Prior to viewing this I had no idea that the members of the MPAA board were anonymous. I completely side with everything the film had to say. Why a movie can't show a little bit of pubic hair but a pg-13 movie can have a near endless death count if no blood is spilled is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. This may not be the most exciting documentary but it is extremely informative. Their ratings could have and most likely did change generations of people, and they don't even realize it. I highly recommend this to anyone who wants to learn more about the fascist organization that is the MPAA.… Expand

This documentary might not be the best one you'll see, or even anywhere near that, but it surely is extremely entertaining and engaging. First of, who would have thought that the MPAA was such a secretive and, more worryingly, generation-defining organisation? Well, the film is rather informative about that, and it gives a lot of interesting thoughts by film directors, producers, critics and even actors, and other "showbiz insiders" who have been somehow affected (read: burnt) by the ratings system. Obviously, the documentary is extremely one sided, but that is just the reality of documentary film-making: very few films aren't. Nonetheless, It is rather interesting to see how the film develops, especially with the addition of the detective and her investigation. Definitely gives a lot of freshness to an otherwise potentially boring film about an interesting topic. Still, as many reviews here have noted, the film beyond the initial revelation of the importance of the MPAA and it's "wicked ways" does not provide us with much to work with. The film-maker himself, seems to be quite lost and does not know what to focus his attention to, so we end up with an anti-climactic ending about rating appeals, that really doesn't give us very much to think about, except of asking ourselves why does religion always have to play a huge role in the U.S. in pretty much everything? Once again, as all the directors, actors and critics have noted, the U.S. should learn from Europe about films, censorship, sexuality and violence. Makes one wonder who chooses the European film ratings people, and why aren't they anonymous.… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Before seeing this movie, I really was one of those consumers who would pick up a DVD and put it back down if it had an NC-17 rating. It wasn't because I was concerned about the content, but because of the misconceptions I had about the quality. Then it turns out that 'pelvic thrusts' can potentially be the only reason for such a labeling... What a joke. What I gathered as being the overall message for this movie is that we are litterally being hearded like sheep by the fatcats of corporate america. Gay hating, racist and priveleged people trying to alter what I find acceptable, because they find something else acceptable. Great job!… Expand

I was extremely disappointed by this movie. There really was nothing to 'expose' and no great insights. In the end I had more respect for the MPAA board than the filmmaker who in typical liberal Hollywood fashion finds a way to blame the wrong group. The real blame should be on the big companies that won't back NC-17 movies. That's your real censors.

To my surprise, "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" doesn't climax with the outing of the MPAA board. This very informative doc about the puritanical hypocrites who count pelvic thrusts instead of bullets, somewhat loses its shape after the film's selling point is made. Everything that follows is anti-climactic. The appeals process is interesting, but not as interesting as watching a private detective at work. When Becky says that she loves to spy on people without their knowledge, you wonder if those words were scripted(a voyeur doing work against an industry that's predicated on voyeurism); and also if the filmmaker chose this detective(a lesbian, with a protege who happens to be young and sort of hot) to echo the ratings board's fear of females giving females pleasure. We watch closely for any trace of sexual tension. Well, I did. In "This Film Is Not Yet Rated", much is made about how independent films get the shaft when they face the ratings board. Well, this is our faults. If more people ventured out to films such as "Boys Don't Cry" and "Where the Truth Lies", art would be allowed to be art if commerce wasn't lagging too far behind.… Expand

This movie raises some great questions about our movie rating system and the needlessly shadowy MPAA organization. However, it has some problems of its own. George Carlin discusses our societal problem with enjoying fictional violence and prohibiting fictional sex in his stand-up comedy with greater depth and maturity than a dozen of these directors and producers do in actually discussing it for the film. Almost the entire first half of the movie is devoted to a parade of writers, directors and producers complaining about getting a gratuitous rating for showing a sexual act or semi-erotic behavior - This Film Is Not Yet Rated gets redundant quickly for far too long on this matter. They save the really compelling problems for use in small doses, such as Gunner Palace's R-rating; it was a documentary about what real soldiers are doing in Iraq, that got an R for drug use and profane language. It is much easier to sympathize with a director who is just trying to show the American public how their soldiers work and relax than it is with a director who complains that she wasn't able to show a graphic threeway in her comedy, or that he was chastised for having a girl pick up a bottle with her labia. Several of the things the documentary defends are juvenile, and it's kind of funny to see the film makers be so defensive about it. The Pentagon's possible censorship of war movies gets perhaps 60 seconds in this 95-minute movie. Movie "piracy" gets maybe 90 seconds. The cliche of violence against women gets a semi-humorous musical montage. Yet there's plenty of time to watch the lesbian private investigator talk about her life, sit in the car on camera on stakeouts and play phone tag - this is time that should have been invested in a meaningful discussion of issues raised in the film. The film's biggest problem is the MPAA, the organization that creates and gives ratings. The MPAA is too secretive to have contributed much in the way of interviews, and so it is blasted and jabbed at Michael Moore style. Certainly after the movie they seem to have deserved this treatment, but a thinking viewer can't help but be disappointed that most of what we hear about the MPAA is speculation as to their activities and motives. The most clever part of the movie documents its own submission to the MPAA for a rating, though much like the rest of the film, this part is more entertaining than informative - voices are "re-enacted" to give antagonistic tones, cartoon faces are used to characterize board members, conversations are cut making the director look sympathetic, and so on. Still, for the information the film provides and all the questions it raises, it's absolutely worth seeing. You may even want to make a checklist of all the topics you'll have to discuss afterwards. It definitely provides more of those than your average movie, or even your average documentary.… Expand

BRAVO!! A must see for any American filmgoer. Don't let that it is a documentary scare you off, highly entertaining and informative. One of the most enjoyable and intruiguing movies of the year. Will surely start a good conversation afterwards as well