What are some of the most unique and/or funniest rating reasons you have found for movies by the MPAA?

The Meteor Man:
"Rated PG on appeal for children caught up in perils of an urban environment"

Shrek
"Rated PG for some crude humor, suggestive content and swashbuckling action"

Twister
"Rated PG-13 for intense depictions of very bad weather"

3 Ninjas Knuckle Up
"Rated PG-13 for non-stop ninja action"

Great Brigade
"Rated R for satanic war violence"

Re: Unusual MPAA ratings
 

Alive:
Rated R for crash scenes too intense for unaccompanied children

Re: Unusual MPAA ratings
 

Didn't even know they gave reasons :D :eek:

I live in a bubble :D

Re: Unusual MPAA ratings
 

Team America: World Police

Rated R for graphic crude and sexual humour, violent images and strong language - all involving puppets

Re: Unusual MPAA ratings
 

Little Giants:
"Rated PG for kids’ rude language and pranks.”

Congo:
"Rated PG-13 for “jungle adventure terror and action and brief strong language."

War Of The Buttons:
"Rated PG for mischievous conflict, some mild language and bare bottoms."

The Indian In The Cupboard:
"Rated PG for mild language and brief video images of violence and sexy dancing.”

Bushwacked:
"Rated PG for language and a mild birds and bees discussion.”

The Skateboard Kid 2:
"Rated PG for brief mild language and an adolescent punch in the nose.”

For The Moment:
“Rated PG-13 for sexual situations, language and a poignant death.”

The Age Of Adaline:
"Rated PG-13 for a suggestive comment."

Matilda:
"Rated PG for exaggerated meanness and ridicule, and for mild language."

Spawn:
"Rated PG-13 for thematic elements involving the demonic underworld, violence, intense fantasy action, and crude humour."

Class of Nuke 'Em High Part 3: The Good, the Bad and the Subhumanoid:
"Rated R for gross presentation of sex, language, and gore."

Ghost In The Machine:
"Rated R for high-tech horror violence."

Gojira vs. Biorante:
"Rated PG for traditional Godzilla violence." (What do they mean by traditional?)

Braindead:
"Rated R for an abundance of outrageous gore." (MPAA: "Peter Jackson, what the **** did you send us?!")

Re: Unusual MPAA ratings
 

I think the rating for Meteor Man was justified even though, they didn't explain it well.

The Bushwacked explanation is also weird.

Re: Unusual MPAA ratings
 

The one that always seemed the most daunting to me was Tideland:


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


I find the movie beautiful, amazing and disturbing all at once.

Those are some pretty humorous descriptions..:p As far as ratings in general it seems to me that they're too liberal; and to my taste are rated too low much of the time. The "G" rating seems to be the most commonly trustworthy; whereas some of the PG-13s really should be bumped up to "R". And most especially some Rs should be NC-17s. As it is, I can't imagine today what type of film would garner the NC-17 rating. Perhaps frank pornography, or snuff films? What is so low or vile that hasn't been shown in an "R" rated film?

On a similar subject I've always been an advocate of the old Siskel and Ebert suggestion of an "A" rating, for Adult. This would designate films that mature viewers would favor: adult themed stories. Not too many of that type of film are made any more (there were whole bunches of them made in the '40s, '50s, and some in the '60s). But I've always believed that the distinction would be attractive and useful.

~Doc

Re: Unusual MPAA ratings
 

I would say that some PG-13 movies should be R and others should be PG. PG-13 seems to have a pretty broad range. I would say that maybe the NC-17 rating should be abolished completely, and every NC-17 movie would fall under the category of R.

Re: Unusual MPAA ratings
 

I think it's the opposite, there are a lot of R-rated movies which really deserve a lower rating, the most unfair case being The King's Speech. Giving the movie an R-rating just because the king says the word **** a few times in a scene is ridiculous. Not only is it important to the plot, but it's lighthearted and fun just like the rest of the movie.

Re: Unusual MPAA ratings
 

That's true, there are some Rs I've seen that should have been PG-13. I think Rain Man was R rated just cause of some f bombs but I think that should have been PG-13 for example.

Here's a site I found where they talk about PG-13 movies that should have been R. I don't agree that The Dark Knight should have been though. But I am surprised Jaws got away with a PG over an R back then:

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertain...-rated-r.html/

SPOILER FROM JAWS AND ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13

What I don't get is, why does Jaws get a PG (before PG-13 was invented), but Asssault on Precinct 13 was threatened with an X rating, unless they would cut out the scene were the little girl is shot to death. She is only shot once, which is graphic, but in Jaws you have a little boy who dies by having his leg bit off, and gushing blood, then the shark finishes off the rest off the rest of him. Cause to me, that was a lot more frightening compared to Assault on Precinct 13 as a kid.

Re: Unusual MPAA ratings
 

I have no idea about these things. I know I get annoyed watching old Friday the 13th movies as it's so obvious those movies got slashed to hell.

My dad didn't care about age restrictions with me as long was a war movie. He wasn't in the habit of hiring horror films because he gets nightmares from them. I always wanted them even as a kid. So I got sneaky. Watch them at friends' houses.

I remember my parents asking me to hide behind the sofa during the sex scenes in Scene of Love. :lol: BLOWN APART LIMBS OK. Fooling around nope. :up:

Re: Unusual MPAA ratings
 

One movie I think should have been PG-13 was Kids (1995), but the MPAA gave it an NC-17, so they decided to release it Unrated.

That's true. I've seen a few where I wondered why it was "R", when it should have been "PG-13", especially for something like smoking. But I think the trend is the other way, especially as people get desensitized to graphic gore, sex, and language. I'm sure the ratings are not done by the same people for each movie. So there is going to be some variation.

~Doc

That seems ridiculous to say. The very first scene deals with smelling another kid's finger after he has sex with a girl, comparing it to buttascotch yo. From there it gets progressively more filthy. Larry Clarke is a serious perv. You must have seen an edited version. That movie deserved its rating.

No I saw the full version, uncut on dvd. Well the reason why I thought Kids should be PG-13 is the plot deals with teenagers coming into contact with HIV, from unprotected sex, plus the guy who had HIV who was sleeping with all the women was a... I guess we could say womanizer, in that he goes from one to the next.

If teenagers were to see Kids, they would never want to have unprotected sex with a womanizer after watching the movie. It would scare teens into making much healthier decisions when it comes to unprotected sex and drugs, and therefore, should be PG-13, to give teens that scary wake up call to reality.

I admit that is a thoughtful consideration, and makes sense in some ways. The way it doesn't make sense is that because of the graphic nature within the movie, it still couldn't be PG-13. An edited version that got across the same warnings could, though.

Re: Unusual MPAA ratings
 

But what content are we talking about here? The sex and drug content? 13 year olds no what that stuff is, and since it's shown in a context that would scare them into being smarter, would it be harmful since they already know what it is?