Funniest/dumbest MPAA ratings

Sam Fisher

Heavy Meddle
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Messages
14,743
Reaction score
2
Points
31
Here's a couple.

Twister: Rated PG-13 for intense depiction of very bad weather
Alien vs. Predator: Rated PG-13 for violence, language, horror images, slime and gore.
Charlie And The Chocolate Factory: Rated PG for quirky situations, action and mild language.
 
The Real Cancun- Rated R for strong sexuality/nudity, language, and partying.
 
Not to get off on much of a wild tangent here, but I think the MPAA's rating restrictions have become too relaxed in the last 15 years or so. Films that would've once recieved an R rating without question, are now sneaking by with PG-13s, and even a few are being rated PG! Take Rush Hour for example. It was Rated PG-13 for action, violence, shootouts, and language. Well, in my opinion the film should have been rated R, mainly because of Chris Tucker's mouth. I lost count after the third use of God's name as a swear word, not to mention every other saying that popped up in the film. I understand the use of swearing to an extent, but IMO any use of God's name as a profane term should earn any film an automatic R rating, similar to how the "F-bomb" usually boosts a film's rating from PG to PG-13, or R if its more than once. In the case of Rush Hour, the shootouts should have pushed it towards an R rating even further.

As for other ratings issues, I don't think the descriptions are accurate enough. For example, the MPAA uses stuff like this: "Rated R for pervasive strong horror violence/gore, gruesome images, sexuality, drug use and language." This was used for Freddy vs. Jason, a film which I made the terrible mistake of seeing a few years ago, and will never watch again. I was hoping they'd take it back to the thriller-film roots of horror films in general...apparently the makers thought differently. To this day I still feel like throwing up because of this movie. For anyone who's seen it, you'll probably realize the only mention of sex in the descriptor is "sexuality". They should have used something like "repeated scenes of explicit sex and nudity." That was some really sick stuff, not to mention all the blood...which, by the way, they actually warned against properly. Why warn folks about buckets of blood, and practically ignore the sex factor? God as my witness, I hate it when films lure folks in with crap like that. I don't know anyone aged 25 that needs to see all that stuff (both sex and blood), let alone 17!!!

By contrast, in 1986 the MPAA gave a PG rating to Ferris Bueller's Day Off. This was the year that the PG-13 rating was established, and R had been around for a while, too. I was watching it again recently, and was shocked to discover how much swearing was in that film (a fact I hadn't noticed until now). Considering the lack of explicit sex, blood, gore, or violence, I'd have been satisfied with this earning a PG-13, although I don't believe there's a 13-year-old child in the world who should be exposed to repeated uses of God's name as a profane term. Just because the world at large says "It's okay, no big deal", doesn't mean it's the truth.
 
Not to get off on much of a wild tangent here, but I think the MPAA's rating restrictions have become too relaxed in the last 15 years or so. Films that would've once recieved an R rating without question, are now sneaking by with PG-13s, and even a few are being rated PG! Take Rush Hour for example. It was Rated PG-13 for action, violence, shootouts, and language. Well, in my opinion the film should have been rated R, mainly because of Chris Tucker's mouth. I lost count after the third use of God's name as a swear word, not to mention every other saying that popped up in the film. I understand the use of swearing to an extent, but IMO any use of God's name as a profane term should earn any film an automatic R rating, similar to how the "F-bomb" usually boosts a film's rating from PG to PG-13, or R if its more than once. In the case of Rush Hour, the shootouts should have pushed it towards an R rating even further.

As for other ratings issues, I don't think the descriptions are accurate enough. For example, the MPAA uses stuff like this: "Rated R for pervasive strong horror violence/gore, gruesome images, sexuality, drug use and language." This was used for Freddy vs. Jason, a film which I made the terrible mistake of seeing a few years ago, and will never watch again. I was hoping they'd take it back to the thriller-film roots of horror films in general...apparently the makers thought differently. To this day I still feel like throwing up because of this movie. For anyone who's seen it, you'll probably realize the only mention of sex in the descriptor is "sexuality". They should have used something like "repeated scenes of explicit sex and nudity." That was some really sick stuff, not to mention all the blood...which, by the way, they actually warned against properly. Why warn folks about buckets of blood, and practically ignore the sex factor? God as my witness, I hate it when films lure folks in with crap like that. I don't know anyone aged 25 that needs to see all that stuff (both sex and blood), let alone 17!!!

By contrast, in 1986 the MPAA gave a PG rating to Ferris Bueller's Day Off. This was the year that the PG-13 rating was established, and R had been around for a while, too. I was watching it again recently, and was shocked to discover how much swearing was in that film (a fact I hadn't noticed until now). Considering the lack of explicit sex, blood, gore, or violence, I'd have been satisfied with this earning a PG-13, although I don't believe there's a 13-year-old child in the world who should be exposed to repeated uses of God's name as a profane term. Just because the world at large says "It's okay, no big deal", doesn't mean it's the truth.

dude,it's cool that you are christian and all,i'm catholic,but i can't agree with what you just said,thats worse than what a sterotypical mom would say
 
I understand the use of swearing to an extent, but IMO any use of God's name as a profane term should earn any film an automatic R rating, similar to how the "F-bomb" usually boosts a film's rating from PG to PG-13, or R if its more than once.

