Tuesday, July 1, 2008

This Blog is Rated ‘S’ for Stupidity

I watch a fair number of movies and have noticed that the MPAA ratings seem to be getting weirdly specific. For example, a PG film used to say ‘Some material may be inappropriate for younger children.’ This was fine and dandy.

Now, however, they’re getting more and more specific about what’s actually in the film. The Spiderwick Chronicles, for example, was “Rated PG for scary creature action and violence, peril and some thematic elements.” Stardust was rated “PG-13 for fantasy violence and some risqué humor.” Saw III was rated R for “grisly violence, and gore, terror, language and drug content.”

NOTE: I have no idea why all the movies I listed began with ‘S.’ I blame my mother.

Obviously, the MPAA is trying to give parents a greater degree of information so they can make informed choices about what they’re kids are watching. However, if you can’t guess that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation contains “demented mayhem and torture, and strong language,” you probably aren’t paying attention.

However, being the concerned citizen that I am, I have decided to create some new, more informative rating descriptions for the MPAA.

“Rated PG for comedic violence to the groin with a baseball.”
“Rated PG-13 for language, including the ‘F’ word, the ‘S’ word, the ‘PH’ word, and several misused vowels.”
“Rated R for a really sweet scene where I guy gets machine-gunned by a Chihuahua.”
“Rated R for strong sexual content, nudity, heavy petting, 1st through 3rd base, and a designated hitter.”
“Rated NC-17 for some seriously demented Sh*t. Seriously. We totally warned you.”
“Rated R for sexual misuse of Mexican food.”
“Rated G for cuteness. Teddy Bears are singing and dancing. Your five-year-old will love it. You will be bored out of your mind.”
“Rated PG-13 for stupidity. We warned you.”
“Rated R for something. We didn’t actually watch it, but the poster looked kinda violent. There’s a guy with a gun, so we figured an ‘R’ was a safe bet.”
“Rated NC-17 for being incomprehensible, weird, nonsensical, cacophonic, and in French.”

Cheers,
-Jason

No comments: