Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

Console best movie i've ever seen.

Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

Numerootno A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

abrooks-07686 Documentary filmmaker Kirby Dick launches an incendiary, full-frontal assault on the Motion Picture Association of America's Classification and Ratings Administration (a.k.a. the MPAA's CARA). This is the entity that assigns ratings to movies -- the familiar G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17 designations. This secret, unregulated organization wields considerable power over the film industry and operates, the filmmaker asserts, on a highly subjective and prejudicial basis.

Sergeant_Tibbs It's always interesting to see a documentary about movies especially important ones but This Film Is Not Yet Rated isn't as dangerous as it's trying to make itself seem. Although it does have some serious moral implications as Kirby hires a private investigator to find out who are the anonymous members of the MPAA. The investigation is attempted to be presented in a cinematic way with reaction shots and closeups and all the coverage a film should have to be edited together, but its attempt feels contrived and unconvincing due to it being shot on DV. It attempts to be entertainment with caper music and graphics but this just takes away the sincerity. There were times when I struggled to agree with either side of the filmmaker vs. ratings arguments as all it seemed to be was merely a power struggle. However, when it got into the specificity of the details it had some interesting points, such as the implications of sex vs. violence and how sex is accused of hurting society more than violence, particularly homosexual sex. As well as how with guns shooting people with no blood is considered more acceptable than shooting people with blood and how the position of the camera for sex scenes that implicates thrusting is more acceptable than when it shows the trusting. It had a great payoff in the end as its conspiracy is revealed and the intentions behind the documentary are justified but the packaging does hold it back.7/10

Steve Pulaski The MPAA's intentions are good, but their execution is biased, corrupt, and dangerous. Kirby Dick, director of This Film is Not Yet Rated, explores the industry deeper to get the answers on who rates the films people make and what they consider R vs. NC-17.A number of filmmakers have been forced to edit their films to avoid an NC-17 rating. At first glance, people might not see what is so wrong with that rating. We think, doesn't that mean your film achieves the highest rating possible? That it's explicit, vulgar, etc? Isn't that a good thing? Well, in theory, yes. We think the greatest or the strongest is the best, but having an NC-17 rating attached to your film leaves you open for controversy and almost entirely closed for profit.NC-17 films aren't usually put in a wide-release. Meaning you'll have to resort to finding very cheap theaters to show your films, which will contribute to a very, very low box office revenue. Also, advertising won't be easy seeing as you'll have to wait until after 9:00 PM to show commercials for your film. Not to mention by occupying the NC-17 rating you're blacklisting your movie from places like Blockbuster, Wal-Mart, etc. It's a dangerous move to occupy the rating, but brave films continue to do it which is something that should be commended.I've always looked at the MPAA with an odd face because of their uneven consistency for rating films. Of course, every film is different, but why films like 2011's The Way needed an R rating because of one brief sequence of marijuana is beyond me. Drugs don't sit right with the MPAA. According to the website, if a drug, including a cigarette, is shown at one point during the film it automatically can't be lower than PG-13, which is understandable. But the fact that a brief scene of drugs, like in The Way can be deemed an R is unnecessary.Violence is another concept that somehow doesn't register with the MPAA. Robert Rodriguez's Sin City was a grim, bloody, violent, and brutal film but manages to sneak by with an R rating somehow. Compare that to The Cooler, another fantastic film, which was threatened with an NC-17 rating for showing a three second glimpse of Maria Bello's pubic hair. It's preposterous.We've already established the MPAA is incredibly uneven in their actions towards violence and sex. Instead of looking at the true moral of the film, they look at the context and whether or not it's like that for unnecessary purposes or like that to inform. Scorsese's Casino was almost stamped with an NC-17 because of foul language, when really, it wasn't doing it to be gratuitous, but to show how the mobsters really behaved and spoke. To even threaten to stamp the film with an NC-17 rating is a joke.I haven't spoke much about This Film is Not Yet Rated because it makes me think about the MPAA as a whole. The film is about filmmaker Kirby Dick who goes on a journey using private investigators to uncover dirt about who is rating the films people see. That's right, the people who rate films G through NC-17 are nameless to the public. Right off the bat, that's an unorthodox statement. Movies are released to the public, but the people who decide how movies are released to the public aren't? One person in the film is astounded how the film industry is such a public state of affairs, yet this one group who is so large has snuck under the radar and the individuals have almost all been nameless, and they play such an important role in every film.This Film is Not Yet Rated is a wake-up call for the public, a daring move on the industry, and a film that won't take "no" or "keep out" for an answer. Dick should be commended for his persistent efforts, and should also be looked up to for doing something no filmmaker with a bigger name could do before.Starring: Kirby Dick, Kevin Smith, John Waters, Jack Valenti, Kimberly Peirce, Alison Anders, and Becky Altringer. Directed by: Kirby Dick.

Darguz In the movie "Dragonfly", Kevin Costner's character says the "F" word once. At that point in the director's commentary, Tom Shadyac says, "...You can shoot a guy 3,000 times and get a 'PG-13', but if you say the 'F' word *twice* it's automatically an 'R'. I'll let that be its own comment." This was when I first started really thinking about the movie rating system as such, though the subject of our society's (by which I mean primarily America) bizarre, obsessive, unhealthy attitude toward nudity and sex is something which I have thought about for a long time. We are obsessed with nudity and sex -- as the old saying goes, "Sex sells," (which is understood to mean nudity, which of course is *not* the same as sex) -- and at the same time, apparently utterly terrified of it. This split has led us, as a society, to a point of hysterical insanity on the subject, and given us the highest incidence of teen pregnancy in the world, and by FAR the highest incidence of rape -- close to 10 times higher than the next-highest country.This film offers a greatly detailed perspective on one major manifestation of the issue, the movie censorship system -- sorry, I mean "rating" system. The side-by-side comparison of R and NC-17 scenes was particularly revealing. It just boggles my mind that people get so twisted up on this subject.I love the irony that the very ratings board scrutinized in this film was required to watch it. If there are any honest members on that board, perhaps it got them to think a little more about what they do and how they operate.(P.S. the explanation of the ratings near the beginning is hilarious!)