my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » 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                     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. See the website for playdates and other fun trivia not discussed in the film. here  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 10-20-2006 12:51 AM                     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                     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                     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                     By the way, Brad, they talk about the bullshit Orgazmo rating at length.  |  IP: Logged Andrea Werft Film Handler Posts: 14 From: Englewood, CO USA Registered: Jul 2004 posted 10-26-2006 06:26 PM                     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                     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                     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: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 03-30-2007 03:40 AM                     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: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 03-30-2007 09:38 AM                     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                     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: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 03-30-2007 12:56 PM                     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: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 03-30-2007 03:15 PM                     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                  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                        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

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.