Some sites have it listed as Cat 3, while others say it's not rated.

There's no notation on the listing here or on the DVD packaging.

Any one know the rating on this?

Pretty sure it was a Category II.

There was no Category IIA and IIB in 1989 when it was released (that separation occurred in 1995).

Additionally, if you look at release dates, SENTENCED TO HANG is purportedly the first film that was ever classified with the Category III, after the rating's introduction in 1989. It opened in HK, according to the databse records, on November 2nd -- LONG ARM OF THE LAW PART III opened on January 12th of the same year.

Sometimes, in the instance of later video releases, ratings are re-graded retroactively, so perhaps the film was upgraded to a III after the triad amendment was made to exisiting classification guidelines circa 1999? Former Cat II titles TRIADS, THE INSIDE STORY and FLIRTING SCHOLAR were shifted up to III for their DVD release in Hong Kong (the former for its details of triad ceremony and lifestyles, the latter for its rather creative [and somewhat coarse] use of Cantonese slang).

I used to have the theatrical poster for LAOTL3 at one stage, but later had to throw it out as it was pretty severely damaged, and it had the Cat II classification printed on it. Whether it was an original poster or not is another story entirely...

Thanks for the info.

I thought it might have been rated III because of the language. There is a good deal of violence and a couple of brief rape scenes, but it was nothing worse than many IIB movies I've seen. However, there is a lot of swearing in both Cantonese and English -- which is simply translated as "Darn!" in the English subtitles. It's particularly funny during the exchange between Elvis Tsui and the gweilo police captain where they're cursing each other out.

Good evening mrblue,

I've been digging through the TELA's website (the folk that govern the film censorship ordinance in Hong Kong), but I can't find any reference to the history of the classification process. So, I'm going to have to go by pre-existing notes I have here from an article I prepared for an overseas magazine...

From what I was able to ascertain then, the Cat III classification was introduced around November of '89 (with amendments to the guidelines made in '93 and then again in '99) -- and the division of the Category II into IIA and IIB was somewhere around August of 1995. As LONG ARM OF THE LAW PART III was released in January '89 it would have definitely fallen under the old system.

Ironically, from a paper on the TELA website pertaining to current censorship guidelines, Hong Kong people are less concerned about English language profanity and non-sexually explicit language than they are about local dialect coarse language and/or more sexually explicit dialogue/material, thereby how a film is classified in relation to those aspects of a production's content is governed by those measures.

Funniest thing, for me, was checking out the Cat III rating recently awarded to SPL in Hong Kong. A variety of folk online surmised it might have been the film's triad themes, or "unpunished criminal activity" aspect. A quick check of the TELA rating records provided the following response:

Film Title: SPL
Classification: Category III
Director: Official name in English not available
Language of dialogue: Cantonese
Language of subtitle: Chinese, English
Duration: 93 min
Remarks: Contains very strong violence

So obviously, with view of domestic product appeasing Mainland censors and sensibilties, Hong Kong itself has drawn a harder line on its own product.

Cheers,
Mike

Ironically, from a paper on the TELA website pertaining to current censorship guidelines, Hong Kong people are less concerned about English language profanity and non-sexually explicit language than they are about local dialect coarse language and/or more sexually explicit dialogue/material, thereby how a film is classified in relation to those aspects of a production's content is governed by those measures.

That's why I thought LAOTL3 might have been rated III, because it does have quite a bit of Cantonese swearing in it. At least didn't have the offending words bleeped out like I've seen on some older releases, or like some Triad movies, have the "offending" dialogue dubbed over for the video release.

I may be slightly off on this, but it's my understanding that TELA is responsible for rating films for theatrical showing, but that other censorship issues are handled by a different body, the Obscene Articles Tribunal (OAT). They decide what gets to stay in or gets cut from films, and unfortunately the OAT panels are largely made up of local, conservative, retired people with nothing beter to do than watch JAV flix and questionable local productions on a Tuesday morning...

