Well, a lot of the people around me know that I LOATHE the MPAA (when I'm really angry I refere to them as Stalin suckups, a bit extreme, but this organization really just... ). It is absolutely poposterous that any film that has the F-Word used more than three times automatically gets an R. To tell the truth, I think it's proposterous for a film with just one F-Bomb to get a PG-13. To me, and I know there are many who will disagree with this, you hear one swear word, you've heard them all. There is an incredible difference between movies like Good Will Hunting, which I believe is an excellent film for teens and young adults, and films like Saving Private Ryan, which, as previously stated, perhaps should be viewed by SOME childen, but ultimately earned its rating with flying colors.

I'm also a lot less than crazy about the sex/nudity situation. It appears that in general, frontal nudity of any kind warrants an R rating, though their have been some exceptions such as Titanic, Something's Gotta Give, Calendar Girls, etc. I even heard that Ewan McGreggor was in a film recentely and they had to cut it down in the U.S. becuase it featured a frontal shot (to get the whole thing you would have to see it in the UK). Now if that's true, it's just rediculous! I do agree, however, that there are lines that may be crossed and if something gets too explicit, it should be given the proper high rating.

No movie should be rated NC-17 for pure violence. It's just not what the rating's really for and I just don't believe it's the correct way to go about it, especially when there are plenty of violent R-rated films that would probably already have more gore anyway than the one being rated NC-17. As Roger Ebert said in his review of Hannibal, if this kind of violence doesn't get an NC-17, then no movie ever will. I believe that's the way it should be. NC-17 (if we should have it at all, and I'm skeptical that we should) it should be for sex only.

I think perhaps they ought to just abandon this current system and rate a film by age. When it gets up to maybe 15, there should be a requirement for some sort of parental intervention. When it gets up to 18, it's probably porn and should be conducted as so. On the issue of violence, there are many films that have senseless, graphic violence, that I don't find fun, but raith hurtful to humanity and the entertainment industry. However, there are many films that contain harsh violence which are dramatic subject films that, maybe, should be viewed by SOME children that can handle or it or may need to be taught about certain things. Kids who appear to be discriminatory or who have committed hate crimes, probably should see Schindler's List and kids who seem to walk about America, not showing an ounce of respect for their free community probably should see Saving Private Ryan as I believe films truly can change people.

One could say at least we're not still under the disgusting thing that was the haze code and the censorship crap that regulated our movies for so many years. Still, I say down with the MPAA, and these pathetic policies!