5 Movies that Proved MPAA's Movie Ratings Suck

1. K!P
   January 3rd, 2008 at 5:34 pm

   a "basicly naked" angelina jolie sure is bad....

2. Anthony
   January 3rd, 2008 at 6:31 pm

   Everyone has been saying the MPAA allows too much violence and not enough sex, so it's not like this is anything new, nor is it persuasively written.

   If anything, the movies cited strengthen the MPAA's case, because the ratings were more or less appropriate.

3. Persephone
   January 3rd, 2008 at 6:42 pm

   Those parents would have brought the babies anyway, because they would figure the babies wouldn't understand what they were seeing. Later on, when the darlings are having screaming night terrors and the parents aren't getting any sleep for months, they'll blame it on the Tom and Jerry cartoons.

4. Nimitz
   January 3rd, 2008 at 6:53 pm

   OMFG! Xians with their collective panties in a wad!
   I saw a snuff film about a lunatic jew who gets whipped bloody and then nailed to a cross and it wasn't rated "R" either!

5. Steohawk
   January 3rd, 2008 at 6:53 pm

   I think Beowolf might be a little extreme for young children, but I think that kids could benefit from some exposure to suspenseful movies, like the Lord of the Rings. When a kid is really young, he or she won't know to be scared. When that kid gets older, he or she might be calmer when facing real-life suspense. Of course, this has to do with aesthetics. Ethics are a different situation, one that requires parents to teach their kids that certain things are alright in movies, but not in real life.

6. Persephone
   January 3rd, 2008 at 6:53 pm

   Having now read the article, I agree with it wholeheartedly. Why is the F-word so horrible? Please, kids hear it everyday somewhere, probably from their own parents. Violence is glorified and good and given a lower rating, while sex is evil and given a higher rating. What is wrong here? Sex is a natural biological requirement of life. While violence does occur as part of life, it's not a necessity.

   Are all the members of the MPAA so old that once they can't get it up anymore they can only revel in excessive abuse and bloodshed?

7. Kaka
   January 3rd, 2008 at 7:09 pm

   COULD BE WORSE.

   You know it's all about money. That movie cost so much money, if they had not tweaked it the ratings, it would've tanked.

   But you're right. The ratings are bogus in the USA.

   Think about it this way:

   You could live in England, where if you are not of the Age of the ratings, you cannot go into that movie. So if a movie is rated 18, you have to be 18 to enter. You cannot be "accompanied" by an adult of that age to see that movies.

   That's how it should be done anywhere in the world - but you know, the only concept of DECENCY in America is that families have the right to the feedom to choose, and politically that's more important than whether the movie has the correct rating.
   Basically, regardless of the rating, the Parent with a kid should go watch the whole movie first, then decide to let their child see it, or not.

   But what of people's freedoms, people say in America.

   Rubbish.

   It's all about money.

   Look at the various ratings systems around the world.

   Tell me who's more decent, tell me who's more adult.

   It's time the MPAA set up another rating for the Age of 15, like they have in England. That should give them a cleaner break on the separation of the severity of sex and violence.

   But if they make it 15, they should make it so that kids aged 15 and under CANNOT see the movie, regardless of whether being accompanied by someone who is old enough.

   USA needs to wake up and develop DECENCY into the culture, one that is not based on religious doctrines. Just let the people in general be decent human beings.

   No, but we can't have that! USA is a killing machine! Look at its military might! The people need to be constantly angry and frustrated and willing to kick other people's butts! Otherwise there is no money in peace and decency!

   hahahaha

8. VonSkippy
   January 3rd, 2008 at 8:07 pm

   Theaters still exist?

9. Paul in Cin City
   January 3rd, 2008 at 9:39 pm

   Infants don't belong in any movie theater unless they are there because their older sibling is there to see the latest Disney product.