Isn't that a religious issue? :confused:
 
Not to get off on much of a wild tangent here, but I think the MPAA's rating restrictions have become too relaxed in the last 15 years or so. Films that would've once recieved an R rating without question, are now sneaking by with PG-13s, and even a few are being rated PG! Take Rush Hour for example. It was Rated PG-13 for action, violence, shootouts, and language. Well, in my opinion the film should have been rated R, mainly because of Chris Tucker's mouth. I lost count after the third use of God's name as a swear word, not to mention every other saying that popped up in the film. I understand the use of swearing to an extent, but IMO any use of God's name as a profane term should earn any film an automatic R rating, similar to how the "F-bomb" usually boosts a film's rating from PG to PG-13, or R if its more than once. In the case of Rush Hour, the shootouts should have pushed it towards an R rating even further.

As for other ratings issues, I don't think the descriptions are accurate enough. For example, the MPAA uses stuff like this: "Rated R for pervasive strong horror violence/gore, gruesome images, sexuality, drug use and language." This was used for Freddy vs. Jason, a film which I made the terrible mistake of seeing a few years ago, and will never watch again. I was hoping they'd take it back to the thriller-film roots of horror films in general...apparently the makers thought differently. To this day I still feel like throwing up because of this movie. For anyone who's seen it, you'll probably realize the only mention of sex in the descriptor is "sexuality". They should have used something like "repeated scenes of explicit sex and nudity." That was some really sick stuff, not to mention all the blood...which, by the way, they actually warned against properly. Why warn folks about buckets of blood, and practically ignore the sex factor? God as my witness, I hate it when films lure folks in with crap like that. I don't know anyone aged 25 that needs to see all that stuff (both sex and blood), let alone 17!!!

By contrast, in 1986 the MPAA gave a PG rating to Ferris Bueller's Day Off. This was the year that the PG-13 rating was established, and R had been around for a while, too. I was watching it again recently, and was shocked to discover how much swearing was in that film (a fact I hadn't noticed until now). Considering the lack of explicit sex, blood, gore, or violence, I'd have been satisfied with this earning a PG-13, although I don't believe there's a 13-year-old child in the world who should be exposed to repeated uses of God's name as a profane term. Just because the world at large says "It's okay, no big deal", doesn't mean it's the truth.

There's the bait...
 
dude,it's cool that you are christian and all,i'm catholic,but i can't agree with what you just said,thats worse than what a sterotypical mom would say

To his credit, I don't see the point in sex scenes, if I had my way they'd all be left on the editing floor, they serve no purpose to plot, unless it something like a Cronenberg film where the sex scene usually has some symbolic meaning.
 
^I agree


Not to sound like a *****, but can we get back to the point of this thread?:yay:
 
To his credit, I don't see the point in sex scenes, if I had my way they'd all be left on the editing floor, they serve no purpose to plot, unless it something like a Cronenberg film where the sex scene usually has some symbolic meaning.
I don't know anything about Cronenberg, but I too believe that sex scenes are almost always (99.9% minimum) completely pointless. A prime example of this is the original Highlander, where there's a drawn-out scene between Connor MacLeod and Brenda Wyatt. throughout the story, we get the point that she's in love with him; the sex scene just wasn't necessary. As for the violence (beheadings galore), it still bothers me a bit, but I understand its use as a primary story point. In the film's third sequel, Highlander: Endgame, there's another sex scene, this time between Duncan MacLeod and his new bride, Faith, on their wedding night. They could have toned it down, not to mention the point where Duncan stabs her with a sword, to make her immortal. Yes, it sets up their future rivalry, but if they must have it, then use it sparingly, and add proper rating descriptions. Is that really too much to ask?
 
I don't really give film ratings a care in the world.
If a director wants to give his film an R rating, more power to him.
I'm only concerned if the film is quality or not.
 
As for other ratings issues, I don't think the descriptions are accurate enough. For example, the MPAA uses stuff like this: "Rated R for pervasive strong horror violence/gore, gruesome images, sexuality, drug use and language." This was used for Freddy vs. Jason, a film which I made the terrible mistake of seeing a few years ago, and will never watch again. I was hoping they'd take it back to the thriller-film roots of horror films in general...apparently the makers thought differently. To this day I still feel like throwing up because of this movie. For anyone who's seen it, you'll probably realize the only mention of sex in the descriptor is "sexuality". They should have used something like "repeated scenes of explicit sex and nudity." That was some really sick stuff, not to mention all the blood...which, by the way, they actually warned against properly. Why warn folks about buckets of blood, and practically ignore the sex factor? God as my witness, I hate it when films lure folks in with crap like that. I don't know anyone aged 25 that needs to see all that stuff (both sex and blood), let alone 17!!!

Lured in? Um...It's Freddy and Jason, there wasn't anything violence or sex-wise that anybody knows anything about them and their respective franchises shouldn't be used to.

Of course it's likely to be heavily violence, it's about two of the most brutal fictional characters ever created, in a fight.

I consider taking the name of the Lord in vain to be worse than saying *****, but I don't really expect my religious/spiritual beliefs to be consider by the MPAA. There are alot of people that don't care about that while ***** is an objective "swear" word.

That said, the MPAA's rating problems revovle around being ridiculously biased toward certain types of films, and they're basically just biased censors.

As far as I'm concerned, a movie with an R rating should be able to include whatever the filmmaker wants in it from sex, to violence, to language, etc... as long as it's labeled as being very explicit all over.

There should be need for NC-17 or unrated versions of movies.
 
I got nothing...

Sin City:
Rated R for sustained strong stylized violence, nudity and sexual content including dialogue.

Just for the pretty alliteration...


I've never even heard of the movie but:

Monkey Trouble:
Rated PG for a moment of menace.
 
Not to get off on much of a wild tangent here, but I think the MPAA's rating restrictions have become too relaxed in the last 15 years or so. Films that would've once recieved an R rating without question, are now sneaking by with PG-13s, and even a few are being rated PG! Take Rush Hour for example. It was Rated PG-13 for action, violence, shootouts, and language. Well, in my opinion the film should have been rated R, mainly because of Chris Tucker's mouth. I lost count after the third use of God's name as a swear word, not to mention every other saying that popped up in the film. I understand the use of swearing to an extent, but IMO any use of God's name as a profane term should earn any film an automatic R rating, similar to how the "F-bomb" usually boosts a film's rating from PG to PG-13, or R if its more than once. In the case of Rush Hour, the shootouts should have pushed it towards an R rating even further.

As for other ratings issues, I don't think the descriptions are accurate enough. For example, the MPAA uses stuff like this: "Rated R for pervasive strong horror violence/gore, gruesome images, sexuality, drug use and language." This was used for Freddy vs. Jason, a film which I made the terrible mistake of seeing a few years ago, and will never watch again. I was hoping they'd take it back to the thriller-film roots of horror films in general...apparently the makers thought differently. To this day I still feel like throwing up because of this movie. For anyone who's seen it, you'll probably realize the only mention of sex in the descriptor is "sexuality". They should have used something like "repeated scenes of explicit sex and nudity." That was some really sick stuff, not to mention all the blood...which, by the way, they actually warned against properly. Why warn folks about buckets of blood, and practically ignore the sex factor? God as my witness, I hate it when films lure folks in with crap like that. I don't know anyone aged 25 that needs to see all that stuff (both sex and blood), let alone 17!!!

By contrast, in 1986 the MPAA gave a PG rating to Ferris Bueller's Day Off. This was the year that the PG-13 rating was established, and R had been around for a while, too. I was watching it again recently, and was shocked to discover how much swearing was in that film (a fact I hadn't noticed until now). Considering the lack of explicit sex, blood, gore, or violence, I'd have been satisfied with this earning a PG-13, although I don't believe there's a 13-year-old child in the world who should be exposed to repeated uses of God's name as a profane term. Just because the world at large says "It's okay, no big deal", doesn't mean it's the truth.
:dry::dry::dry:

And I'm Christian...:dry::dry::dry:

WTF Man? and I love rush Hour :o
 
I like Rush Hour as well, but in all fairness, every film should be rated equally, according to its actual content.
 
Wow, this thread went for a whole 2 posts before Moviefan2k4 came in and went on a crazy, totally irrelevant tangent...anyway...

Saw IV being NC-17 for "intensity" makes me go "huh? so all the graphic violence is ok, but it cant be intense?"...
 
When people use The Lord's name in vain in films, it doesn't bother me, at least not much. It's for acting purposes. They're not actually cursing out God because of feelings in their own heart (which is when it becomes a sin).

Heck, Mel Gibson is supposedly a devout Catholic and he blasphemies more than a few times in the Lethal Weapon series. And Jules from Pulp Fiction is portrayed as a Bible believing Christian, and he certainly blasphemies a bunch.
 
All I know is that Return of Drunken Master got an R rating-WTF?!
 
Oh, and Ferris Bueller's Day Off is not PG. I'm pretty sure it's always been PG-13.
 
Can't wait for those R rated movies...

just for smoking.

Coffee and Cigarettes = NC-17
 
And Jules from Pulp Fiction is portrayed as a Bible believing Christian, and he certainly blasphemies a bunch.

Jules also kills a couple of people-I think that's far worse, IMO. :whatever:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"