As I stated before, I was going to start making posts focusing on the subject of sex. Well, to kick it off I’m going to share this insightful documentary which points out everything that is wrong with Hollywood and why I hate most mainstream movies. This movie has everything: explicit sex, violence, and reason. If you’re going to pay attention to one post this month, PAY ATTENTION TO THIS ONE.
If you were raised on Disney, be prepared for an eye-opening experience. No, it’s not the best documentary I’ve ever seen, but it will open up your mind and probably change the way you feel about violence and sex in movies. Basically, If you’ve ever bought a ticket for a kiddy PG rated movie and went to see an R rated one when you were underage, then you’ll probably agree with most things in this documentary.
[EDIT 04-27-10: Added watch online option]
This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2006) Trailer
Watch Online:
[Content is hidden because you're a loser. Please Login or Register to see the content.]
Rapidshare Download Links:
PART 1 | PART 2 | PART 3 | PART 4 | PART 5 | PART 6 | PART 7 | PART 8 |
PASSWORD: www.leet-warez.6x.to
Related Posts:
- VH1’s Sex: The Revolution (All Four Parts) [TV Show]
- Religulous (2008) [Movie]
- Hell House (2001) [Movie]
- Skipped Parts (2000) [Movie]
- Boys Don’t Cry (1999) [Movie + Song]
Tags: documentary, fuck hollywood and those corporate cocks, FUCK THE MPAA, sex, underage drinking, underage sex, voilence, where can I watch This Film Is Not Yet Rated online?
January 6th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
omg just warning any1 who gets this not to watch it in public lol the first part have a lot of sex but it’s still a good movie
January 7th, 2009 at 1:17 am
Well, I kinda automatically assume people would have the sense not to watch it around, say, a Christian minister for example (or my dad for that matter).
and yeah it has scenes from NC-17 movies, but the overall point is that the MPAA, the very people who assign R and PG-13 ratings, are NOT typical Americans and are influenced by the Christian Right affiliates.
April 3rd, 2010 at 4:00 pm
can you post the online streaming for this movie?
April 26th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
I haven’t watched the film yet (I will, I will), but I want to comment on something I saw on the news that makes me lose hope for American censorship, plus what little I know about ratings in Europe.
First of all, I saw on the news a small controversy over a lingerie ad… because it was a lingerie ad for bustier women. We get pissed off at seen women with bigger breasts in lingerie because… they have bigger breasts? Can they help that? No. Yet more skin is showing (because they have more skin), and there’s some outrage over that. I don’t get it.
Something else I thought about proposing and still think should be considered: in a way, we need a rating that is worse than an R. “High Tension” went to NC-17 for its extreme violence only. The NC-17 rating isn’t just for sexual content (though that seems to be the biggest use for it).
What I think we need to do is what they do in England: okay, it’s at NC-17 (18 in England), so you’re not legally allowed to see it under 18. However, the difference is that in England, they WILL promote the film, and they don’t restrict it to little art theatres. We need to do it that way: every mainstream cinema should allow NC-17 films to play at it, but like with an R-rating, you need an ID. It’s that simple. They should receive as much promotion as an R-rated film would. I think it could work.
The funniest thing to me is that I like to make fun of people in the UK because they have movies like “Traces of Death” banned over there because “it serves no purpose other than to show real footage of death.” Still, they have a much better policy on how movies are marketed and where they’re shown. Not only that, but after 9:00, a show like “Skins” can play without any censorship. I’m glad they can get away with that: I remember on Comedy Central when they were playing one of the movies (”Uncensored!”) at 2:00 in the morning, and I heard every word come out of their mouth, so I figured it would be fully uncensored… until I saw blurred tits. Fuck me, are they serious?! I can hear the words “cock,” “cunt,” and “tits,” but I can’t see any of it?
End of rant. Sorry for the length.
April 27th, 2010 at 2:40 am
@freshlikeUHH:
done..sorry I didn’t notice your comment earlier.
@Skyfire:
hmmm…I think you should really see this film then because it sounds to me like you’re still on the fence about some issues. It’s not the greatest documentary, but it does make you think.
“Something else I thought about proposing and still think should be considered: in a way, we need a rating that is worse than an R. “High Tension” went to NC-17 for its extreme violence only. The NC-17 rating isn’t just for sexual content (though that seems to be the biggest use for it).”
i’m not sure what you mean by that comment. I think a movie like High Tension SHOULD be NC-17 Extreme violence is worse than any act of sex in my book (unless of course you’re talking about violent sex like rape).
Oh, and as for Skins, it’s turned into a pretty crap show now (I only liked about ever other episode in the last season) but I’m still glad something that crude exists for a teen audience. It really makes my heart warm to see scenes of a son and mother singing sexually explicit lyrics together in a car.
Bottom line: people should be able to watch what they want to watch. Exploitative shit movies that glorify violence shouldn’t be/wouldn’t be so “cool” if it weren’t for censorship.
April 27th, 2010 at 3:35 am
What I meant by my comment is that to a certain extent, there is stuff that is stronger than an R-rating (which you can legally see if you have an adult present with you at the movie), and to that end I believe that the NC-17 rating is warranted. Where we fuck everything up is the part where they don’t allow NC-17 films to be publicized. I would love all of America to see something like “Antichrist”… I think it would be a shock to their senses, and I think it would thoroughly keep their interest, if nothing else.
April 27th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
By the way, to clarify, I’m going to add something else: I’ve been seeing R-rated films since I can remember. I saw “Porky’s” when I was 10, “Scream” when I was 6, etc. It’s nothing new. I doubt, though, that my parents would have been too pleased if I saw something as graphic as a rape you’d see in an NC-17 film.
However, there is also something else I should put forth on this: I was watching “Jarhead” last night, and I saw and heard stuff in there that was comparable to “Y Tu Mama Tambien,” which hit NC-17, yet “Jarhead” is R-rated. There’s the masturbation scene, the scene with all the Marines in the shower, the scene where a wife sends her husband a tape of her fucking the neighbor (which, if in any more detail, would have been pornographic). Where’s the line we draw between NC-17 and R? “Zack and Miri Make a Porno” had stuff I thought I’d only hear in a porno, and it’s R-rated. “Mysterious Skin” has some similar talk, and the sex is at an R-rated level, but somehow they put it at NC-17.
So this is where I become confused.
April 29th, 2010 at 3:35 am
Is there a way to edit my posts, Charlie? Because I hate replying so many times to try to really get across what I’m trying to say. My thoughts become disjointed frequently.
What I was saying is that within the constraints we have… within the system we have… there’s a need for an NC-17 rating. Personally Zappa has it right: let the parents be parents. I have not yet seen an NC-17 movie that has offended me, and one R-rated movie that has an offensive amount of violence.
May 2nd, 2010 at 1:32 am
@Skyfire:
Judging by your comments, I take it that you haven’t seen the movie yet. Seriously dude, you need to start actually watching some of these things on the blog.
I realize I can’t force people to see/hear/read certain things but jeez…I mean, that’s the whole reason I made this site. Now for my answer:
Personally I don’t think that the NC-17 rating is necessary. I think it was formed politically so that certain films would have no chance of making it into the mainstream. In a sense, it’s a legal way of censoring/banning a movie from the public. Success in Hollywood, is after all, based on who you know, not how good of a filmmaker/writer/actor you are.
You say that you don’t understand why movies like “Mysterious Skin” get an NC-17 and “Jarhead” gets an “R.” Well, Jarhead was made by Sam Mendes (who was behind 1999’s Ameican Beauty) so he was already “in the loop” so to speak. The budget for the movie was in the millions and the film made millions. As for “Mysterious Skin” it was made by an indie director for under a million dollars and didn’t even gross a million in the theaters.
It’s pretty obvious to me that it’s politics and money, and NOT offensive content, that separate a movie from being NC-17.
At 16 I didn’t like other people telling me that I wasn’t allowed to see something and I STILL feel the same way. I didn’t feel suddenly “enlightened” when I turned 17. You can’t place an age restriction on maturity.
May 2nd, 2010 at 3:11 am
Jeez, Charlie, I’ll get myself to it. Stop snapping!
I understand what you mean by people maturing at different times, and that you shouldn’t be told what you can and can’t handle (especially by politicians, who apparently don’t understand the concept of maturity… rant coming soon :D), but I also think that there’s a distinct difference between seeing an implication of a blowjob and then actually seeing one, and I think that someone may find it considerably more offensive to actually see the blowjob occur. It doesn’t mean we should censor it, but we need a comprehensive system of some sort that can filter out those who can and can’t handle it. Not to mention there are dumbass parents who take their fucking eight year old children to an R-rated film.
So I guess we’ll have to disagree on the finer details of this.
May 2nd, 2010 at 7:00 am
So I finally watched the documentary. Both audio and video (yes, I’m so proud of myself)!
I must say a few things first off:
1.) It definitely could have been edited down to about an hour
2.) It’s too ambitious for its own good: it tries covering not only the problem with the MPAA, but personal lives, what’s “right” and “wrong,” and the politics of media and corporations… then the Columbine shootings? What? I think that it should have focused more on the filmmakers and what their experiences are and why the MPAA is wrong
3.) There’s so much of this that most people are aware of: gay content is frowned upon and receives stricter treatment, sexual content is more likely to be cut than violence, and the media is controlled by a couple of very powerful conglomerates (what does this have to do with the ratings board and their lack of transparency?).
4.) You could find an example that pokes a hole in each theory. It’s a shot in the dark, but “Zack and Miri Make a Porno,” “A Clockwork Orange,” and “Mulholland Drive” could all make a case against some of the allegations.
They also raise good points about what’s wrong with the ratings board and films: I think that they do discriminate against gays, that somehow showing women being sexual is somehow deemed “wrong,” and that violence is somehow shown as something that we shouldn’t be intimidated by. I also agree that something that’s more graphic should receive a rating more accommodating to younger viewers and that reality shouldn’t be censored.