Customer Reviews
Disappointed in documentary 
2008-07-30
I was expecting more then this documentary delivered. After viewing the documentary I was not persuaded by it. While the current rating board is not perfect, it is still a guide. In every situation in life we can always find examples that may show an inconstant behavior in judgment. We can use the Baseball Hall Of Fame as an example. One player may gain entrance while another, with similar life time stats does not. So I am not surprised we find the same situation in movie ratings. Ratings are important and I am sure that rating a film is not always easy. Those that want a more friendly movie knows what they have to do, yet we find them complaining in this, so called, documentary. They would rather change the system then change their movie. While some may have valid complaints displayed in this movie, the system as a whole, does do an effective and difficult job. Any system replacing it would also receive criticism.
An important film about censorship ... and fun for the whole family 
2008-06-09
This is an absolutely excellent film about one area of censorship we don't hear much about. To think that ALL movies that we see in theaters or for sale in retail chain stores have to be approved by Jack Valenti (now Dan Glickman) and his band of fundamentalists is scary, scary stuff.
Not only is this a great subject, the filmmaker also made it very fun. It's a good mix of interviews, funny (and sexy) edited movie scenes, and of course, the private investigators chasing around the MPAA raters was very exciting. It really had me on the edge of my seat.
Seriously, I would approve this film for teenagers - if you're old enough to take a civics class, and old enough to think (maturely) about censorship issues, you should see this film. I am going to recommend this film to journalism, film, and arts professors - anybody going into the arts as a career should give serious thought to the issues raised here. Additionally, the documentary briefly discusses government (Pentagon) censorship of movies as well.
Our media and government censors what we see and hear every day. Bush doesn't want us to see the funerals of dead soldiers for "national security" reasons, or the news will drop a story because it offends their sponsor (or their parent company, or one of their sister companies). This film shows us another active example of censorship, through a private, corporate-owned committee. It's almost impossible to believe that, in the 21st Century, we are at a point where all films must go through this vetting process before they can be sold in stores, shown in a theater, or before a commercial can be played on TV. Again, scary stuff. Our freedoms are just an illusion.
If anything, watch it to find out what movies to watch. 
2008-06-06
I watched this documentary after seeing a preview for it online. In the preview, it featured Matt Stone, one of the creators of South Park. I am a huge fan of South Park: The Movie, and knowing the struggle Matt Stone and Trey Parker went through with the MPAA, I had to see this documentary. I say documentary, but really, it falls more under the new genre heading of docutainment. A documentary that has been scripted to be more entertaining than informative, a la Super Size Me or any Michael Moore piece. With that said, all things considered, two things you should know when you buy or rent this film; one, there is nudity and violence abound. If that kind of thing turns you off, then you should probably avoid this. However, if were sitting around, and asking yourself what does Maria Bello's pubes look like, then hey, you're in luck. Second thing you should consider, this movie is produced by Netflix. I wondered at first why Netflix can or even would produce this. Then I realized at the end of the movie why, because at the end, I wanted to watch every movie featured in it. Seriously, I even found myself wanting to watch Boy's Don't Cry, to see why the MPAA thought it was so bad.
I don't want to give too much away, just note the two main thoughts above, know this documentary is more entertaining than informative, and at the end, you'll want to make time to watch more movies.
MPAA, be gone! 2008-04-18
I got this documentary because I thought this was going to focus on films that have been "unrated", which seems to be the latest trend these days. However, this film is more about the MPAA and their subjective ratings on movies.
Wow! I've learned a lot more about the MPAA than any other mediums. Just who exactly are these people and what criteria do they use when rating movies? Naturally, suspicion arises when you find out that there's no public information released as to who's on the board. In addition, there are no known criteria on how films are given a rating. In other words, filmmakers do not get a form detailing how their particular film earned such a rating.
This doesn't sit well with Kirby Dick. He's determined to expose to the public just who work for the MPAA. With the help of a private investigator, the mystery unfolds.
Kirby Dick includes interviews of different filmmakers and their reactions of the ratings. What really bugs me the most is when Dick showed a comparison of films on certain topics and each received a different rating. For example, gay films are more likely to get an NC-17 as compared to the mainstream films, even when the topic is the same, such as masturbation, orgasm, full frontal nudity, kissing and the like.
