Censor - CinemaOne

Overview

IMDb R. Tomatoes

A screener at the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), who has earned an unsavory reputation for being the strictest censor of violent films, begins to spiral out of control after viewing a low-budget horror with similarities to the disappearance of her sister.

Reviews

larz9 wrote:

This is another one of those movies where you don't get your time back. There is nothing clever about the plot. It just twaddles on aimlessly, leading up to very cheesy murder scenes that look like the product of a high school student's drama submission and sweet FA payoff in the end. Why this got the support of The National Lottery through The Arts Council of Wales is beyond me. It's simply a colossal waste of everyone's money. Then again, if that is your sort of thing, then more power to you. Each to their own and all that. :)

r96sk wrote:

Very, very good! 'Censor' features a great premise and it turns out to be one that is executed excellently. The feel of the film throughout is near perfection, with the tone all right and the 1980s aesthetic seemingly on point. It's paced ideally, with zero moments of drag. Niamh Algar puts in a super performance as lead. I recently watched her also impress in television's 'Deceit' - which was broadcast within a week or so of this production's cinema release, there are actually some (minor) similarities between the two; a set of dark roles for Algar, that's for sure! She's the clear standout, though props to the support cast too. Looking at a few other reviews, it seems to come down to how effective the ending is to you. For me? I think it's a great conclusion.

EmmanuelGoldstein wrote:

**A movie completely removed from reality - which is the point** A confusing, convoluted and completely absurd and unrealistic movie. Since this is of course all intentional, I am not entirely sure if that makes the movie better or worse. It's one of those movies that's really hard to rate and almost impossible to compare to any other movie, though it does feel very reminiscent of David Lynch movies. But for those who just feel confused after watching it, let me explain it real fast. Basically the movie is comparing deranged, schizophrenic psychopaths to, well, movies censors :-) Because the schizophrenic psycho killer loses his ability to tell what is real and what's not. Similarly, people engaged in censorship also loose their ability to distinguish reality from fantasy, or at least that's what the movie argues. Because censorship is almost always being justified by saying that without it, whatever is depicted in movies, would become a reality. Of course "normal" people can distinguish between reality and fiction, but schizophrenics can not, so censorship is necessarily to keep the schizophrenics from imitating fiction. But of course by arguing that fiction would become reality, the censors expose themselves as people who seem to have difficulty keeping reality and fiction separate. So then if it was really true that violent movies would make such people violent, then by their own logic, you would have to conclude that such censors themselves would become the most violent monsters ever, as they of course watch the most amount of horribly violent horror movies. But even so, we have never heard of any censor going on a killing spree, except of course in this very movie itself, which would of course itself be categorized as a "video nasty". And that's the point.