Hey, it's a film about a giant shark that devours people -- bring the whole family!

While I've neither seen Showgirls nor I Know Who Killed Me, I imagine the latter of the two stripper movies is not destined to be the same sort of camp classic as is the former. From what I gathered from the reviews and audience response, IKWKM is just plain bad -- not funny bad or entertaining bad or any other kind of bad that would be of interest to viewers of any kind. Nevertheless, the cable channel Starz is promoting its pay TV premiere of the Lindsay Lohan movie as something of a not-to-be-missed phenomenon of trash.

The ad, viewable in full over at Defamer, celebrates the movie's eight Razzie Award wins, particularly its esteem of being named Worst Picture and having Lohan named Worst Actress (Twice). Also included are quotes from negative reviews from Variety, eFilmCritic, Flick Filosopher, Quad City Times and the New York Daily News. Of course, the blurbs kind of say that IKWKM needs to be seen to be believed, which makes it sound like the movie is indeed entertaining bad. The eFilmCritic review (from Peter Sobczynski) even flat out claims the movie may be entertaining under the right circumstances.

Two things the ad misses, though, are the fact that the movie's eight Razzies was a record amount and the Rotten Tomatoes score of 8%. The former would aid in its cult-hopeful celebration, while the latter would put those reviews in more honest context. Also, as Stu at Defamer brilliantly points out, considering all of Starz Entertainment's many channels, the movie would be better suited for a new channel to be called "Flopz."

I Know Who Killed Me airs on Starz this Saturday, June 14, at 9pm.

To be honest, when word went out that the sequel to The Thomas Crown Affair was on the hunt for a director, I could never have predicted this. The master of sex and violence Paul Verhoeven told the Dutch radio program Met Het Oog Op Morgen, that he will be directing the Crown sequel for MGM. Titled The Topkapi Affair, the story will be a combination of Eric Ambler's novel The Light of Day, about a small time heist man who gets roped into an international jewel heist, and the 1964 adaptation of that novel starring Peter Ustinov. Considering the glamor of '99's Crown, the script might have to make some minor adjustments. Unless this time they are going for Thomas Crown on the skids.

Back in August, Patrick reported that Brosnan would be reprising his role as Thomas Crown, the dashing thief. Unfortunately, Renee Russo would not be returning, but previous reports have Angelina Jolie slated to star -- although there is still the chance that Jolie deal could fall through since there hasn't been any official confirmation. The script was completed back in January, and the project was given the green-light in March; (and I don't mean to be cynical, but the strike might have had something to do with MGM's enthusiasm in getting the film into production). Filming is set to take place on location in Istanbul, which might make use of the famed Topkapi Palace. Although it is unknown whether the production has permission to film in the palace -- Verhoeven just better make sure the nobody at the Istanbul Archeology Museum gets a hold of a copy of Showgirls. The Topkapi Affair is set for release in 2008.

[via ComingSoon.net]

With only a week away from announcing the Oscar nominations, and with no apparent need to do so, the Academy has pared down its list of eligible foreign-language films from 61 to nine. This is the first time the Academy has shortlisted the category, but the decision to do so falls in line with a number of other changes pertaining to the category.

Those changes, which I told you about last summer, are a good thing for at least two of the nine films. Water and Black Book each would have been disqualified in previous years, but now their language issues are in full compliance with the rules. Of course, had they not made the cut, there might have been some happier countries in Asia or Australia, the two continents not represented (Antarctica may get some love from Happy Feet's animation nomination). It is too bad that Japan couldn't claim Golden Globe winner Letters From Iwo Jima and also too bad for Oz that Ten Canoes wasn't chosen.

Sony Pictures Classics knows that just because a film is ridiculed, that doesn't make it unqualified for distribution in the U.S. In fact, they probably realize it could work in their favor. Black Book (aka Zwartboek), the new film from Paul Verhoeven, was reportedly called "Schindler's List meets Showgirls" at Toronto. Although, other than that, the film appears to be receiving some good marks. Of course, if it is sort of camp comparable to Verhoeven's Showgirls, then American audiences will eat it up and make it a cult classic.

