Salubfoto It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

Kamila Bell This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

zkonedog Ever since I saw "Titanic" in 1997 and wondered how in the world it was able to garner a PG-13 rating, I have been intrigued by the official film rating system. I was hoping this little documentary would open my eyes to the overall scheme of ratings, but instead it is such an amateur production as to be almost a complete joke.Basically, a group of three rabble-rousers decide to see if they can crack the secretive facade of the MPAA ratings board. As such, they tail reviewers, dig through trash, and make harassing phone calls in the process. In the end, they are no closer to providing any new information on the matter as they were in the beginning.I can give this doc two stars because it is such a great idea. I mean, there most definitely is some shady activity going on over at MPAA. However, this crackpot "investigative" team just never really had a chance to get the job done. Not only are their sleuthing skills lacking in the end, but the whole film is so one-sided as to be kind of sickening at times. The filmmakers are basically criticizing the ratings system without offering any alternatives or suggestions to improve the system or come up with a better one.Simply put, "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" is purely rabble-rousing for the sake of rabble-rousing. They hit upon an interesting concept, but are completely unable to execute it.

Field78 I saw this amusing little documentary after listening to a podcast that explained something about the shady dealings of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), and how almost the entire income of the American movie industry depends on their cooperation. I already learned that the MPAA is a very mighty organization, despite the fact that it is a completely voluntary system that movie studios and cinema franchises have universally adopted, and was only designed for classifying movies into categories as a guide to parents.The most entertaining parts of the documentary are the personal experiences of directors who tell about how their movies (initially) received the heaviest rating, the ubiquitously feared NC-17. In practice, this means that no major cinema will show it, no studio will advertise it, and hardly anyone will pay to see it. I am still puzzled by how a protracted sex scene, frontal nudity, homosexual love as well as a female orgasm in film will instantly restrict the movie to audiences of 17 and higher, whereas a violent death or a man being pleasured can be seen by any minor accompanied by an adult. However, if one thing becomes clear, it is that the MPAA is never in a hurry to explain their reasoning and motives.It is gradually revealed that the MPAA was founded by the six biggest movie studios, and as such, they go much easier on their movies than on independently produced films. As the movie went on, I felt myself swinging between amusement and indignation as the double standards of the MPAA are revealed, as well as their untouchable status, since all their dealings occur in strict anonymity. The official stance of the organization itself is to just staunchly defend this system without any logical reasoning or accountability, much the same way in which they rate movies.I am less convinced by the makers' attempts to track down and identify these anonymous MPAA members. All it amounts to is that we learn that most of them don't fit the job description given by the MPAA; by that time, we are already convinced that the MPAA is a non-transparent, corrupted organization with limited capacity for self-regulation. It would have been much more informative if the makers had interviewed these people, or at least documented (failed) attempts at that. I also missed the Michael Moore-style 'search for the root of the problem', where we could get some insight into where this inconsistent morale about sex and violence comes from.In the conclusion, which is a nice example of 'life imitating art', director Kirby Dick submits this movie to the MPAA, and immediately gets an NC-17 for 'sexual content', despite the fact that those scenes are very brief and merely illustrate his point. He is allowed to fight the decision for a board of appeal, but cannot use any scenes of other movies to defend himself, so he looses the appeal. Apparently the MPAA cannot handle a bit of criticism.Filmmaker John Waters aptly describes the conundrum by saying that the MPAA prides itself on not being a censorship organization. But since it has no official 'rulebook' on what movie content is acceptable for a given rating, there really is no other way for directors than to look at examples of others for guidance. Which is not allowed by the members, who always remain anonymous and only answer to the MPAA itself. Weird.

George Roots (GeorgeRoots) I've watched "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" about 3-4 times now in the space of 2 months, and every time I find myself wishing to hear more stories of just how ridiculous the MPAA's methods really are. I can understand the somewhat secrecy for the raters of your organisation (Everyone is entitled to a private life), but to then be told that there are still existing members working way beyond the 3-7 years of allotted employment baffles me. To not even follow your own protocols makes me question your methods overall, and the many film-makers director Kirby Dick interviews certainly have engaging and absurd experiences to share.The documentary follows Kirby's efforts in trying to figure out how the Motion Picture Association of America works, when the organisation remains one of the secretive corporations around. His efforts involves hiring the help of a private detective, and some thoroughly engaging stories from many directors both famous and independent. Films containing homosexual behaviour are more likely to be rated NC-17 than R, surprising levels of violence are OK and sex is not. You can also appeal your movie for a lower rating, but cannot refer to any other movies in your defence.The parts with the private detective leads to some wonderful discussions, yet I cannot help but feel that part of it feels fabricated. What is surprising however, is that both manage to unveil an exceptional amount of information regarding who is censoring what and how the MPAA is in bed with many surprising production companies. The Kimberley Pierce stuff is riveting, and there's plenty of humour to be had among everyone involved.Final Verdict: I don't really want to spoil it, but it is highly recommended. Ironically it received an NC-17, and the MPAA made copies against the directors wishes. Kirby's efforts are not in vain and no stone is left unturned. 8/10.

dushyant chaturvedi This is a must watch documentary for all the movie buffs who are curious about the procedure behind the rating of the films they see, what do these ratings mean and who decides the rating. This is an expose about the MPAA, the motion picture association of America. It has many startling revelations like America is the only movie making country where the names of the movie raters are kept secret. There are the interviews of many directors whose movies were slapped with ratings for ridiculous reasons. There is a parallel track wherein the documentary maker hires a private investigator to find out about the raters. Should be seen to understand the power which the major movie studios hold and the difficulties faced by the independent movie makers. Is a terrible indictment of Jack Valenti, the head of the MPAA for 38 years. 3.5 out of 5 for this informative piece of cinema.