Sweetleaf wrote:
I don't really agree with movie ratings...it depends on the person what movies/shows people can handle. I have seen R rated movies that seem perfectly appropriate for younger audiences and I've seen PG-13 movies that would probably disturb some 13 year olds. Ratings tend to be rather inaccurate, for instance violence is ok for PG 13 but bad language automatically gets an R rating....so half they time I don't get how they decide on the standards by which to rate things.
I agree. Film ratings are stupid, mainly because of how they influence the way movies are made. A lot of R-rated films have actually had to be toned down in content just to avoid getting NC-17, so that more theaters will show them. Likewise, a lot of films that would have originally gotten G or PG ratings have had extra "mature" content added conspicuously just to move them up into the next rating bracket, to encourage ticket sales. The one trend that annoys me the most however, is how a lot of action movies and such are being toned down in content to get into the PG-13 "sweet spot", as PG-13 is the highest unrestricted rating in the MPAA system.
I liked it better back when filmmakers weren't pressured to make their films conform to certain ratings to ensure sales.
Anyway, back to the original topic, one PG-13 film that surprised me was
Salt. That movie was crazy violent even compared to a lot of R-rated films I've seen.

Awesome movie, but damn. Another was
Goldeneye. Granted,
Goldeneye was probably typical for PG-13 films in the mid-90s, but I think it would come close to getting an R-rating today, depending on who's day it is to determine the ratings.