In the Reuters story, the film's sex scenes are described as "ribald" and points to one scene in particular that seems to continue Verhoeven's penchant for displaying his actresses' naughty bits -- the scene in question, featuring the dying of pubic hair, will probably not find folks looking back as fondly as they did for the director's famous leg-crossing shot in Basic Instict.

The true test of the film's quality will likely be put in the hands of the Oscars, as Black Book is the official entry by the Netherlands for the foreign-language category. The truest chance of it becoming a camp cult hit, however, is whether or not Sony (who just coughed up a high six figures for it) might offer us a dubbed version.

Showgirls, perhaps the most notorious film ever to garner the highly problematic NC-17 rating, is being adapted into a stage musical by the movie's screenwriter Joe Eszterhas. Even having penned the likes of Flashdance and Basic Instinct, Eszterhas is in serious danger of Showgirls being the one film mentioned when one day someone has to write his obituary (one could understand if he chose to distance himself from the film, but not Joe). With the aid of the producers of Urinetown (check the link, I am not making that up) the musical version of Showgirls will soon be appearing on stage in, appropriately enough, Las Vegas. The opening number will be a little ditty called "Where the Hell Are My Clothes?" (OK, that one I made up).

The 1995 film tells the story of Nomi Malone (Elizabeth Berkley, in an obvious attempt to distance herself from the teeny bopper character she had played on TV's Saved By the Bell), a tempermental and frequently naked young woman who claws her way to the top of the Vegas Showgirl profession. Eszterhas is well aware of the flim's shortcomings. New York Magazine quotes him as saying, "It's a movie that I wish I'd have written differently, and I wish would have been cast differently." This new musical version "celebrates the over-the-top and campy nature of the piece."

[via TMZ]

If you believe this morning's Hollywood Reporter, the primary reason that Basic Instinct 2 (and Jade, and Body of Evidence, and Showgirls) failed so miserably at the box office is because the American political climate is such that, as Paul Verhoeven put it, "Anything that is erotic has [essentially] been banned ... We are living under a government that is constantly hammering out Christian values. And Christianity and sex have never been good friends." And it's not just Verhoeven that feels that way - the article is full of quotes from screenwriters and directors, most of whom attribute the downfall of the "erotic thriller" to the country's current "big puritanical mode." Um, what?! Have these people seen any of the movies they're talking about? They failed because they're terrible, not because of politics. I mean, sitting through Body of Evidence and looking at what the makers thought was sexy was one of the most deeply humiliating experiences of my life -- I shudder at the mere memory.

There are, however, some signs of sanity in Hollywood: the calmer interviewees point to factors including the decreasing interest of foreign markets in erotic American films, the lack of good scripts in the genre (Ding! Ding! Ding!), and a fear on the part of agents of putting their clients in films that they see as "risky."

What about you? Would you go see a good "erotic thriller," or do you feel that sort of thing should be kept out of theaters, no matter the quality? And has your opinion changed since the crazy, sexy 1980s?

Happy International Showgirls Day!

No, seriously. The best I can figure out, a bunch of bloggers got together and decided that today was the day to celebrate everybody's favorite ode to golddigging poledancers with lists of daddy issues only out-lengthened by their acrylic nails. I discovered the hoopla via Flickhead, who, to my mind, has the best essay going on the subject at hand. "A case of the dragon consuming itself by the tail, Showgirls transcends the limitations normally set by genre and dramatic convention — and comes to embody every foul, odious thing it professes to abhor," he writes. "That it evolves into a compelling (and very funny) reflection of western culture spiraling out of control for lack of dignity and shame was surely an accident."

Follow through the jump for a look at a few of the many other rants and raves littering the blogosphere today in tribute to Paul Verhoeven's legendary craptacular: