Movie review: This film is not yet rated
Movie makers make movies with the purpose of exploring people’s talents and also for entertainment purposes. To many people, movies are a source of entertainment especially after a long day of work (Manchel 435). While others may prefer to go to the cinema and watch a certain movie, others will just wait for the movie to be on Blu-ray disk. Then, they can purchase the disk and watch the movie in the comfort of their sofa back at home. In a nutshell, movies are a source of flexible entertainment, which one can enjoy, in whatever style they wish to enjoy it.
In the modern world, movies have several functions. They are not only a source of thrill, but also a method of passing a lot of information. Movies are responsible for the transfer of cultures. The characters in movies have a great impact on their audience (Ruby 221). A person will at one time wish to dress as him, or she saw a certain star dress in a movie. Movies also influence people’s ways of doing things and their general behavior. Conversely, every movie ever made has had a message which it has passed to the audience either consciously or unconsciously. The impact a movie makes on its audience portrays this fact.
Films are motion pictures. They may be based of true stories or fictional. Fictional films are sometimes based on books. This leads to the creation of a long series of movies released in seasons. Fictional movies, however, those that are more often not based on books run for a period of one to several hours. These are the movies that most people are familiar with. As seen, they might be fictional or based on true stories or events. Documentaries are movies based on true events or historical occurrences. One of the greatest documentaries ever made is a movie by the name this film is not yet rated.
The film “This film is not yet rated” premiered in September 2006. It is a 98 minute film that features major players in the American film industry. In the documentary, the film producers and directors in America,we’re asked of their views on the Motion Pictures Association of America’s rating system. In the documentary, among those interviewed include Matt Stone (producer of many Americans’ favorite cartoon “south park”), John Waters, a film maker, and many other filmmakers actresses, directors and producers. Being a documentary it cannot be said to have main characters. Kirby Dick is the man who directed the documentary.
It is important to note that the performance of a character in the documentary is based on how he gives the information needed by the interviewer. In the film, some of the directors are captivating. They give all that has to be given to the audience. Matt Stone, for example, not only talk of the rough times they had with the MPAA, but also offer advice on how the association can change for the better. This shows that they are not there to tarnish the name of the association. Instead, they are there to bring to the attention of the association that the producers and other stakeholders are fully aware of the mistreatments experienced.
David l. Robb gives an insight on how one gets to have the corporation of the military for them to have the military equipment at their disposal for use in films. He goes ahead to say that the script is edited to the level that it has no line that in some way seems to tarnish the name of the military. This is an insight, given to those interested in joining the industry that it is not always a smooth road to make a movie and have it aired at the theatre. It takes a lot of editing of the script to have such refined work as the one that many of us audience go to enjoy at the theatre.
This film was made in such a way that it gives a lot of information to the audience that has otherwise been stuck with the film producers, writers, actors and actresses and the total film industry fraternity. However, it cannot be said that the film was produced too late in time. Had it been produced back in the year 2004, the same facts would have been revealed. It would not have been any different had the film been produced at some other time rather than when Dick did its production.
However much praise given to the film, it also has some loopholes that make it lose some credibility points. One of them is the fact that the film was too much bent into finding out whom the MPAA raters are. It had already shown the rating in a bad light, and the exposure of these raters would have just made it worse. The film had already achieved the objective of making it clear to the rating board that their services were below the expectations of the stakeholders in the American film industry. To top it up, had the producer taken it upon himself to compare the American rating system to that of other countries, and then there would be a more solid ground on which to argue that the MPPA system was not at all fair.
Despite the critics, “This film is not yet rated” is still a good movie that I would recommend one to watch. It gives an insight into what it takes to have a movie showing at the theatre. For anyone wishing to join the film industry, it would come in handy since, having seen and heard what other producers and actors go through before a movie or film can be approved, they would join the league with such expectations hence ruling out chances of getting disappointed and quitting.
The historical accuracy portrayed by the movie is simply hard to judge. It is not a fictional movie based on certain facts that we could just know them hence be able to judge on the accuracy. Documentaries are, usually, more oriented into giving the facts to the public rather than maintaining accuracy in the setting. However, I could hereby, therefore, confidently say that the film surpassed the expectations of a documentary.
The characters in the documentary are the real people involved. It would be incorrect to say that an actor in the documentary, for example,David Ansen, represented another person. The characters here represent themselves. Conclusively, the movie is worth watching. It is not only enlightening but also funny. One cannot just have one look at it but will find their selves wanting to watch it one more time.
Works cited
Manchel Frank. Film Study: An Analytical Bibliography. Maryland: Fairleigh Dickinson, 1990. Print.
Ruby Judy.Picturing Culture: Explorations of Film and Anthropology.Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2000. Print.
