Change Your Image
ergegrrgewgegwegwegerwg
Reviews
This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2006)
An evil film made by ill-intentioned, bad people
I recommend that everyone watch "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" in order to fully comprehend the malevolence of the leftist film scene. The director Kirby Dick ends up proving the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he intended to prove. He wanted to show that the MPAA is evil: Instead, he showed that he himself is evil. And juvenile. And un-self-aware. He apparently has no clue that stalking is a crime, and that exposing the names and addresses and families of innocent private citizens who have committed no wrong reveals that he wishes harm would come to them.
2/3s of the film revolves around the director hiring private detectives to "expose" the names and address of the MPAA employees who watch and rate films as their jobs. Why? To what end? It's never explained. What purpose is served by printing on-screen the names of these people, and showing their private homes, and their pictures, and listing their children? I'll tell you why: The author wants them to come to harm. He himself doesn't have the nerve to "do" anything to them, but he hopes that by violating their privacy, some nutcase out there will take matters in his own hands and threaten/harm/stalk these people.
The whole reason the MPAA raters need to remain anonymous is exactly for reasons like this: So creeps won't threaten and bully them for political reasons. Creeps like Kirby Dick want the raters to feel fear, fear that if they don't toe the PC line, they are putting themselves and their families at risk.
I found the whole film completely unconscionable, and bordering on the criminal.
Which brings me to the larger point: What exactly does the director (and many of the interview subjects) want? They never say overtly, but it quickly becomes clear: They want to remove the rating system entirely. They want NO film ratings of any kind.
And why would they want that? Well, there could only be one possible reason. Since the purpose of MPAA ratings is to make sure that young kids don't accidentally walk into and watch a film with pornographic sex, the filmmakers in this movie want to make sure that as many kids as possible view pornography. A couple of the interview subjects say as much.
A couple other commenters here have pointed out that no alternative was ever suggested in the film to the current rating system, which they seem to think was an oversight on the part of the director. Not so. No alternative was given because they don't want a different system - - they want no system at all.
Also: Much whining goes on in the film about "censorship" at the hands of the MPAA.
Excuse me? Censorship?
No one is censoring anything. If there was actual censorship, you couldn't make this movie in the first place. You couldn't make X-rated porn in the first place.
There is no censorship going on. Filmmakers can make whatever film they want, on any topic. This movie proves as much. Nothing stops any producer or director from making any kind of film with any kind of explicit content. The MPAA doesn't stop them, or stop anyone. All the MPAA does is try to provide an accurate descriptive shorthand label, telling the consumer what to expect in a film. We have labels on our food telling us the vitamins and calorie content it has, and no one complains about that. What's the difference? How is it hurtful to have a one-letter label telling consumers that the movie is targeted for young kids, or for teens, of for adults? It's not hurtful at all -- it's helpful.
In fact, it's helpful in a way that the film never discusses or acknowledges. I, for example, tend to avoid any "G"-rated film, because I know it's going to generally be shallow and infantile and aimed at the kid audience. If I see a dramatic film has an "R" or "NC-17" rating, then I seek it out because I know it's going to be more risky and outrageous. In other words, getting a restrictive rating can HELP a film find its correct audience.
The director and interview subjects also get all worked up about how difficult it is for indie films with explicit sex to get major theater distribution deals. Is that so surprising? That has nothing to do with censorship, and everything to do with theater-chain owners correctly assessing that they couldn't make much money off an indie film that featured anal sex or whatever.
None of this justifies the terrifying and frankly illegal stalking of MPAA employees depicted in this film. The director PURPOSELY wants to put them at risk, as a way to threaten them. And instead of being ashamed of his shenanigans, he's proud of them, and is shown chortling with glee as he paws through their garbage and snaps hidden camera photos of them. Of private citizens who have done nothing illegal or even meriting criticism, other than have a job at the "evil" MPAA, where they sit in a room all day and watch movies, making sure that no erect penises end up in a G-rated film. Is that such an egregious moral crime that we need to put their safety at risk, and that of their families?
I give this film 1-star because it shows that the filmmaker was ill-intentioned, and hadn't even thought out a clear thesis of what he was trying to prove, other than to menace those who he perceives wrongly to be his ideological enemies. But even with the 1-star rating, I recommend that everyone watch it, just so you can grasp how nefarious and creepy people like the director Kirby Dick really are. They will use deeply unsettling tactics to bring about the disintegration of a system which they personally don't like, despite it being very useful and popular among average people.
Mr. Freedom (1968)
A truly miserable film -- sheer torture to watch unless you enjoy infantile propaganda
Pure cinematic agony. An anti-American masturbatory fantasy seemingly made by a troupe of first-semester film-school students. Don't believe any of the other votes or comments here -- they're only promoting the film because they think that by doing so they will help to damage the reputation of the United States. But the only reputation this film damages is that of the filmmaker and anyone who claims to have liked it.
If you don't believe me, go ahead -- I dare you to buy or rent a copy of "Mr. Freedom" and try to sit through the entire thing. I guarantee that a queasy combination of disgust, boredom and an earache will compel you to abandon the film before you even get halfway through.
A Fine Madness (1966)
Indescribably horrible mid-'60s "comedy" nightmare
While this may not be the worst film I have ever seen, it comes very close to being the worst comedy of all time. And it may be the most sexist film ever to be produced in the United States. Wife-beating is portrayed as humorous, cheating on your spouse is depicted as admirable, and yelling at, humiliating and degrading women is de rigueur throughout the movie. It's a distillation of everything that was wrong with '60s comedies.
Sean Connery plays a violent, philandering, selfish, hateful bully who imagines himself to be a brilliant poet. When he suffers writer's block, his screeching, yammering nag of a wife (Joanne Woodward, at the nadir of her career) sends him to a pretentious psychiatrist for treatment. After Connery ends up seducing the psychiatrist's sexy wife (Jean Seaberg, in a squandered, vapid role), he is condemned (spoiler alert) to have a lobotomy. Yes, folks, this is a lobotomy comedy. It's about as funny as it sounds. Along the way the audience is treated to "wacky" chase scenes, goofy camera angles, rinky-dink pianos and theremins in the soundtrack, and incessant shouted dialogue -- while every female role is an insulting caricature: the prissy old matron, the nymphomaniac secretary, the harpy of a wife, the bored socialite, and so on. Connery's poet is supposed to be a lovable anti-hero, but he comes across as loathsome and contemptible, and by the end you'll want to give him a lobotomy yourself just to shut him up.
What makes all this especially puzzling is that Connery was the top leading man in the world when "A Fine Madness" was made, riding high on the unparalleled success of his James Bond roles. Why in heaven's name did he choose this embarrassingly amateurish script when he had the entire film industry at his feet? A terrible career blunder.
Imagine taking the film "Charly" (aka "Flowers for Algernon," about a retarded man who is given brain surgery), the worst episode of the TV sex farce "Love American Style," and some outtakes from the Keystone Kops, and then editing them all together into a disastrous mash- up of conflicting styles and painfully unfunny humor -- voila, you have "A Fine Madness."
The only redeeming features are the true-life location shots on the streets of mid-'60s Manhattan (which New-York-o-philes might enjoy), and a hilarious mini-documentary about Sean Connery made in 1966 to promote the movie, included on the DVD as a bonus. Aside from that, though, "A Fine Madness" is a depressing fiasco of a film, not even worth watching in the "so bad it's unintentionally funny" category. And to top it all off, the ending makes absolutely no sense, and serves to render the entire film pointless, even when accepted at face value. What were they thinking?
If, by writing this review, I can save just one person from having to endure sitting through "A Fine Madness," then my life will have been worthwhile.