This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2006)

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Captivating movie !

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

I'm glad, this movie expose a lot of how the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) honestly works. I was always curious, on how they rate the suitability of films' themes and content for certain audiences through their G, PG, PG-13, R or NC-17 ratings. For the most part, I never really had too much of a problem with the MPAA system, because in my opinion, people will go see, their type of a movie, no matter what. Plus, it help the viewer choice what type of a movie, they want to see or not. Nevertheless, I do see, where the film rating can destroy a film's profitable. A good example of this, is when they rated a film, NC-17. I get that, theaters have the right to show, what films, they want to show. However, I don't get is why the MPAA is funded and controlled by the big film studios, when it shouldn't. It's allow more leeway, for them, to get the rated, they want, than what should be deserved. No wonder, why so many risky interdependent films are on this NC-17 list and how few studios films are. Another thing, I don't get about the NC-17 rating is how it was supposed to replace, the X rating; which by the 1970s and 1980s, became more known for films filmed by pornographers. At this point, its hold the same stigma, as the X rating. In my opinion, I see, no reason for them to even have that type of a rating any longer; since Rated R & NC-17 is nearly the same thing. Yes, I get that the NC-17, is the rating that says no children will be admitted at all, even with Parental Guidance, but it's not their job to play the parents. After all, like I said before, if they really didn't want the film to be shown in their theater. They have the right, not to show it. As a thinking American, I do find the MPAA to be a little more strict, to sexuality-charge movies than films of mindless violence to be true. It's kinda weird, how normal, explicit violence is to Americans, compare to other countries, are more against violence, that, then explicit sexuality. It definitely speaks to a cultural difference between countries. There is a huge problem in America rating system, if they consider sex to be more graphic than violence. Then, the double standard, in how sex scenes that contain male nudity is more likely to be censored compared to female nudity. Also, how homosexual love scenes can cause higher content ratings compared to heterosexual love scenes, among others. It's pretty clear, that was the film is showing here, is indeed somewhat true. Directed by Kirby Dick, this documentary explores, how the MPAA acts in a very notorious corrupt way, by pointing out the examples, I mention here, through the use of talking head interviews and film clips. Because of the film's criticize of the entertainment industry, a lot of the filmmakers interview for this film, couldn't be, too honest, about the industry, nor would the films clips had the approvable of the studios that hold it. So, this prompted the filmmakers to invoke the fair use doctrine. Because of this concept, the film clips and interviews, had to limit to a few frames. It's also kinda funny that despite all their bitching about illegal copying of their own films, the MPAA admitted making digital copies of this documentary after it had been submitted for review, against their own. It's also funny, how this film originally got NC-17 rating by the MPAA for "some graphic sexual content.", but the film had changed dramatically from the time of the NC-17 rating, the film cannot be released with an MPAA rating without the film being resubmitted for review. Talk about outsmarting the MPAA. However, it's not the MPAA is totally evil like this movie, makes it out to be. In truth, its rating system is way better than the Hayes Code of the early 20th century which really limited artistic freedoms. We, as the modern audience are expose to a lot more, different types of movies with mature content; than our forefathers, were. Like, I said before, people will see a movie, no matter, what they say. Anyways, the film really fail to mention, some of the goods that MPAA does; such as allowing films to gain access to global markets, creating jobs, helping build technology & innovation within the film industry, allowing a large research and report database to access to the public, as well, as protecting the audience from child pornography, animal abuse, and epilepsy actions, that potentially trigger seizures for people with photosensitive epilepsy. The way, they act like the MPAA is an over controlling censor board, is a bit overreaction. It's not like the MPAA is spying on the filmmakers. If anything, the way, Dick crew's use of private investigator Becky Altringer to unmask the identities of the ratings and appeals board members is a bit too disturbing and somewhat illegal. Also, the use of voice reenactment scenes like the one for Joan Graves, head of the Classification and Rating Administration for the Motion Picture Association of America seem, somewhat misleading. The movie fails to mention that MPAA also rates film trailers, print advertising, posters, and other media used to promote a film. Green, yellow, or red title cards displayed before the start of a trailer indicate the trailer's rating. Nor the film mention the controversial "R-Cards", which parents could obtain for their teenage children, under the age of 17, to see R-rated films without adult accompaniment. You would think that would be mention that. Overall: This movie was indeed very fun to watch. Very good insight in American censorship and media manipulation. A must-watch for anybody curious about how films are made.

I watched this on a whim because I heard it mentioned and decided I wanted to check it out. I'm glad I did. I've always been interested in the MPAA and their ratings, and I have heard controversies involving them before, and this movie really brings it all to light.The movie essentially interviews film makers and talks about just how silly the whole MPAA is. They have no specific guidelines to how they rate the films, and constantly are biased against films that contain, say, gay sexual content or sexual content that is focused on female pleasure. A straight sex scene that gets an R rating for a film can be the exact same as a gay sex scene but that movie would get an NC17 because there seems to be a lot of discrimination about those kinds of topics. It really just pisses you off to see this kind of stuff going on. The movie also has a kind of side plot where the director hires an investigator to find out the names of the people who rate the films since their names are withheld by the MPAA. These scenes are pretty funny and are enjoyable to watch. I'd say that if you are a fan of films or a film maker, you should check this out because it gives a really good insight into the ridiculous world of the MPAA rating system.

I watched this movie in a film class, and found it to be juvenile and biased. "Outing" the reviewers who work for the MPAA, filming one of them surreptitiously while she was eating a sandwich, and going through one of the reviewer's garbage was an appalling invasion of privacy. The movie attempted, with some success, to label this issue as one of free speech, censorship, religious nuts trying to tell me what I can see, secrecy and studio power. This attempted label is nonsense. The true issue is how do we protect our children from the purveyors of smut who would show our children anything in order to make a buck. The movie seems to say that the current rating system does a lousy job of protecting our children from scenes of violence, so the solution is to allow them to see explicit images of all types of depraved sexual activity. Adults should, and do, watch anything they wish to. The rating system has nothing to do with an adult's freedom to see what he or she wishes. Nor does the current system tell anyone what kind of movies to make. Those who own movie theaters are well within their rights if they elect not to show movies containing graphic details of sexual activity, just as parents are free not to allow their children to go to multi- plexes showing films with graphic sexual content - as many would. If anything, our current rating system is far too lax in not sufficiently warning parents about movies containing profanity, sexual acts, degrading acts against women, and acts of violence. In closing, this self-indulgent and self-serving film offered no adult discussion of the harm or lack thereof on children from their observing explicit images of sexual acts or violence or any reasonable alternatives to our current voluntary system of rating films.

This is a great look at how the films we see are rated. The MPAA it seems is bordering on the edge of censorship. I believe that the whole concept of an NC-17 is unnecessary. If a movie has that level of sex or violence it should really be up to the parents of the children who are going to see these movies whether or not to let them see it. An R rating requires that a person under the age of 17 has to have an adult with them, so its not like 6 year olds are going to be able to "wander" into a movie showing sex anyway. The film does not stress or explain thoroughly enough that there should be an alternate to the MPAA rating system, not implying that no movies should be rated, instead having a different system to rate them in. This probably would not have any if all effect on G or PG movies, and not all too much in PG 13 movies, it would mainly deal with the R vs NC-17 ratings. It is a real problem for film makers who include adult themes to make a work of art the way that they intend it to be. Also the film does spend waaaayyy too much time on their investigation and not enough time making a stronger case for their ideal rating system. That was the only thing that really bothered me.