Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | my password | register | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » This Film is Not Yet Rated (2006) (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Author Topic: This Film is Not Yet Rated (2006)
Dan Lyons
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 698
From: Seal Beach, CA
Registered: Sep 2002


 - posted 10-19-2006 10:29 PM      Profile for Dan Lyons   Email Dan Lyons   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Probably one of the best documentaries I've ever run; a shame that only 3 or 4 people attended each showing.

This film is a MUST SEE for everyone here!

This film is definately anti-MPAA and anti-Valenti.

Ever wondered the identities of the secret members of the ratings board? Is there a bias in favor of more leniant ratings for the big studios over indies? Watch this film and find out.

Did you know that there are PRIESTS on the appeals board? This and many other fun secrets of this corrupt organization are revealed in the film.

Curious? GO SEE THIS, or rent the dvd and make copies for all your friends. [evil]

See the website for playdates and other fun trivia not discussed in the film. here

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17696
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 10-20-2006 12:51 AM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Dan Lyons
Did you know that there are PRIESTS on the appeals board?
That would certainly explain their issue with the slightest hint of sex. The best example ever of this was with the movie Orgazmo. If you watch it, you will notice there isn't any real nudity in it and I'm not even sure if I recall more than a couple of naughty words...but it got an NC-17 rating. Total bullshit.

 |  IP: Logged

Edwin Sheldon
Film Handler

Posts: 95
From: Mobile, AL, USA
Registered: Sep 2006


 - posted 10-20-2006 03:13 AM      Profile for Edwin Sheldon   Email Edwin Sheldon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I saw this film at the Century Landmark in Chicago about two months ago and thoroughly enjoyed it.

By the way, the MPAA ratings search still lists the movie as rated NC-17, even though the final cut was changed drastically from the rated cut and as such is unrated.

Mini-spoiler:
I found it quite amusing that the CEO of one of the select few chains screening the film happens to be on the appeals board.
End mini-spoiler

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002


 - posted 10-21-2006 02:25 PM      Profile for Mike Schindler   Email Mike Schindler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I agree that this movie's awesome. Who would've guessed that the MPAA could be even more messed up than it appears?

 |  IP: Logged

Edwin Sheldon
Film Handler

Posts: 95
From: Mobile, AL, USA
Registered: Sep 2006


 - posted 10-24-2006 04:41 PM      Profile for Edwin Sheldon   Email Edwin Sheldon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
By the way, Brad, they talk about the bullshit Orgazmo rating at length. [thumbsup]

 |  IP: Logged

Andrea Werft
Film Handler

Posts: 14
From: Englewood, CO USA
Registered: Jul 2004


 - posted 10-26-2006 06:26 PM      Profile for Andrea Werft   Email Andrea Werft   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I have the screener at home...just haven't watched it yet!

 |  IP: Logged

Jeff Lacey
Film Handler

Posts: 54
From: Canton, MI, USA
Registered: Jun 2005


 - posted 11-11-2006 03:52 AM      Profile for Jeff Lacey   Email Jeff Lacey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I agree with everything said here.... Its a great film, but like was stated before, no one is seeing it at my theater... Why do you think that is? No interest? NC17 (former) rating?

 |  IP: Logged

Edwin Sheldon
Film Handler

Posts: 95
From: Mobile, AL, USA
Registered: Sep 2006


 - posted 11-11-2006 11:07 AM      Profile for Edwin Sheldon   Email Edwin Sheldon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
No one is seeing it because no one knows about it thanks to their inability to advertise. I learned about it by accident on a Wikipedia search for something else.

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17696
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 03-30-2007 03:40 AM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
I caught this tonight on DVD. This is absolutely a MUST SEE movie and was definitely one of the best documentaries I have ever seen. Excellent work by Kirby Dick and his private investigator Becky Altringer!

5 of out 5 stars

 |  IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10739
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 03-30-2007 09:38 AM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Independent Film Channel will show This Filim Is Not Yet Rated Saturday evening, March 31 at 11:00pm Eastern/10:00 Central.

Preceding that is the uncensored version of Leaving Las Vegas, which IFC claims has never been shown anywhere. The uncut version of The Cooler (which was slapped with a NC-17 by the MPAA) will be shown after the broadcast of This Film Is Not Yet Rated.

I posted my review of the documentary, as seen on DVD, over in the Afterlife section. Very highly recommended movie for anyone that considers himself a film fan.

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002


 - posted 03-30-2007 10:29 AM      Profile for Mike Schindler   Email Mike Schindler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Wasn't the uncensored version of LEAVING LAS VEGAS on both LD and DVD?

I'm glad to see they're showing THE COOLER, because you really can't get that anywhere.

 |  IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1885
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001


 - posted 03-30-2007 12:56 PM      Profile for Michael Coate   Email Michael Coate   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Mike Schindler
Wasn't the uncensored version of LEAVING LAS VEGAS on both LD and DVD?

