It can be higher or lower
-
eloiseshf — 13 years ago(May 18, 2012 02:04 AM)
Brick: despite a strong anti-drug message and the lack of any graphic sex/violence, it is rated R. I suspect that if it had been released by a major, it would have been a PG-13.
Say Anything: is it PG-13 because it encourages rebellion against a dishonest father, which is a big no-no for the "parents are always right" brigade? I see it firmly in PG territory.
Now something off my chest about the rating system of my own country, Italy.
The following films are all rated G: Sin City, Wild at Heart, 300, Bram Soker's Dracula and Hannibal, the latter for no other reason that it helped the national film industry due to scenes being shot in Italy and the casting of Italian actors.
Rating is mandatory only for films that get a theatrical release. Romper Stomper and American History X are rated 18, but The Believer is rated G simply because it went straight to DVD. Better still, some Italian exploitation films from the 70's featuring hardcore inserts and one porn "Luana la porcona" are rated PG because they weren't released theatrically.
Pretty in Pink, on the other had, is rated 14, same as The Exorcist, Full Metal Jacket, and Dario Argento's Deep Red, Suspiria and Phenomena.
Brokeback Mountain is rated 14 and cut, it would have made far more sense to give it an 18 and release it uncut. -
tyty2790 — 12 years ago(December 09, 2013 01:24 PM)
Found another one
Batman: The Dark Knight Returns
VERY graphic, bloody, 10x more so than any of the bigger blockbuster Batmans, easily a hard R
Rated PG-13..All I can think is that it got a lower rating bc its animatedWhich means 7 year old will see this, all the more reason to warrant an R -
jpalmquist-99-955350 — 12 years ago(May 28, 2013 07:21 AM)
I first saw Saving Private Ryan when I was 12 or 13 and it had a profound impact on me as to the nature of war. A movie like that does not glorify the violence- it helps bring a proper, realistic understanding of it. The R rating is 100% correct, as parents with kids who are mature enough to handle the subject matter should be able to show it to them.
-
-
idonnowho — 12 years ago(February 10, 2014 05:07 PM)
WOW! Thrilling find! Glad I'm not the only one who agrees that some things should be rated differently
Frankly, there are too many to even list, but here's a few:- "Hunchback" - Yeah, Frollo's the evilest villain ever to grace an animated Disney film. His song, "Hellfire", and cold bastardly nature, as well as his practically SATANIC (pathetically enough for a "man of God") ways of lusting, yet hating Esmeralda. And a fair few more reasons, too, but those came to mind Should definitely have gotten a PG - even back in 1996!
- "The Muppets 2011" - PG(!!!) for FART SHOES!!! That's all? A cutaway gag, practically harmless in every way??? Why should parents even bother checking out if this film is ok for kids or not? It's "The Muppets" for God's sake!!! Easy G
- "Dr. Dolittle" (1998) - Got a PG-13 rating for some reason (in 1998 no less), and yet it's considered (and technically is, from having seen it, myself) a family film. Sure it had some mildly crude jokes. And guess what? Its 2001 sequel simply got a PG for the exact same reason THIS one got a PG-13 (language and crude humor) Neither one is really worse than the other, that's for sure; the 1998 remake of 1967 original should likely have been PG as well
- Not as prime an offender, but the first two "Alvin and the Chipmunks" movies were PG, even though they're really notTOO much worse than the third film "Chipwrecked", which graciously DID get a G. I'll be they, too, could've squeaked (no pun intended) by with G's
That's all I can think of (or at least feel like talking about) now
-
idonnowho — 11 years ago(January 14, 2015 04:48 PM)
Personally, I'd say only "Hunchback" should be the definite PG of all the Disney films from that decade; the rest are either ok with G, or completely debatable
Either way, it's outrageous (and a recurring automatic negative thought for anyone especially myself) that the M(other) P(hrickin) A($$hole$ of) A(merica) is being ridiculously oversensitive these days over the littlest of things ("Fart Shoes" in "Muppets", anyone?)
At very least, "Rango" was well suited with a PG. Even with all the smoking, drinking, "cursing", whatever else that prompted many parents to complain about the film deserving a PG-13 or even R rating instead Perhaps they're even wussier than the Mother Phrickin A$$hole$ -
toenaile — 10 years ago(August 30, 2015 09:44 AM)
i just read the parents guide for child of god, what the heck where they thinking giving that film an R rating? i had no idea that crap could be shown in a film!
sometimes i think imdb doesn't like me to much. -
WildHamster235 — 10 years ago(September 25, 2015 12:27 AM)
Nebraska only has two f-bombs (something that, surprisingly, a lot of PG-13 movies have) and it got slapped with an R rating.
Moneyball, on the other hand, had three f-bombs, and got away with a PG-13. I have no idea how the MPAA decided on that.
I'm gonna go get the papers, get the papers. -
doggie_rodriguez — 9 years ago(September 06, 2016 09:17 AM)
Nebraska only has two f-bombs (something that, surprisingly, a lot of PG-13 movies have) and it got slapped with an R rating.
Moneyball, on the other hand, had three f-bombs, and got away with a PG-13. I have no idea how the MPAA decided on that.
One is an indie film and the other is a studio film. That was kind of the whole point of the documentary. How each film has a different set of rules (especially if you are a studio film, you get a lot more leeway).
They have people that work at studios giving harsher ratings to their indie competition. I'm going to attempt a baseball analogy. It would be like the opposing manager also being the home plate umpire.