10. David B
    January 4th, 2008 at 12:42 am

    Infants never belong in a theater period. Neither do toddlers or even kids that can't be entertained enough to sit still for a couple of hours. Accompanied by a parent is a joke. When I saw "The Thing" back in 1982 some guy brought his five year old. That kid is probably still in therapy. Parents are foolish to rely on the ratings. They need to check out the movie first. I see no problem with what was said that the UK does. 18 means you have to be 18, end of story.

11. Sid Morrison
    January 4th, 2008 at 9:09 am

    I'm with David. It's rare to see an epic, action, sci-fi, or fantasy type movie without some retard in the theatre with a row full of little kids. This happens even at the late (~10pm) showings. Regretably, trash has no conscience or shame, so you can't even tell them off. Pelting them with ice is the best course.

12. Dan
    January 4th, 2008 at 9:31 am

    The note about seeing the film at an Imax is interesting. There was a film a while ago (a Spiderman film maybe) where the British Board of Film Classification gave the Imax copies a higher rating than the regular cinema copies on the reasoning that violence etc had a far greater impact on an Imax size screen.

13. Rosi
    January 4th, 2008 at 2:51 pm

    I agree that the English system is much clearer than the American one, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. There are still problems with rating (the BBFC seems to be more lenient towards sexual content and drug abuse but stricter towards violence and horror). For example, we had the same problem with Pirates of the Caribbean, and films in a series tend to all get the same rating no matter what the individual content (like with the Bond films; Casino Royale contained torture and brutal violence but it was still a 12 because that was the certificate of most of the previous films).
    Also, I think in general film companies will allow a lot more violence if it is in a historical context, because somehow that makes it okay. Saving Private Ryan was probably the most brutal and traumatic films I've seen in terms of impact, yet it was only a 15. I've seen quite a few 18s which aren't half as bad as some "historical" 15s. I don't think that an eduational context makes something less traumatic (in fact because it actually happened it could be argued that it's MORE traumatic).
    Maybe there should be a system like there is on DVD cases (don't know if you have this in America) where the content of the film is explained (violent content, sex/nudity, language etc.) for cinemas too. It's a lot more helpful than a blanket age limit.
    Also ratings for games should be rethought out too. They're usually wrong, and the PEGI ratings don't count for much either.

14. creesto
    January 4th, 2008 at 5:07 pm

    Yes, most kids over the age of say, 5, have heard the bads words. I was a sketch comedy actor when my sons were born and they saw my shows.I taught them the difference between hearing the words and the consequence of using them around their mother, their teachers, g-parents, etc. As to the issue of sex, just today the boys and I were watching a rerun of Scrubs and the word 'masturbate' was used. Both my 11 y.o. and my 8 y.o. asked 'What's that?' Chicken that I was, I dodged it by redirecting. Keep in mind, I had the sex talk with my oldest about 18 mos. ago, but I skipped that part. Don't think he's figured out his Feel Goods yet, and honestly I'm not certain about 'teaching' him. I'm not a prude, but I do believe that we are all only children once, and only for a small percentage of our lives, so why rush adulthood? I give them info that will protect them, but I try not to enable them.

    As to -13 vs. R ratings, my only concern is the nightmare issue. Both boys recently watched the Lord of The Rings set with me, and there were no problems. My ex, however, took them to see I Am Legend, and my 8 y.o. got the heebies.

    With movies as with mature video games, I just think kids should not be exposed too soon: innocence is so easily lost and can never be recovered.

    peach y'all

15. saru
    January 4th, 2008 at 11:56 pm

    mental scars!? bull, granted im not promoting violence to children, but if the worst thing a kid has ever seen is some computer animated gore than hes gunna be just fine. and where is the personal responsibility here? anyone who has read the book knows its gory. so my advice to you parents who complain that things are too violent for their children is, do some research before you let your kids see something. just cause the mpaa is a bunch of windbags and dont know haw to rate a thing doesnt mean you should blame then for allowing your kids to see something you disapprove of. (btw the mpaa is not a government agency its independently owned and operated)

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT