Kirby Dick's exposé about the American movie ratings board.Kirby Dick's exposé about the American movie ratings board.Kirby Dick's exposé about the American movie ratings board.
- Awards
- 4 wins & 3 nominations
Clark Baker
- Self - Private Investigator
- (as Clark)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaThe MPAA announced that starting in March of 2007, it will change their policy and allow filmmakers to cite other film's ratings as comparison. The MPAA will also provide information about the demographics of its board.
- Quotes
John Waters: I also heard on 'A Dirty Shame' - and I have no proof of this - that there were doctors involved... and that some of the kinkier terms, like felching and stuff, that they explained to the MPAA what felching meant. Now, I would like to have heard that because felching, no one has ever done felching. Felching is when you fuck someone and suck your own cum out of their asshole. Well, I know a lot of perverts and I don't know anyone who's done that.
- Crazy creditsAt the end credits a count of what the film shows: FUCKS(OR DERIVATIONS OF): 20 MOTHERFUCKERS: 3 HUMPS: 220 NIPPLES: 10 INTERCOURSE WITH PIE: 1 CARTOONS/PUPPETS IN SEXUAL POSITIONS: 15 SPLOSHING: 1 FELCHING: 0
- ConnectionsEdited into This Film Is Not Yet Rated: Deleted Scenes (2009)
- SoundtracksAppeals Members
Written and Performed by Michael S. Patterson (ASCAP)
Courtesy of Absynthe Zelery Music (ASCAP)
Featured review
Refreshing. Not perfect, but pretty *expletive removed* good.
A look into the mysterious organization that decides what rating a film is given. And all sorts of other issues/arguments that are created because of it. Numerous actors, directors, producers, former MPAA raters and critics share their thoughts on the good and bad of the highly secretive organization.
I have always found "rating reasons" funny and often absurd, which is why I make my own when writing these things. I have also always liked to look into second opinion on things so maybe whoever reads my little IMDb reviews will get that from them. Since, the often disturbing fact for film makers is the rating is something they have to live with and discussing it with the people who decided it is virtually not an option. And that ultimately decides what theaters decided to show it and how much, which is essentially how films money.
The reason as many of you know for the infamous NC-17 rating is sexual content, especially if it is explicit, and that is basically the focus of this film. Which is both good and bad. Good, because they do a pretty good job comparing R-rated and NC-17 rated sex scenes which are not that different. But bad, because the issue of violence (in my opinion the most potentially objectionable thing shown in film) is attended to on a small scale. There are violent PG-13 movies (Ah-nuld's "The 6th Day" for one) which include bone breaking, dismemberment, and you get the picture. While on the other side you have R-rated movies with really minimal or much more accurate depiction of violence (Michael Mann's "Heat" for one). Yet violence as entertainment is condoned, but showing kids what violence really looks like is not. Darren Aronofsky and Kevin Smith make the film's only points on violence and it'll leave you wanting for more.
Also there wasn't a comparison to other countries rating system, just a mention that those systems are a little less absurd, which is true if you look at the rating sections on most IMDb film profiles, but some thought here would have been invaluable to this film's argument.
However, this remains a pleasantly fresh documentary that many, but mainly John Waters (haha), have been waiting for. 8/10
Not Rated, contains: sexual material and some violent clips - There are many clips of sex scenes shown, but are shown and discussed from a critical perspective. The few violent scenes are discussed in the same manner. So bring your kids! They'll finally know what "it's not for you" means.
I have always found "rating reasons" funny and often absurd, which is why I make my own when writing these things. I have also always liked to look into second opinion on things so maybe whoever reads my little IMDb reviews will get that from them. Since, the often disturbing fact for film makers is the rating is something they have to live with and discussing it with the people who decided it is virtually not an option. And that ultimately decides what theaters decided to show it and how much, which is essentially how films money.
The reason as many of you know for the infamous NC-17 rating is sexual content, especially if it is explicit, and that is basically the focus of this film. Which is both good and bad. Good, because they do a pretty good job comparing R-rated and NC-17 rated sex scenes which are not that different. But bad, because the issue of violence (in my opinion the most potentially objectionable thing shown in film) is attended to on a small scale. There are violent PG-13 movies (Ah-nuld's "The 6th Day" for one) which include bone breaking, dismemberment, and you get the picture. While on the other side you have R-rated movies with really minimal or much more accurate depiction of violence (Michael Mann's "Heat" for one). Yet violence as entertainment is condoned, but showing kids what violence really looks like is not. Darren Aronofsky and Kevin Smith make the film's only points on violence and it'll leave you wanting for more.
Also there wasn't a comparison to other countries rating system, just a mention that those systems are a little less absurd, which is true if you look at the rating sections on most IMDb film profiles, but some thought here would have been invaluable to this film's argument.
However, this remains a pleasantly fresh documentary that many, but mainly John Waters (haha), have been waiting for. 8/10
Not Rated, contains: sexual material and some violent clips - There are many clips of sex scenes shown, but are shown and discussed from a critical perspective. The few violent scenes are discussed in the same manner. So bring your kids! They'll finally know what "it's not for you" means.
helpful•5414
- BroadswordCallinDannyBoy
- Sep 22, 2006
- How long is This Film Is Not Yet Rated?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Los censores de Hollywood
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Gross US & Canada
- $306,845
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $30,664
- Sep 3, 2006
- Gross worldwide
- $347,240
- Runtime1 hour 38 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
Top Gap
What is the Brazilian Portuguese language plot outline for This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2006)?
Answer