Sell yours for a Gift Card
We'll buy it for up to $13.00
Learn More
Trade in now
Have one to sell? Sell on Amazon

This Film Is Not Yet Rated

3.9 out of 5 stars 31 customer reviews

Additional DVD options Edition Discs
New from Used from
(Sep 29, 2009)
"Please retry"
$84.98 $21.95
"Please retry"

Unlimited Streaming with Amazon Prime
Unlimited Streaming with Amazon Prime Start your 30-day free trial to stream thousands of movies & TV shows included with Prime. Start your free trial

Editorial Reviews

Special Features


Product Details

  • Actors: Allison Anders, Kirby Dick, Atom Egoyan, Jon Lewis, Kevin Smith
  • Directors: Kirby Dick
  • Format: Multiple Formats, Color, NTSC, Widescreen
  • Language: English
  • Region: Region 1 (U.S. and Canada only. Read more about DVD formats.)
  • Number of discs: 1
  • Rated: NR (Not Rated)
  • Studio: Magnolia Home Entertainment
  • DVD Release Date: September 29, 2009
  • Run Time: 98 minutes
  • Average Customer Review: 3.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (31 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #105,276 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)
  • Learn more about "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" on IMDb

Customer Reviews

Top Customer Reviews

Format: DVD
I saw this film shortly after it came out, and loved it, despite various flaws. I forgot about reviewing it until reading the comments in the reviews for Ma Vie En Rose, a fine film that many were amazed to see receive an R-rating.

That rating makes perfect sense once one sees this movie. Whether we like to admit it or not, there's a lot of control in this country over what we experience from folks who haven't learned how to think properly---that is, with an open mind and wide range of cultural awarenesses. These are the kind of people who keep us permanently in one war or another; apparently the God they worship doesn't like nudity or anything sexual...but he just LOVES violence and war. How does that First Commandment go again?

We are encouraged (by those pulling the strings) to watch graphic, brutal killings day in and night out on TV and in movies, but we are so scared of a little sexuality, especially if it's of a sort that doesn't feature the missionary position and strong feelings of guilt afterwards. These are the kind of folks who quietly review our celluloid art (or lack thereof) and decide what we and our kids are allowed to watch. This film makes that clear, intelligently and with much wry wit.

If you've ever questioned a rating on a movie, see this film and find out why that rating was put there. Our national conscience comes to a large degree from the art we encounter, so control over that art is a big deal for those who stand to make trillions from selling guns and war, and from promoting their neanderthal concepts of what sexuality and religion are.

This doc does have some problems, such as the ineptness of the private investigators, Dick's occasionally immature attitude, and the very one-sided approach in general.
Read more ›
1 Comment 15 of 17 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
Format: DVD
I'll be honest: I liked the movie. As an avid fan of cultural studies, I enjoyed the examination and analysis of the MPAA. The movie simply asks: Why do we let a handful of anonymous people determine what is and is not acceptable to show in a movie theater?

Along the way, the movie raises a number of intriguing questions - why do they bring in two priests to sit in on discussions? Why do they always choose the same two religions for those priests? Do the members of the MPAA live up to their promised qualifications? Is there anything concrete about the rating process?

Unfortunately, many of these questions remain unanswered. The film is a good polemic, it raises thought and discussion, but the director hits a rock wall in his attempts to provide answers.

There's plenty of interesting material here - the discussion of Team America: World Police's utterly ridiculous sex scene, the methods for getting edgy material past the MPAA (the hilarious finding that the MPAA doesn't care -how- you changed something, as long as you changed it), these are interesting.

The absolute highlight of the film, though, is the side-by-side comparison of R-rated heterosexual sex scenes with NC-17-rated homosexual sex scenes. The film presents a series of suspiciously similar scenes that only differ based on orientation - showing the way that the MPAA shuts down attempts to portray homosexuality equally to heterosexuality in mainstream film. The sequence, to me, is one of the best and most brutal cultural critiques ever put to film.

However, This Film Is Not Yet Rated lags after this scene - none of the material afterward lives up to the cultural exploration done in that scene.
Read more ›
1 Comment 11 of 14 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
Format: DVD
By the mid-Sixties, the film industry was in almost total free-fall. The reason: television. For about a decade prior to 1966, the industry had tried to impede the inevitable with mammoth historical epics and other movies that were more "frank" -- i.e., stuff that wouldn't be on TV. It didn't really work: 20th Century Fox's "Cleopatra", the biggest epic of them all, tanked at the box office, killing the expensive sword-and-sandal trend; the supposed "frankness" of movies after the mid-Fifties was still weak tea because of the Production Code, which ultimately limited the freedom of filmmakers. It turned out that Americans were quite willing to stay comfortable at home watching TV programs with pseudo-frankness, rather than go out to theaters and pay to see pseudo-frankness. In other words, the movies offered nothing that couldn't be seen on TV for free. The movies desperately needed something new.

Enter Jack Valenti as new president of MPAA early in 1966. Job #1: abolish the Code. Job #2: allow more "freedoms" in films, but, as an Episcopalian priest on the current Appeals Board at MPAA says in this documentary, "don't allow TOO MUCH freedom." First test case: "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" from 1966, with its g--damns, hells, and screws. Solution: force Warner Brothers and theater houses to put a warning about content on advertising and posters. Also, ask director Mike Nichols to ease off on a few words -- oh, just a few, not a big deal. But please, just a few. And so the pattern established itself that would continue for the next 50 years.
Read more ›
2 Comments 3 of 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse

Most Recent Customer Reviews


Search Customer Discussions
Search all Amazon discussions

Topic From this Discussion
Had MPAA been a modicum wiser it would've given this movie an R !
Don't forget the gay content. As the filmmaker demonstrated, gay content will get a film an NC-17 far quicker than comparable straight content. Kirby Dick had the temerity to point this out, and the very demonstration likely contributed to the rating.
Dec 17, 2007 by Alaric Argent |  See all 2 posts
DVD is NOT anamorphic Be the first to reply
How is this different from previous release? Be the first to reply
Start a new discussion
First post:
Prompts for sign-in

What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?