Yes, according to Widescreen Review, where the LaserDisc was reviewed in Issue 21 (Oct. 1996) and was identified as "Not Rated" and with a running time of 112 minutes. Ditto for the DVD review in Issue 29 (Nov. 1998). The commonly quoted running time for the R-rated theatrical release seems to be 111 minutes.

Also yes according to the IMDb.

quote:
LaserDisc version is unrated and contains more sexually explicit footage. First pressings of the VHS versions also contained this footage but later pressings did not. The Unrated Edition has also been released on DVD and runs 112 min.

 |  IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10739
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 03-30-2007 03:15 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
IFC's promo for the Leaving Las Vegas broadcast (preceding This Film Is Not Yet Rated) seems to imply there is some additional footage that hasn't been seen in previous cuts of the film. Whether they're right about that or not, I don't know. Tune into IFC to see the promo for yourself. They seem to air it a lot.

 |  IP: Logged

Phil Hill
I love my cootie bug

Posts: 7595
From: Hollywood, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2000


 - posted 03-31-2007 11:53 PM      Profile for Phil Hill   Email Phil Hill       Edit/Delete Post 
What a great exposé of what ***REALLY*** has and still goes on with the MPAA and with that asshole Valenti that STILL pulls the strings in the MPAA.

I think it's way over due that ALL people reject that fake organization for the bias, secrecy, and fraud that it is. It's well past time to ignore ALL the ratings of that contrived system.

At the end of the film, when Jack-baby comments on what he hopes is on his tombstone, I can't help but think the appropriate thing would be: "I was and still am an asshole, hypocrite, fraud and a money-grubbing jerk that had my 1st stroke 35 years ago. May I rot in hell."

OBTW: AS *MUCH* as it KILLS me to agree with Brad, I rate this film 5 stars outta 5. Excellent!

 |  IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999


 - posted 04-01-2007 10:26 AM      Profile for Greg Anderson   Author's Homepage   Email Greg Anderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Just as the documentary Super Size Me takes great pains to point out the blatantly obvious, so does This Film Is Not Yet Rated point out something which has been known for many, many years. In the end, This Film Is Not Yet Rated is miles ahead of Morgan Spurlock's movie. It has a more compelling foundation. It's put together better and, obviously, the research aspect is immeasurably better.

The problem with both movies is that the people who are really angry about the underlying problem shouldn't be so surprised. But the audience walks away feeling angry, muttering words like "There ought to be a law!" And this kind of thinking ignores the greatest achievement of the current rating system. Beginning in the late 1960s, it did allow filmmakers to shoot whatever they wanted and eliminated any real system of local or national, government censorship boards.

Now, you'll argue that the rating system is, in effect, its own form of censorship. Fair enough... If you want a movie to have increased box office potential. But Free Speech doesn't guarantee commercial success. And Hollywood studios have lost the power to suppress the indie filmmakers. Note that This Film Is Not Yet Rated was shown on a channel which comes into my parents' satellite box. And, while they're not activists about their viewing habits, I'm sure that if I'd gone over to watch it on their TV last night they'd be surprised to know they're paying to receive such explicit material.

The filmmaker (video maker?) talks to a lot of people who've had "unfair" dealings with the MPAA. But all of those people, near as I can tell, were trying to push the envelope... to work in that area which teeters between the R and NC-17 ratings without going "too far." Then they whine about getting an NC-17 rating. Why am I not crying along with them? They complain that, with an NC-17 rating, they won't have commercial success. Again, they're working in the indie realm where filmmakers are often proud that "commercial success" is an oxymoron. They made their beds. Now they're complaining that they can't sleep comfortably.

Millions of Americans have dealt with the MPAA on an ongoing basis. The movie seems to ignore them. If they wanted to make an air-tight case they might have interviewed a better variety of parents at average American multiplexes. I know that's not entertaining cinema. But they would also find that many "average parents" are complaining that the current system allows too much to be included in a PG-13 or an R-rated movie, and that the system should be tougher. Meanwhile, the indie filmmakers seem to want kids to see more of what might be called "adult material." And I ask... to what end? Just so that indie filmmakers can make more money? Is it really about money for them? That would make them just as bad as the evil corporations which control the media!

It's all well and good that we, as adults, can complain about inconsistencies in the ratings, but who's really talking about kids anymore?

There's a telling moment in "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" where someone from the MPAA (voice re-enacted) confronts the filmmaker about whether he thinks he should show his movie to a child. His reply is "It depends on the child." Exactly! So should the rating system be lenient, based on the most mature child who can process this stuff, or should it be an advocate for less-well-armed children and their parents?

To quote another review... "Folks who care won't learn anything and folks who don't, can't."

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2018 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.