Overall, I thought that this was a good documentary. I do wish that there were more clips of other movies or a comparison of movies that have been edited and the originals. Nonetheless, very educational!
Whose standards are they, anyway??? 2008-03-30
"This Film is Not Yet Rated" should stand next to "Indie Sex" as two films that show the arbitrary nature of a group of people who take it upon thenselves to protect you from yourself. The battles over ratings was begun years ago, when the first independent filmmaker decided that a body of prudes and primadonnas should not have the last say in regards to his film's content. Since then, the MPAA has stretched it's tentacles to remain the defacto judge on how popular a film is to become.
The process that an independent film must be subjected to, versus a major studio film, to be given a rating that will not affect it's distribution or advertising is tantamount to a violation of the First Amendment. This film gives the viewer a look at the people that make these decisions, but all that aside, this controversy started with the appointment of Jack Valenti to head the MPAA. Valenti, it seems, had access to people in pretty high offices in Washington. He made himself the "Ruler of Hollywood" by instituting a laundry list of guidelines for the studios to follow. Now, if a studio had a film they were to release that "stretched" the code just a little bit, more times than not, it made it through the process to be distributed as any other film with a lower rating.
There was a code that was instituted on the studios, back in 1930. Apparently, there were films that were becoming "racier" and stretching the bounds of decency that existed back then. The rules back then were pretty clear cut. The differences can be seen between films that were made pre-1930, and ones that were made post 1930. The differences were subtle, but there, nonetheless. To see them today, one might wonder what all the fuss was about. The same question is being asked today. It is surprising that a film that is no more than blood and guts violence can be "passed" by the MPAA with an "R" rating, and a film that has NO violence, but treats sex respectfully, has to wade through a mountain of crap before it can even be CONSIDERED.
How about all those films that are "unrated"? What happened to NC-17? Or was this a "gimme" by the MPAA, so the major studios could squeak under the radar? There are a rash of films today being released that are "unrated". What exactly does this change encompass? Seems to me that films made by the major studios are becoming worse, while Independent Films are kept (still) in limited release. Maybe it is an attempt to "level the playing field". What these people don't realise, is that it is content, not rating, that makes a film what it is.
The fact that the MPAA will not give reasons or guidelines to Independent Filmmakers, so they can meet the requirements for wider distribution, appears as an extension of the Civil Rights fight, back in the 60's. Valenti possessed a lot of power in Hollywood, as well as Washington. The arbitrary nature of the MPAA goes to the heart of the people who enforce the rules. In "this Film is Not Yet Rated", great pains are taken in keeping these people "anonymous". WHY? In the MPAA's credo, it states that the ratings are made by "ordinary" people. "Ordinary"? Define THAT one! If these people are "ordinary", why can't the average person question them? Or their governing body?
"This Film is Not Yet Rated" is a humorous look at an institution that touts itself as the "saviors of decency" in Hollywood. If they're not careful, they just might "savior" themselves into obsolescence.
Loved it! Great look into how films are (sometimes unfairly) rated. 2008-02-08
Documentary filmmaker Kirby Dick delights in uncovering the hypocrisy and political corruption that are inherent in the ratings system employed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Gay icon John Waters is also on hand due in no small part to the MPAA's consistent treatment of gay cinema in harsher (NC-17) tones than straight / violent movies.System Requirements:Run Time: 97 minsFormat: DVD MOVIE Genre: DOCUMENTARIES/MISC. Rating: UNRATED UPC: 796019798679 Manufacturer No: 79867
Abolish The MPAA! 2008-01-14
Kirby Dick directs and also appears in this documentary that focuses on the MPAA, the highly secretive trade organization that rates motion pictures. Dick conducts an series of interviews with various film directors such as John Waters, Mary Harron and Kimberly Pierce. I found the interview with Pierce to be especially enlightening, as she discusses the ordeal she went through over the rating of her outstanding film "Boys Don't Cry." Certain scenes were vital to the artistic integrity of the movie. But the MPAA wanted them deleted, apparently because they were uncomfortable with the lesbian sexuality depicted. In fact, this doc makes an excellent case that homosexuality or any sort of "aberrant" sex is dealt with especially harshly by the MPAA.