The presence of more than one agency to deal with this creates all kinds of odd problems of synchronization of aims. One of these is, that the rating sometimes stays while the film is cut (either for release, or for TV broadcast.) I have several versions of SPIKE DRINK GANG, all of which are CAT III, but only one of which has the two crucial scenes which are usually cut (from what was actually a CAT IIB version): the extended gang rape of the drugged school girl, and the scene where the gang's dai lo is given a serious working-over by his hottie girlfriend.

This mess of jurisdictions and pointlessly conflicting rules and laws has been criticized in the press here: among other things, we have an age of consent of 16, but you can't look at a pic of your naked girlfriend/boyfriend until you're 18!!! Chi sin [crazy]!!!!

odresel wrote:I may be slightly off on this, but it's my understanding that TELA is responsible for rating films for theatrical showing, but that other censorship issues are handled by a different body, the Obscene Articles Tribunal (OAT)

I would never dispute the ins and outs of a legal system of another country, especially with someone who lives there. I was just basing what I wrote on information contained in the TELA website itself:

http://www.tela.gov.hk/english/welcome.htm

Per what the TELA governs, according to their own information:

""film" (電影、影片) means-
(a) a cinematograph film and includes any sound-track associated with such film;
(b) a videotape or laserdisc and includes any sound-track associated with such videotape or laserdisc; (Amended 63 of 1993 s. 3)
(c) a still film and includes any sound-track associated with such film;
(d) any other record of visual moving images that is capable of being used for the subsequent screening of those images and includes any sound-track associated with such record;
(e) any combination of the films referred to in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d); or
(f) an excerpt or part of a film referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e);"

Items (b) or (d) could clearly be used as appellations of interpretation for digital media (eg: DVD, VCD etc). Thus, according to the TELA themselves, they have jurisdiction over all visual representations of a film (from theatrical to video exhibition). But as you say, sometimes the system is rendered problematic -- case in point, Herman Yau's THE UNTOLD STORY, which was ordered cuts of just under three minutes for initial cinema and video exhibition at Category III; yet when HK DVD distributor City Connection released the film on DVD in recent years, they mastered their discs from a completely unedited video source...that retained all of the material the TELA had requested removed in the first place (and then supplied it under the same rating as prior, no less)!

As I always find, there's much more to HK cinema than just the movies themselves.

we have an age of consent of 16, but you can't look at a pic of your naked girlfriend/boyfriend until you're 18!!!

Bah! The real thing's better than a photo anyways! Well, usually....


About that City Connection UNTOLD STORY. I recently came across it in a store in Toronto for about $6 new and passed it up. I've got some other City Connection discs that turned out to be full screen from only so-so prints with burned in subs. That said, I'm curious to know if this version of UNTOLD is significantly different from the Tai Seng special edition from years back. That version is pretty strong meat as it is, but is the City Connection version stronger?

Brian Thibodeau wrote:That said, I'm curious to know if this version of UNTOLD is significantly different from the Tai Seng special edition from years back. That version is pretty strong meat as it is, but is the City Connection version stronger?

The City Connection version, from what I've been able to ascertain from information across the internet, is the same content wise. It is, however, fullscreen (pan and scan at that) and sourced from a pretty beat-up 1" betacam tape-master -- so yes, it looks pretty bad. But the subs are optional though!

I have agonised forever over buying the Tai Seng version, and it's sure cheap enough to pick up for a song now...BUT! Even though I'd love to listen to the Herman Yau and Anthony Wong commentaries, I have an extreme distaste for Miles Wood and tend to boycott anything his name is associated with (in short, I've had run-ins with the man on the 'net in the past, as I've found him one of the most self-centred and vitriolic haters* of modern HK cinema that I've ever had the displeasure of stumbling over). I'm probably missing out on a decent print of the film, but for me the negatives outweigh the positives I'm afraid...

* I don't disparage anyone the right to an opinion or the voice to air their views, but when those opinions and views dictate a necessity to rip on others (as well as the very society one is a guest of) to the low-point of questioning people's sanity when they offer a dissenting opinion, I tend to draw the line therein very quickly.

Well, I guess I'll stick to the one I've got then.

I've listened to the commentaries on the Tai Seng disc. You're not missing much. I reviewed them last year, for what it's worth:

http://www.ratethatcommentary.com/detail.php/681

I agree that the commentary isn't all that great. Anthony Wong isn't exactly chatty... there are stretches of several minutes where he doesn't say anything.

White Dragon wrote:

odresel wrote:I may be slightly off on this, but it's my understanding that TELA is responsible for rating films for theatrical showing, but that other censorship issues are handled by a different body, the Obscene Articles Tribunal (OAT)

I would never dispute the ins and outs of a legal system of another country, especially with someone who lives there. I was just basing what I wrote on information contained in the TELA website itself:

No offense taken or suggested at all . My point was that the Brits left us with a very complicated set of overlapping jurisdictions, responsibility purviews, and censorship mechanisms and systems, which create a variety of catch-22 situations when it comes to releasing films, and other media. And the p***y-whipped legislature here appears to have neither the drive nor the interest in resolving any of this.

I agree that the commentary isn't all that great. Anthony Wong isn't exactly chatty... there are stretches of several minutes where he doesn't say anything.

I couldn't help but feel that Wong was not exactly being helped by Miles Wood. Every time there was a long stretch of silence, I was thinking of a several questions I would have asked Wong were I the one moderating that commentary. I think the problem with Wood is that he tried to keep everything directly related to UNTOLD STORY when he could have flown off on many tangents about Hong Kong cinema, Wong's career, his training, the city itself, the Hong Kong industry, you name it - stuff that may not seem at first like it has much to do with the film at hand, but in the end has EVERYTHING to do with informing the viewer - both new and veteran - about the environment that fostered the film they're watching. I think there's a level of mass-produced superficiality to a lot of Hong Kong films - you know, everything's on the surface, you don't have to look that deep for subtext - that all but requires commentators to draw a bigger context in which to discuss the movie, rather than just discussing the movie itself. I think that's where Wood blew it on these tracks (ironically, I think Bey Logan understands this, although his chummy name dropping gets tired). Perhaps if Wood were seated with Wong AND Yau, the three of them could have produced ONE track revolving around just the film that would have been worthy, but when you've got each artist alone, and each artist comes from a system where they were used to doing literally dozens of films a year, their memory for details is going to be hazy, which leads to the excruciating amount of dead air on those tracks.

All I know is commentaries for Hong Kong films, especially those involving actors and directors, would benefit from a little "fan boy" sensibility from the moderators to go with the critical appreciation and scholarly research (although Wood seemed to have done little of the latter for the track). Not fawning geekiness, of course, but something to indicate that sitting with Anthony F**king Wong for 90 minutes was actually a very, very cool thing.

If only companies would come here and ask us when they wanted knowledgable people (and extremely well voiced, if I do say so myself! ) to yak with the talent for English language commentary tracks!

Oh well. I guess we'll have to make do with Ric Meyers...

Brian Thibodeau wrote:All I know is commentaries for Hong Kong films, especially those involving actors and directors, would benefit from a little "fan boy" sensibility from the moderators to go with the critical appreciation and scholarly research (although Wood seemed to have done little of the latter for the track).

From an interview with Bey Logan on Kenneth Brorsson's "So Good...Hong Kong DVD Movie Reviews" website...

http://www.sogoodreviews.com/specialfea ... ylogan.htm

"There was one guy who did a couple of HKL commentaries and crashed and burned, and afterwards he said to me "You mean, they expect us to do RESEARCH as well?"..."

Unsurprisingly, Miles Wood did a couple of HKL commentaries, and the criticisms of the discs involved was exactly what you've cited above, Brian. Herein, Logan confirms your observation (as well as displays that little has changed between when he did the Tai Seng commentary, and his latter brief stint with HKL).