IMDb > This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2006) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
This Film Is Not Yet Rated
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
This Film Is Not Yet Rated More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 6 of 11: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 108 reviews in total 

The Heck with Hollywood...

Author: poe426 from USA
4 February 2015

In the documentary THE HECK WITH Hollywood, we see some truly Independent filmmakers thumbing their collective noses at The Establishment. Good or Forgettable, they forge ahead with their movies and get them done. One can't help but admire (and envy) them. I'm also frankly surprised that, given the mind-boggling strides made in the past two decades in technology, that we haven't seen MORE filmmakers like them: the abortive COST of making movies is no longer the impediment it used to be- the coast is clear for one and all. Just the other day, I watched another in the endless line of no-budget zombie movies being cranked out by budding amateurs on the internet and one thing was obvious: with just a little time to refine their skills, these people could be talented movie makers... if they keep at it. (I've already seen some of these productions that fall just short of surpassing actual big budgest Studio films: maybe it's time the Studios invested in some of these aspiring Internet movie makers...) The only problem I have with THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED is that it deals exclusively with Sexual content. I would've been interested to see a closer examination of why movies like George A. Romero's DAWN OF THE DEAD were forced to go out without an MPAA rating (not that it really matters- certainly not in THIS day and age-, but it was a very Big Deal back when the movie was first released and it wasn't even afforded the benefit of the doubt like MARK OF THE DEVIL, which was released with an unprecedented V for Violence). To the credit of the documentarians, however, were the startling revelations that the members of the MPAA consisted of Right Wingers and- the biggest shock of all, to me- Religious Leaders. (Which still doesn't explain why DAWN OF THE DEAD was singled out for its Content: there was no nudity- a momentary shot of a woman's breast doesn't really count-, just the Violence that the MPAA has always preferred... although perhaps a tad more PRONOUNCED than in your average pre-DAWN OF THE DEAD Hollywood killfest...) Now that the kid gloves are off, it's time for movie makers to step up and really DO something.

Was the above review useful to you?

My favorite documentary.

Author: Joenovak32 from United States
13 January 2015

This film is an eye opener. I feel everyone passionate about film needs to watch this. I agree that some films get unfair ratings, and the appeal process goes in the MPAA's favor. There are films that have way better messages than other movies, and the films with a great message are what should be watched by people. I'm not saying raunchy comedies shouldn't be watched by people, I do laugh at those movies, but I know movies that don't get a wide release that deserve it. I really liked the interviews with directors who had their film edited not what they wanted. I think that movies with nudity deserve a R rating depending on what is shown, but if you give a movie with a sex scene with two characters that love each other an NC-17 and movie characters having sex with prostitutes an R, then what is wrong you. I think this documentary is great which is why it gets a 10/10. If you get a chance to see it, watch it.

Was the above review useful to you?

Unbelievable, Childish, And Shockingly Informative. A Few Words That Describe The Subjects Of Kirby Dick's Documentary.

Author: George Roots (GeorgeRoots) from United Kingdom
21 October 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I've watched "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" about 3-4 times now in the space of 2 months, and every time I find myself wishing to hear more stories of just how ridiculous the MPAA's methods really are. I can understand the somewhat secrecy for the raters of your organisation (Everyone is entitled to a private life), but to then be told that there are still existing members working way beyond the 3-7 years of allotted employment baffles me. To not even follow your own protocols makes me question your methods overall, and the many film-makers director Kirby Dick interviews certainly have engaging and absurd experiences to share.

The documentary follows Kirby's efforts in trying to figure out how the Motion Picture Association of America works, when the organisation remains one of the secretive corporations around. His efforts involves hiring the help of a private detective, and some thoroughly engaging stories from many directors both famous and independent. Films containing homosexual behaviour are more likely to be rated NC-17 than R, surprising levels of violence are OK and sex is not. You can also appeal your movie for a lower rating, but cannot refer to any other movies in your defence.

The parts with the private detective leads to some wonderful discussions, yet I cannot help but feel that part of it feels fabricated. What is surprising however, is that both manage to unveil an exceptional amount of information regarding who is censoring what and how the MPAA is in bed with many surprising production companies. The Kimberley Pierce stuff is riveting, and there's plenty of humour to be had among everyone involved.

Final Verdict: I don't really want to spoil it, but it is highly recommended. Ironically it received an NC-17, and the MPAA made copies against the directors wishes. Kirby's efforts are not in vain and no stone is left unturned. 8/10.

Was the above review useful to you?