Of course, every moviegoer already knows that violence is widely tolerated in American films, often getting only a PG or PG -13 rating. In contrast, sex is much more highly censored. Even a relatively mild film like "The Cooler" is threatened with the dreaded NC-17 rating because of a scene showing pubic hair. NC-17 is actively avoided by the studios because it prevents the movie from being able to be widely advertised and thus limits its commercial success. Also big chains like Wal-Mart refuse to carry NC-17 movies once they are released on DVD.
My personal belief is that the MPAA ratings are used as a form of marketing by the studios. They actually increase the amount of gratuitous profanity and violence in many films because directors realize that if their film receives a G rated it will be considered "just for kids" and not taken seriously. Most films intentionally go for either a PG, PG-13 or R rating depending on their target audience. Once again the MPAA exists not to "protect the public" but rather as a marketing gimmick for the studios.
The NC-17 rating are also used as a weapon to prevent films with more serious artistic attentions from challenging mainstream values and cultural taboos. Independent films are judged especially harshly. The big studios basically want to uphold the status quo. This serves their ultimate aim of making the most money possible but places ridiculous restrictions on the art of film making.
This doc does have its shortcomings. For example, I didn't care for the "private investigator" subplot, which including Dick and a P.I. stalking members of the ratings board and even going through their trash. But still the main point of the movie is valid - that the MPAA is a corrupt organization that serves to stifle artistic free expression and should be done away with.
A Crippling blow to the MPAA 2008-01-11
I despise the MPAA. Ever since I was a 12-year-old kid sneaking into R-rated films I was more than mature enough to watch, I have been amazed at the arbitrariness of it all. It's a voluntary ratings system that really isn't voluntary. Standards are unclear and contradictory. Its raters are secret (until now) and appeals rarely happen.
There is something terribly unjust about a small cadre of white, conservative, upper-middle class Californians deciding for the whole country what is and is not appropriate. These are not average parents, nor are they representative of a divere nation.
As for the film itself, it shows graphic material that didn't get an R-rating. Some of it is stupid, such as Trey Parker and Matt Stone's Orgazmo. Others, like key scenes in "Boys Don't Cry," are truly awful calls by the MPAA. At the end of the film all the raters are revealed and some will come out thinking the MPAA ratings system should be at the least reformed, if not abolished out right.
to censor or to censure? 
2008-01-10
The whole notion of rating films based upon their content is genuinely complex and controversial, especially in the internet age when anyone can view anything in the privacy of their homes. Should we "censor" films, let the public "censure" them by audience response, or just let the free market work its magic when people vote with their wallets? What are reasonable parameters for artistic expression in the public square? Director Kirby Dick gives a uniformly one-sided view in this documentary. According to Dick, the Motion Picture Association of America, made (in)famous by the high profile Jack Valenti (its head from 1966 to 2004), represents all that's wrong and unfair about Hollywood from an artist's perspective. The MPAA is secretive, arbitrary in its decisions, moralistic, defends corporate monopolies and the major studios to the detriment of independents, and is harsh on sex while giving graphic violence a free ride. There are grounds for all those complaints, but don't look to this film for a serious treatment of such an important topic.
The Best DVD I Bought in 2007 2007-12-31
I have purchased alot of DVDs this year. None of them were blockbuster entertainment blockbuster feature films, they were all educational.
This was the most memorable one and I still watch it again and again. The light approach to deadly serious subject matter is both moving and engaging. The MPAA - which exists as the self-appointed and completely unaccountable decider of what is and is not fit for the silver screen - finally gets its review. And should we say that the critics were less than impressed. If you make decisions on what movies your kids go and see based solely on MPAA film ratings, you are quite possibly exposing your kids to much more than you think while at the same time preventing them from seeing more perfectly healthy material than you might have thought possible.
This film was exceptionally well put together and researched and it makes the most compelling argument I have seen to date for getting rid of the MPAA's arbitrary, sexist, unaccountable and spiteful rating system. I fear for the safety of our citizens if the people who made this film ever decided to produce propaganda for a living. They clearly know how to lay out a compelling case that leaves you say "Well, can't argue with that!".
