Most of you know that I hate the MPAA as much as a Conservative Republican hates Michael Moore. I am so sick and tired of the MPAA it's unbelieveable. I think it was made just to piss me off.

This is my complaint: They're too strict. Let me give an example. Let's say there's a film with no violence and no sex, but the 'F' word is used more then twice. It automatically gets an R-rating. If any of you have ever heard of the movie "Changing Lanes" with Samuel L. Jackson, then that's a prime example. The movie is rated R just for language.

Now, don't get me wrong here. Some movies earn their R-rating respectively, such as Pulp Fiction and Scarface etc. Do all films need it though? No. What pisses me off the most is how movies that can serve as educational value are rated R. Just some movies on the top of my head:
The Godfather - You may not think it, but my Uncle teaches the film to his 11th and 12th grade classes. My school will not allow students to view R-rated material.
Platoon
We Were Soldiers
Schindler's List
JFK
Hamburger Hill
Apocalypse Now
The Deer Hunter
Malcolm X
Saving Private Ryan
The Pianist
Braveheart

I think they need to be more lenient on what they rate R. We have to remember that kids my age today see people shot on the news everyday. We hear the swearing, not only when we say it, but in our music too.

We also have to realize that the 14, 15, and 16 year olds could be going into the military in a few years, and we could very well still be in a war. There's nothing that can explain the horror kids will see over there that they couldn't see on the big screen. These are just my thoughts. What are yours? -Pat

P.S.--I hope some of you people who like the MPAA don't say, "Well, some kids take it to the head." That's a huge stereotype. I guarantee only a few nuts do. It's made out to look like all kids do.

Pat, those few idiots influence the majority. Like when a girl hangs out with a few slutty girls, then she is labeled slutty as well if ya know what I mean.

I don't really have a problem with the rating system, in my hometown we didn't worry about the ratings. Some of those movies on your list really didn't have to have an R-rating. I dunno what the problem is with that .

In theory,it is a good organization, but in practice,it(for lack of a better term, and to steal from a movie) sucks. Movies are so hard to put into 3 or 4 catagories based on content. Most of the movies you listed as "educational", most kids dont want to see these days because they're "boring". The only reason they might want to see them(and I'm talking 8-14 yr olds) is because they are rated R, therefor forbidden. I have ridden chairlifts with 8 yr old kids who have seen probably every horror movie.When I asked him why he wanted to see such peices of garbage, "they looked cool" "why?" "i dont know, because theyre rated R?" At the very least they should have a rating between PG13 and R/

I don't know what to say here. The MPAA is horrible though. I don't believe that kids should be allowed seeing some horribly mature movie if they are too young or too immature to take it. There is a thin line to follow.

PS Pat, I thought you didn't like the Deer Hunter :p

I re watched it. It's top 40 for me now. -Pat

MPAA: Good Idea gone to the shitter.

Longtime head of the MPAA, Jack Valenti, resigned last week so there could be some change in the future.

Language alone should never cause a movie to get an R rating, unless if it is extremely sexually explicit (i.e. something like Clerks, which initially recieved an NC-17 rating for language alone :rolleyes: ). The Godfather recieved an R rating back in 1972, and I'm pretty sure if Coppola attempted to get the film rerated today, it would get a PG-13, as most likely would the sequels.

Every other example you name, save JFK and Malcolm X, which the latter was rated PG-13, are in the War genre. And while you are correct that many young Americans could go off and serve in the military during the next few years, a PG-13 rating for Saving Private Ryan would mean a 9 year-old can get in without any hassle. I'm sure that a few 9 year-olds could handle it, but Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List and Braveheart (etc.) are films that are geneerally inappropriate for the age group. The Passion of the Christ deserves an R rating for violence, but at the same time teenagers should be able to see it without any hassle. The R rating was also established to keep kids from interrupting serious and mature films like the ones you mentioned. JFK and even something like Fahrenheit 9/11 were rated R most likely for political reasons, I'd say.

My solution would be to make it even stricter: if the PG-13 rating was enforced, thus keeping most people under the age of 13 out of the film, than many of the movies above that were rated R could be rated PG-13. Stuff like Scarface, Pulp Fiction, Fight Club, and even some films currently rated NC-17 like Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, Last Tango in Paris, and 1900 could be rated R. And NC-17 could be for porn films.

Thug

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!