Looks Into The Corrupt World Of The MPAA

Author: TheFilmGuy1 from Canada
23 July 2014

I watched this on a whim because I heard it mentioned and decided I wanted to check it out. I'm glad I did. I've always been interested in the MPAA and their ratings, and I have heard controversies involving them before, and this movie really brings it all to light.

The movie essentially interviews film makers and talks about just how silly the whole MPAA is. They have no specific guidelines to how they rate the films, and constantly are biased against films that contain, say, gay sexual content or sexual content that is focused on female pleasure. A straight sex scene that gets an R rating for a film can be the exact same as a gay sex scene but that movie would get an NC17 because there seems to be a lot of discrimination about those kinds of topics. It really just pisses you off to see this kind of stuff going on. The movie also has a kind of side plot where the director hires an investigator to find out the names of the people who rate the films since their names are withheld by the MPAA. These scenes are pretty funny and are enjoyable to watch.

I'd say that if you are a fan of films or a film maker, you should check this out because it gives a really good insight into the ridiculous world of the MPAA rating system.

Was the above review useful to you?

Controversial? Maybe. Entertaining? Absolutely!

Author: Seth Landers from California, United States
15 July 2014

I've never been so amazed by a documentary that was so informative yet so consistently entertaining. This is must-see for filmmakers who want to get their film rated someday. The film has no boundaries, it expresses the brutal truth about the MPAA and their unconstitutional hypocrisy with the way they regulate their sometimes confusing rules.

So many flawed inconsistencies with this system when it comes down to violence vs. sexual content and the fact that the ratings board is completely anonymous. If your movie has a bunch of deaths without the presence of blood & gore, it gets a PG-13. Yet if there is harsh profanity with some nudity and/or even the slightest implied sexual material, it gets an R. It also points out the issues of independence vs. studios. For example, if you're an independent filmmaker and you get a rating that you're unhappy with like NC-17 (a.k.a. box office poison), they don't tell you what to cut out. However, if you're backed by a studio and you run into the same situation, they'll give you notes on what to re-edit. Matt Stone was right, the MPAA makes most of their money from the six major studios who keep them in business and pay their bills.

In conclusion, if you are interested in learning more information about the Motion Picture Association of America and have 90 minutes to spare, give it a watch and see the pros & cons behind one of Hollywood's biggest secrets.

Was the above review useful to you?

Impressive points but not particularly impressive filmmaking.

Author: Sergeant_Tibbs from Suffolk, England
10 July 2013

It's always interesting to see a documentary about movies especially important ones but This Film Is Not Yet Rated isn't as dangerous as it's trying to make itself seem. Although it does have some serious moral implications as Kirby hires a private investigator to find out who are the anonymous members of the MPAA. The investigation is attempted to be presented in a cinematic way with reaction shots and closeups and all the coverage a film should have to be edited together, but its attempt feels contrived and unconvincing due to it being shot on DV. It attempts to be entertainment with caper music and graphics but this just takes away the sincerity. There were times when I struggled to agree with either side of the filmmaker vs. ratings arguments as all it seemed to be was merely a power struggle. However, when it got into the specificity of the details it had some interesting points, such as the implications of sex vs. violence and how sex is accused of hurting society more than violence, particularly homosexual sex. As well as how with guns shooting people with no blood is considered more acceptable than shooting people with blood and how the position of the camera for sex scenes that implicates thrusting is more acceptable than when it shows the trusting. It had a great payoff in the end as its conspiracy is revealed and the intentions behind the documentary are justified but the packaging does hold it back.


Was the above review useful to you?

Great look at America's puritan stance on art

Author: chaveza427 from Minnesota USA
12 October 2012

I made sure to read both side of the arguments for and against this movie before posting my own personal review and I must say, it's obvious that people have a hug problem with their own bodies. You will read a series of arguments saying that this movie is asking to have our children of six or seven years of age walk into a theater and watch hardcore pornography. What they fail to realize is how much an NC-17 rating destroys a film's budget.

This movie makes an extremely valid argument that despite our supposed first amendment rights here in the United States, we have a secondary form of censorship. That is to say, the financial form. Taking a look at the MPAA's rating system they immediately uncover the moral duplicity involved in rating a film. From the difference between an adolescent male masturbating into an apple pie, and a fully clothed female masturbating to curb a homosexual desire.

Our constant filtration of simple sexual acts that most humans figure out by their thirteenth birthday (with the rest realized by their seventeenth) is pointed out. The filmmakers interviewed are all victims of this biased rating system allowing them to voice the reasons behind certain scenes in their movies.

I suggest this movie to anyone who would like to see how our First Amendment is held up.

Was the above review useful to you?

An Interesting Documentary On How Sex Is The Key Problem In Film.

