criterionforum.org

An ad I saw the other day for some fake Hannah Montana movie had it rated PG for "rude behavior."

Eat Pray Love got tagged for "male rear nudity." Seems like this is more specific than they usually get - doesn't "brief nudity" usually suffice in this case? I have a hard time believing that they'd put "female chest nudity" in a ratings description.

I hope we get to see the phrase "side boob" in a ratings description at some point.

One of my favorite reasons for movie ratings is "thematic material." What the hell is that? "Hmmm... I'm detecting a theme in this movie. PG-13!"

"Mild action" and "pervasive language" (what? it's got a lotta words?) are other goodies.

Matt wrote:"Mild action" and "pervasive language" (what? it's got a lotta words?) are other goodies.

That's why the action is "mild" - too much talking, not enough doing!

So, is "graphic nudity" in a MPAA descriptor pretty much a guarantee that you're going to see genitals?

Matt wrote:"Mild action" and "pervasive language" (what? it's got a lotta words?) are other goodies.

Just about every Woody Allen movie must have been hit with those two.

I always liked the rating flag of "partying," sometimes "mild partying."

We get "peril" and "mild peril" quite a bit on British ads.

Peril is definitely not suitable for children.

Some MPAA fun here.

MichaelB wrote:We get "peril" and "mild peril" quite a bit on British ads.

I can't remember the title but I remember something like "mild holocaust images" on a BBFC-rated disc.

Brian C wrote:Some MPAA fun here.

Twister – Rated PG-13 for “intense depiction of very bad weather.”

The MPAA really loves to use "intense" and graphic", I'm going to start scouting rating flags now

The Fugitive – Rated PG-13 for “a murder and other action sequences in an adventure setting.”

My favorite

My favorite MPAA WTF? of all time was the 'R' rating given to Michael Radford's adaptation of "Merchant of Venice." Supposedly given for "some nudity." The skin baring was pretty tame, as I recall.

Nothing in recent censorship can be as bizarre as the suspiciously manufactured 'scandal' over the 18 rating given by the BBFC to Neil Jordan's remake of The End of the Affair just because Ralph Fiennes did a couple too many vigorous buttock thrusts during his sex scene with Julianne Moore! (I'm trying to remember but I think there was some discussion that three thrusts or less shown in a wide shot was OK to get the point across, but any more than that was totally unacceptable!)

I say suspicious because it certainly generated a lot of 'hot and steamy' publicity for a film that is really about guilty consciences feeding into religious epiphanies, which was perhaps not as enticing a prospect to general audiences! (While I like the film I think the 1950s version just has the edge on it, mostly for Peter Cushing's great performance as the cuckolded husband - sort of played in the same 'resigned to his partner's transgressions and waiting quietly to accept her back when the thrill of the affair has worn off' vein as Denholm Elliott's character in Bad Timing)

Matt wrote:One of my favorite reasons for movie ratings is "thematic material." What the hell is that? "Hmmm... I'm detecting a theme in this movie. PG-13!"

"Mild action" and "pervasive language" (what? it's got a lotta words?) are other goodies.

Along those lines, here's the explanation for Nacho Libre: "Rated PG for some rough action, and crude humor including dialogue."

So let that be a lesson to all you young filmmakers out there - if you want a G, you can keep the crude humor, but leave out the dialogue.

Joe Bob Briggs had the most honest (and, incidentally, most entertaining) rating system, simply cataloging the number of breasts, beheadings, types of "fu" and so on. The MPAA could earn a modicum of respect if they followed suit. As it is, their descriptions are simultaneously too narrow and too vague.

As with The Simpsons Movie, which was rated PG-13 for "irreverent humor throughout" (no further explanation given)?

Some MPAA fun here.

The breasts of the woman in the couple get less R rated as the ratings go up.

Some of my personal favorites:

Tideland: Rated R for bizarre and disturbing content, including drug use, sexuality, and gruesome situations - all involving a child, and for some language.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory: Rated PG for quirky situations, action and mild language.

Brian C wrote:As with The Simpsons Movie, which was rated PG-13 for "irreverent humor throughout" (no further explanation given)?

Hey! Gotta protect our youngest young'uns from irreverent humor.
And fluoridation.

Brian C wrote:Some MPAA fun here.

This is why I hate going to the movies now: giraffes, rabbits, kids with boom boxes, little boys in pilgrim hats, pervy little grinning midgets wearing bow ties. It's a nightmare.

It's those sunglasses wearing 'NC-17' white rabbits that you really have to watch out for though!

Since the article linked to above mentions the MPAA classification of Lost Highway as 'bizarre violent and sexual content', it might be fun to note that the classification of the film Rampo goes one step further in featuring 'bizarre sexuality'!

Following an appeal from Harvey Weinstein himself, the MPAA has knocked down Blue Valentine's rating from an NC-17 to an R.

Maybe Michelle Williams will discuss it on Jon Stewart tonight.