A Good Day To Die Hard UK rating and cuts confirmed

News Simon Brew 11 Feb 2013 - 11:43

UPDATED: Not only is Die Hard 5 a 12A in the UK, but it had extra cuts to get the certificate...

UPDATED: Since we first posted this story, the BBFC has revealed that Fox had been in consultation over how to get the certificate it desired. In its original form - presumably the version the US is getting - the film would have been given a 15.

To quote the BBFC: "The company was advised that the film was likely to receive a '15' certificate but that their preferred '12A' classification could be achieved by making a number of cuts to both language and visuals. When the finished version of the film was submitted for formal classification, edits had been made to reduce the number of uses of strong language (both 'f**k' and 'motherf***er') and to reduce sequences of bloody violence, including blood sprays when characters are shot in the head, and punches to restrained individuals. The formal submission was consequently rated '12A'. "

Here's our original story from earlier...

After it was classified as an R in the US, hopes were high that the new Die Hard movie, A Good Day To Die Hard, would have the harder edge that Die Hard 4.0 was lacking. However, the UK certificate for the film has been confirmed, and it's been revealed by the BBFC that Die Hard 5 is a 12A.

Obviously, a 12A certificate isn't an indiciation of the film's quality, and nor does swearing and violence suddenly turn a film into something special. Sadly though, there was a real sense with the last Die Hard movie that it had been neutered somewhat to fit a family friendly rating. And while the UK release of A Good Day To Die Hard has been passed uncut (as in, the BBFC hasn't insisted on cuts) - with a running time of 97 minutes 33 seconds (it's the shortest film in the series by far) - you can't help but fear that the edges have been knocked off again, just to get more bums on seats.

You want proof? Here's the BBFC's extended note: "The film contains four uses of strong language ('f**k') and a partial use of ‘motherf***er’, the end of which has been cut short so the implied strong language is not heard in full".

The guidance continues: "Against a backdrop of explosions, car chases and the destruction of property, there are a number of scenes featuring shootings which occasionally show brief bullet impacts, but there is no focus on blood or injury. In scenes of hand-to-hand combat we see brief punches and kicks, impressionistic rifle butt blows and an implied, but unseen, neck break. Although there are some crunchy sound effects and incidental shots of the heroes with blood on their faces and clothes, no detail of injury is shown.

A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD also includes scenes of gun threat to the head and several brief shots of knife-blades as the heroes prepare to defend themselves. There are also passing references to 'doing drugs' and some mild innuendo."

We've gone from Ellis snorting cocaine, to passing references and mild innuendo. Marvellous.

Just in time for half term then, it seems as though A Good Day To Die Hard is the film to take your 12 year old to see. Who would have though that'd ever happen back when Hans Gruber was running around?

BBFC.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

you're allowed one use of the F word in a 12A. That doesn't even make sense! (but then, it's Hollywood. And Die Hard. When you have cars being used to blow up helicopters, what exactly needs to make sense?)

Oh well, my hopes for this one weren't that high anyway. Still: sob.

I really don't like how strong language is being allowed to creep into 12A movies. One instance is too much and should make a movie a 15.

Actually, you're allowed 'infrequent' use of the F word in a 12A - there have been a number of 12A's that have had more than one...

huh. thought it was one use of strong, such as the F word, and infrequent mild? unless the definition's changed since I last paid attention to the rating definitions, which was admittedly 3 years back.

Why not?
A 12 year old can go out and buy any book or CD with much worse swearing in it with no age restrictions. Why should films be any different?
Kids over 12 know all about swearing so what real difference would a small amount make in a film? I think the world worries too much about trying to censor swearing. Fair enough for really young children but teenagers use all the worlds that adults know. No amount of censoring will change that.

No that's the PG13 in the US

It seems like they've put in 3 more F's to get an R rating in the states because they have an actual number of allowed F words. whereas in the UK the BBFC is more focused on context and frequency and have deemed it ok for a 12 year old. Seems as though the R rating is a cheep marketing ploy. The care Bear movie would have got an R with two uses of the word F*** and that's all they've done here. I feel conned

I seem to remember Sean Connery swearing in Medicine Man, and that was a PG certificate.

Look at the 'shits' and 'penis breaths' in E.T - and that's a U. Not that it bothers me at all, when my children were under 12 I was always checking the reason for the 12 on the BBFC web site - very handy!

Film making by accountants, "During post-production, the distributor sought and was given advice on how to secure the desired classification. Following this advice, certain changes were made prior to submission".

While this is very annoying, and could potentially ruin the movie. I kinda understand the hesitence about releasing it as a 15 given the poor box office for Last Stand and Bullet to the Head!

The 12A rating is now officially pointless as a guideline for parents.

Django Unchained proves good films make money regardless of rating. Stop making bad mature films and stop abusing the ratings system to salvage them.

Unbelievable !! Words fail me.

And again we have a sequel where kids who see it are not in a position legally to watch the original. I know classifications have shifted downwards since then but this cutting of films to gain a rating has to stop. We are not morons and we are not babies. Are 12 year olds falling over themselves to watch this? Well its not getting any of my money and neither will any other film that does this. I might buy the blu ray if its uncut. Suited f***s seriously should stop looking at the bottom line and maybe just maybe shift towards a tiny bit of artistic credibility instead. Its crap like this that make people sick of Hollywood.

So, the famous "Yippee Kay Yay Motherfucker" will be censored by a gun shot again.

Basically, there's only 3 'real' Die Hard movies.

Indeed. Terminator 3 being an example.
Was weird hearing the f-word in Skyfall lol

(in response to DoGs update) This is Bolloc*s this is because under 15s can go into an R in the US with parents but that isn't allowed in the UK. Here's an article for you DoG should the 15 cert be 15A

Die hard 4 had a 4.0 uncut DVD release, i'll bet this one will go with the same option. Does kinda annoy me that I'll prob have to wait for the DVD to see the uncut version considering I don't swear nearly as much as an average 12 year old...

While its true that 12A movies are more violent and sweary than they've ever been , i would have perfered this film to have a less restrictive rating. Still i feel strangely optimistic about a good day to die hard- it looks way more gritty and entertaining than it should be.

Absolute nonsense. I will not be going to see this now.

Just stupid and Pointless. What idiots.

1988 = Die Hard with an 18 rating - Blood, Death Mayhem, Boobs and Swearing and it made MILLIONS

2013 - Die Hard with a 12 rating = Not a lot of Blood, No Boobs and Cut Swearing.

They might as well go the whole hog and make it a family friendly U film in which John Mclain and his son team up to fight the Care Bears....

I will wait for the proper unrated Directors cut or whatever when it comes out on Bluray in a few more months.

Wait a minute.. Does anyone know off-hand if the Irish Film Classification Board makes an independent decision on film ratings or do they just follow the UK decision? I remember as a youngster renting videos that had a blue "15" sticker stuck on over the red "18" sticker of the original packaging. Maybe us Irish are more relaxed about swearing and violence and we'll get the uncut version here, though I do re-call not hearing the full motherf....er at the end of 4.0 in a cinema.

What is it with this fear of "bad" words? Is it only in Scandinavia we think a bullet wound to the head is slightly harsher than saying "f**k"?

I was looking forward to this but after sitting through what was left of Taken 2 after they trimmed it down to a 12a I'm not going to bother.

In Ireland it's been rated 15A for strong action voilence and strong language, i wonder have we the uncut version?

No? What about nipples? (Titanic, Adele Blanc Sec - the latter I watched with my kids and boy was that awkward!)

The IFCO passed the film uncut with a 15A certificate. Whether or not cinemas will show the uncut version is another story (Cineworld Dublin showed the censored cut of The Expendables whereas the independant cinema Carrick Cineplex showed it uncut as the IFCO had passed the film uncut with a 15A certificate).

Yes, let's cut films so that you don't have to share awkward moments with your kids: a movie's ability to appease your personal hangups is obviously way more important than its ability to entertain.

This is catastrophic failure, keep it at its root of a HARD R, keep the bad language, keep the blood, stop aiming for the larger demographic and satisfy the fans who have grown up with it. Yes the studio hopes to earn more money by rating it a 12A, but 'Bruce' take a note from stallone with Rambo 4, and provide me with blood and guts during this action fuelled DIE HARD series........

Maybe we need to bring back John McTiernan.....

or.. you know.. better plan.. lets just certify them as the director intended and not show our kids adult material. Die Hard isn't a kids film. The question is why are we allowing movie companies to target kids with this stuff? (Jack Reacher anyone?)

Really? I think there's only 2. Die Hard 3 certainly ain't a Die Hard movie. Its terrible.

Really? What is awkward about seeing nipples? In both instances you mention they are not shown in a sexualised context. Is the human body something to be ashamed of? Something to feel awkward about?

Well, even though I have an Unlimited ticket to watch as many movies as I want, I absolutely refuse to go and see this film now. Giving it this rating just to make money is ridiculous. There is no point in a Die Hard movie without the language and the violence - to tone it down is a joke. As such I will not register my interest in the movie by getting a ticket.

Well what about Dredd? The big difference is that Django was an Oscar contending film made by Quentin Tarintino.

I don't have an issue with it being a 12A rating. I do have an issue with the film being cut. I enjoy many 12A rated films, such Dark Knight and Skyfall. However, a franchise that began as 18 and 15 certs such maintain the same level throughout, as this is true to the character and themes of the franchise. Imagine the uproar if the certificate went the other way for a franchise that is a U or PG. If Wreck-It Ralph 2 came out as an 18 cert because Ralph goes into GTA or Gears of War and the F word a lot whilst enjoying using and killing prostitutes, etc. There would be an uproar from people who'd feel that this was not right.
The same should be true of franchises like Terminator, Robocop, and Die Hard. All of which started out as 18 certs, and ended up as 12 certs. How do you then deny a 12 year old watching the 1st Robocop when they loved the 12A TV film?

It's also only been announced 3 days prior to release, yet the company has known well in advance, as all the prints with the cert in front must have been ready for some time in order to be distributed to each cinema in time for release. So why wait before announcing? And why no review? Is it really that bad?
I think we know why, and I'm gonna join the millions who'll prefer to seek out the un-tampered American version (legally, of course by waiting for the Region 1 release). The UK have once again be short-changed.
Die Hard 3 had also been cut to earn it a 15 cert back in 1995. The US version had extra blood splatters during the knife attack, as well as extra moments in the lift. Lethal Weapon 4, was also cut for cinema distribution (most notably when a bad guy gets hit by a bus on the freeway). It's nothing new, but is still annoying.

And how come the PG-13 rated Die Hard 4.0, which has no F-words in (just the implied one at the end drowned out by a gun-shot) and not much violence (as people are shot and fall over without so much as bullet hole in their clothes) gets a UK 15 cert? And the R-rated Die Hard 5 gets a 12A, when it includes more F-words and more violence. The BBFC are a strange bunch. And how did The Impossible get a 12A rating. People were running out being sick, and covering their eyes at the levels of injury detail and bloodloss in that film? You'd have felt really wrong taking an under 12 year old to that one.

USA, you are still as crazy !! How the hell do bad words and boobies are supposed to be worse than headshots ?? What is wrong with the mentalities in your country ?? I'm not judging you people here at DoG, but the people in USA who make such dumb rules. What kind of drugs do they smoke to think that a few words will disturb teens ?? And why oh why do they always act like a pair of boobs is a thing kids shouldn't be allowed to see but killing people is okay ?? This is totally insane, I will never understand what happens in their minds.

Disagree, both scenes were gratuitious nudity - no necessity whatsoever. I wish I were as enlightened as you but yes, watching scenes of that nature with my children makes all of us squirm a bit. If you don't have a hangup about watching questionable tittie scenes with your Mum then good for you both I say.

Aw c'mon Jason, 'Die Hard with a Vengeance' is more a direct sequel to the original film than the second film in that it clearly links what McClane did in L.A. with what's happening in New York. I always liked the fact that '...with a Vengeance' felt more like a gritty urban thriller from the 1970's - like 'The Taking of Pelham 123' - than the countless 'Die Hard' clones being churned out at the time, if only they'd kept the original ending, and ended the 'Die Hard' series there...

Care Bears would get SLAUGHTERED. And yes, I would watch. Muddy Funsters (as Mclain and others used to say on ITV)

Interesting point there.

watching black swan with my mother and her mom now thats awkward!

Actually it was the original script for “Lethal Weapon 4“... That explains the buddy-movie-element. But since it's Sam Jackson I don't care wether it passes as a “true Die Hard“.

Absolutely right! (and it's McClane by the way - Sorry)

That is so true. I clearly remember seeing the first RoboCop and I was blown away. Years later I went to see Part 3 in cinema and thought “what a rippoff of T2, kid-friendly and all“. But T2 still rocks while all the others since then trying the same formula sucked hard!

and yet the BluRay is the watered down version, go figure!

Luckily each of the batch got a 16-certificate here in Germany, so I see no problem as long as they don't try to get a 12-certificate here as well... I guess they won't.

There are reasons why only people under 25 seem to be going to the cinema. It is because the experience is normally ruined by stupid moron's making noise, playing on their mobile phones, and the possibility of having the tops of Bruce Willis' head chopped off for the first twenty five minutes (because the projectionist doesn't give a f*ck - 12a version). Hollywood have pandered to the under 25s and they are now left wondering why older people no longer go to the cinema. I'm on a film course as we speak, and I haven't been to the cinema in over three years.
I love film, I love cinema, I love Die Hard....but I won't go and watch a half-arsed Die Hard movie knowing that there is a better version out there. I hope it flops.

