This Film Is Not Yet Rated

Name: This Film Is Not Yet Rated
Genre: Documentary
Released: September 1, 2006
Duration: 97 min
Rating: 75
Cast: Kimberly Peirce, Kirby Dick, Matt Stone

2006

METASCORE

Generally favorable reviews based on 33 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Generally favorable reviews based on 35 Ratings

See All

7.3

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

7.3	Your Score
7.3	User Score Generally favorable reviews based on 35 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

This Film Is Not Yet Rated

Now Playing: This Film Is Not Yet Rated

Movie Details & Credits

IFC Films | Release Date: September 1, 2006 | TV-MA

Starring: Kimberly Peirce, Kirby Dick, Matt Stone

Summary: Academy Award-nominated director Kirby Dick takes on the MPAA.

Director: Kirby Dick

Genre(s): Documentary

Rating: TV-MA

Runtime: 97 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Buy on

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

100

Eric Campos

It's vital that everyone who cares about film see this documentary. Read full review

Scott Tobias

It thoroughly eviscerates the MPAA and makes a solid case that the culture has paid the price for its censorious practices. His (Dick's) attacks are the equivalent of shooting ducks in a barrel, but these ducks had it coming. Read full review

Dana Stevens

Feisty, intellectually engaging. Read full review

Ruthe Stein

Extremely amusing. Read full review

Claudia Puig

There is no question that the organization is a riveting subject for a film. Read full review

Anthony Lane

As the movie shows, the whole furtive business of ratings is indeed ridiculous and should be overhauled. Read full review

Jonathan Rosenbaum

The main activity charted in the documentary is a kind of adolescent mischief, as Dick and a private investigator seek to uncover and expose the anonymous MPAA employees. Read full review

SEE ALL 33 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

JackMontgomery

Sep 18, 2010

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

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

JoanC.

Sep 9, 2006

really sexy! very cool.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

Mase

Sep 16, 2006

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

Riren

Feb 25, 2007

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 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

TTW107

May 7, 2012

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 ridiculousPrior 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

ChadS.

Mar 28, 2007

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 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

1 of 1 users found this helpful

JimS

Sep 23, 2007

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 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.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful

SEE ALL 10 REVIEWS