MovieChat Forums > Broken Flowers (2005) Discussion > Why is this movie rated R???

Why is this movie rated R???

posted 16 years ago by melaniemaldo
31 replies | jump to latest

Whats wrong withyou americans? Why the hell is this movie rated R?
Its a family movie with one nude women for about 10 seconds....uhhhhh very brutal. Are american kids become psychos or terrorists when they see a nude women??? The rating system in america is absolutly funny.

I come from Germany an here the film was rated G!!!!

Thats means everbody....even a 4 year old child can watch the movie. And i think its absolutly ok.´ There is no violance oder sex scenes so why is this movie rated that high?

[–] snikt_snakt 16 years ago

You nailed it, dude. The American ratings system honestly believes that children will grow up to be psychopaths if they see a nude body in a film.

You can shoot a woman in the tit and get a PG-13, but if you touch her naked tit, it's R.

"What the f-ck is the internet?" -Jay, Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] melaniemaldo 16 years ago

why? Why should this movie PG15?
Every child can see full naked women on nude beaches, so why is it a problem in movies?

[–] knightviper56 15 years ago

because, in the United States, (as far as I know) we don't have nude beaches....
Our country is messed up in some ways.... the minorities can influence the majorities in ways that are just stupid. If a few people complain that something is a bit too risqué, well then the rest of us are screwed.

Yay! Random!

[–] jtf1986 15 years ago

Yes there are, just not very many of them.

[–] markfilipak 15 years ago

You can go naked on any beach in California provided that it is outside of municipal limits and is not a public park. And btw, there are NO private beaches on the west coast.

Interested in collaborating on a new type of film rating system? Contact me.

[–] thousand_yard_stare 15 years ago

The MPAA's ratings are supposed to reflect public consensus. Frontal nudity in a film without parental restrictions would confound public expectation -- most parents do not want their kids to have unfettered access to this material. Personally, I would have no problem showing it to a 13-year-old.

[–] mark-hansen11 11 years ago

The MPAA's rating board is just conservative religious people. Their decisions does not reflect public consensus, even if it's supposed to. To do so, you'd need a varied group of people together, which they do not consist of.

No one is allowed to know the names, and through that, the identity of the board members. How come? How does that not come off as being shady? Supposedly it's to protect them from influence and threats. But many MPAA raters have ties to the big studios and I think it was created by the big Hollywood studios back in the day. And imagine if the president's name was held secret to protect him from influence and threats. Who'd ever agree to that?

The truth is that the MPAA have too much influence on how films are presented to the public to not be held accountable for their decisions. They have no actual system to rate movies, and there have been so much controversy surrounding their ratings that it is ridiculous to run it in the shadows when there's so much money involved in movie's ratings.

I think I once saw a documentary on it too. I think it was "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" from 2006. I remember it as a decent watch, even if biased.

[–] indykid80 16 years ago

Quick, everyone shield your eyes from reality!

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sparklestar84 16 years ago

Great post, I agree with you. People shouldn't be so quick to judge, or put down the beliefs of others.

Anything I could have said I felt somehow that you already knew

[–] The_Mahatma_Fonzie 16 years ago

Did you just compare the MPAA rating system with the Holocaust?

I am one happy prick!
Something Against You......Pixies

[–] yermomsboxx 15 years ago

Social mores often differ from one country to the next. It's the same reason that a person may get arrested for saying "Heil Hitler!" in Germany, where freedom of speech is somewhat restricted in comparison with the United States.

[–] Todesbote 15 years ago

You don't get arrested for that in Germany :)
It's not allowed to possess Nazi paraphernalia but you don't get arrested for it. It just gets confiscated and destroyed I think :D

[–] kellycastlebridge 15 years ago

I agree, this rating is RIDICULOUS. But that's the MPAA for you!

There was virtually no violence, very little foul language, and no sexuality. The film only showed a brief flash of Alexis Dziena's beautiful body, in a NON-SEXUAL context, yet those idiots in the MPAA had the audacity to rate it R for "graphic nudity". That is absurd! The film should have been rated PG13 for "Brief nudity". The nudity was NOT graphic at all. It wasn't a close-up and the actress's actual genitalia (vagina and anus) was not shown. All that was seen was her butt mostly and a quick flash of her pubic hair. So the nudity was not graphic at all. I consider "graphic nudity" to be a close-up of actual genitalia (such as the penises shown in Walk Hard and Bruno). Unless a woman's actual genitalia can be seen (vulva or anus) then it is NOT graphic nudity. This was simple, non-graphic nudity in a brief, non-sexual context. It clearly should have been rated PG13 but the MPAA loves to repress the female body. It is a very sexist organization that automatically equates the female body with sex and tries to oppress it.

I also agree with other posters who feel the rating system should be expanded to include a PG15 rating. The MPAA needs to be reformed.

[–] imdb-9802 15 years ago

Not sexual!? Come on, she was clearly flirting with him.
And the scene was all about sex and lost youth.
Even so, its hardly unsuitable for children.
Finland rated this k-7, as in 7yo., while Singapore just edited it.

Maybe it was a naughty word somewhere that got the R rating?

[–] Gramondo35 15 years ago

even if it should of been rated pg-13 for the nudity they said *beep* a few times and you cant get away with more than 2 for pg-13

Thats one clean burning hell, I tell you what! -Hank Hill

[–] jtf1986 15 years ago

There is nothing wrong with this movie being rated R.

[–] nkeres01 15 years ago

from another perspective parents don't want the MPAA telling them what is acceptable for their kids. Parents should have the option of restricting certain material. I understand the argument for PG-13 but nothing less. I'm okay with it but I'm not a parent.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lukertron 15 years ago

everyone should watch a documentary called this film is not yet rated, its all about the american rating system. very good film.

[–] cd_boy_33 14 years ago

i agree with melaniemaldo and i am in the us

i know its weaird but what are we to do about it?