Die Hard 3 feels like you're watching another movie. And it was! It was originally a script called 'Simon Say's' it was also (as another commenter has stated) at one point going to be Lethal Weapon 4. Also, the ending of Die Hard 3 has to be the worst ending for any movie ever.

I agree with you on all points mentioned. I hate these soft action movies. The cinema holds no joy for me anymore either. Home cinema is all I enjoy.

Might be difficult to get McTiernan given his current situation...

Dredd wasn't a good movie.

On it - thank you.

thanks for saving ne the price of a cinema ticket and I'm sure the ushers will thank you as well now they don't have to clean up the popcorn and drinks I would most likely throw at the screen

You must be rich. I'm not sure I could afford to waste the money they charge for popcorn.

It is getting stupid now.

Why do we still believe 12 year olds aren't running around saying motherf**ker?

They're getting pregnant, watching Donkey Shows online and doing recreational drugs but not their homework.

I think they can cope with a little light swearing. They all stay up til 11pm these days anyway.

Hes will probably share a cell with Wesley Snipes!

Just waiting for the near-inevitable Die Hard cartoon, ala Rambo, Robocop, ad nauseam...

'Die Hard with a Vengeance' did indeed begin as an original spec script called 'Simon Says' which was at one time considered as a possible fourth 'Lethal Weapon' installment but Mel Gibson and Danny Glover weren't up for it at that point, so it was retooled as a new 'Die Hard' movie, and it works like gangbusters as one, as the link to the first film gives the story an added dimension it wouldn't have if it was a standalone movie... and you're absolutely right about the ending, David, it's a poor and rushed ending to an otherwise smart and well-written movie that was shot late in post-production because FOX nixed the original darker ending (for various reasons) and ordered director John McTiernan to shoot a more traditional action-packed final reel, a real shame too, because that original ending would've made for a bold and infinitely better resolution that ended not only the film but the whole 'Die Hard' series on a high note.

it's capitalism. guns sell like hot cakes here. everyone loves sex (unless your one of those A-sexual) but sex is looked at as bad because subliminally we were raised to associate sex with women as the same thing. most of us men understand that women hold the keys to sexual bliss. i think we pretend that sex is taboo to deny them a platform for discussion. but it's so deeply hidden in our formation that we aren't aware of the genesis.

But it's alot easier for a kid to imitate a movie character saying "fuck" than it is for them to imitate shooting someone in the head... unless you live in America of course.

Why not just watch the movie first without your kids to decide for yourself whether it's suitable for them? You might decide that the film on a whole is fine except for that one scene so all you need to do is fast forward it. I'm sure there's a name for this... oh yeah, it's called being a parent.

Yeah, the real problem though is that movies like The Dark Knight and Skyfall weren't cut and edited to be a 12A, they're simply released as the directors intended and the BBFC rated them accordingly. Whenever you watch a movie that's been edited and censored to fit a rating it's a nightmare. Shots don't make sense, whole scenes end up a confusing mess, it's just terrible because it's been edited with an agenda rather than to flow naturally. Just watch any ITV movie on a saturday afternoon to see what I mean.

Die HArd With A Vengeance was immense- what are you on about?

totally agree- films like Super 8 and X Men First class should have been 15s or had the f word cut out

It is, which is why I won't let my 10 year old play Call of Duty when the majority of parents do but i'd rather he didn't have to hear the f word in an otherwise suitable film like Super 8. The point is Die Hard wasn't ever a 12 demographic film and shouldn't be.

took the words out of my mouth

I don't think he's saying cut them- I think he's saying make the certificate appropriate.

sorry- didn't get this far before I commented- what you said!

Yeah Rose being drawn naked by the man she lusts over while her nipples are erect through arousal is not sexual at all! Or was it just really cold in the cabin!

I made the same mistake with Tobe Hooper's Texas Chain Saw Massacre- it's easily done.

Actually I don't think the 12 certificate existed when Robocop 3 was released.

Do you not have a good independent cinema where you live?

if you have children i would advise monitoring their internet use- it isn't difficult

It is when they go round their friend's house whose parents aren't so vigilant.

I don't think there's any comparison between those two acts, but I do see your point.

Only the first two are great movies even Bruce has said in a interview that Sam saved die hard 3 not saying die hard 3 is bad its just not die hard it could have been worse speed 2 was the original plot for die hard 3...... And die hard 4,5 why does Bruce need a partner in them? I think John mclane works better alone or a bit partner like alen in the first it worked

They shouldn't have bothered making 4 and 5 as they were more like action movies for kids just like Transformers. Without all the violence and swearing in a Die Hard movie it's pointless

Sponsored Links