Author: kylehaines96 from United States
23 January 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This Film starts off with an interview with Kimberly Pierce talking about how her film Boys Don't Cry(1999) was slapped with an NC-17 Rating instead of an R Rating. There are 3 reasons why this happened and all of them for sexual content.

We Then Get interviews from John Waters and Kevin Smith saying how there films got slapped with either an R or NC-17 Rating. John Waters talks about how his comedy A Dirty Shame(2004) got slapped with an NC-17 For the overall sexual tone. Kevin Smith talks about how his film Jersey Girl(2004) Got Slapped with an R Rating instead of a PG-13 Rating for get this a conversation that Ben Affleck and Liv Tyler have in a restaurant.

The film is also about the films Director Kirby Dick hiring a private investigator to see who the secret board of MPAA Members are.

The film also has interviews with Matt Stone who says that his films South Park(1999) and Team America(2004) were rated NC-17. South Park for Language and Team America for sexual content.

This is one of the best films I have ever seen and was very interesting seeing how Sex is the main problem in film and not Violence like every parent says. The Interviews are great and the film has some guts for trying to access secret information definitely give it a watch.

Originally Rated NC-17 For Graphic Sexual Content Later Toned Down To An R for Sexual Content then finally Unrated.

1hr 38min/98min.

31 uses of the F-word.


Was the above review useful to you?

Fascinating but unfocused

Author: tnrcooper from Korea
31 July 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is an investigation into the membership and methodology by which the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) reaches decisions about ratings for films in the United States.

The MPAA will not disclose the names of the members who rate the films, saying only that they are parents of kids. There is a lot of inconsistency in the manner in which ratings are given to films and director Kirby Dick in this film addresses those inconsistencies, speaking to many directors about their dealings with the MPAA. Some of the revelations by the directors are quite interesting and speak to the seeming arbitrariness by which the MPAA operates. Kimberly Peirce ("Boys Don't Cry") is particularly poignant about the different treatment toward a woman dressed to pass as a woman in her film as opposed to more tolerant treatment toward a woman experiencing a similar sexual experience in other films. Kevin Smith speaks of why the MPAA rated his film an NC-17 and it is because Liv Tyler's character in his movie expresses pleasure from sex. Dick discloses the number of directors who have been forced to change NC-17 into R-rated films and it is a who's who of directors.

If a film receives an NC-17 rating, it will have difficulty securing distribution or advertising-essentially ensuring that the film will be an economic failure. In retaining the ability to make directors change their films, the MPAA under the leadership of Jack Valenti and then his successor together with deputy Joan Graves, head of the ratings board (and very handsomely compensated), the organization seems like a willing handmaiden to the studio system in the United States. Even more byzantine and moralistic is the appeals board to which a filmmaker reaches out if he or she is unhappy with his/her rating. That board includes two members of the clergy who do not vote, but who are present nonetheless for the appeals from filmmakers as to why their film shouldn't be rated NC-17 and the board's subsequent response to their appeal. The presence there seems like a not-so-subtle message from the MPAA to filmmakers. It turns out that the appeal board members are even more invested in retaining the power of studios to control the messages conveyed by filmmakers in that all the members are important figures within the film business.

For Dick, more annoying is the fact that the identities of the MPAA members are kept secret. This is done, allegedly, in order to immunize the members from outside pressure. This point seems to be undercut by the fact that during the film board members are reported to be speaking with studios about how to get a certain rating. And Dick learns that, contrary to the claims of the MPAA, the board ratings members are not parents of kids-for whose benefit the MPAA supposedly works. In any case, Dick hires an investigative company to attempt to identify the members of the MPAA which rates films. The MPAA comes off as small-minded and Napoleonic in its use of power arbitrarily to serve the power of the studios for whom it was essentially created. Dick makes an entertaining and insightful film and is very enterprising in wheedling out the identities of the MPAA rating board. All in all, this is a fairly entertaining expose of the myopia and secrecy of the MPAA.

Was the above review useful to you?

Fantastic Dcoumentary, the best I've seen.

Author: kiz-hunter from United States
9 February 2011

I just wanted to say first that I don't normally review films so this isn't going to be a professional review, it just a personal review of the documentary. With that said , I thought it was great! It was so real and honest. I wish I had heard about this documentary a long time ago. If you've ever wondered who in the world rates movies this is for sure the movie for you. I definitely give it a 10/10. Its probably the best documentary I've seen. Its hilarious and compelling, it will make you angry and smile at the same time. just a great watch. I recommend this to anyone who loves a good documentary/ film in general. It's definitely a must see.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 6 of 11: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history