MovieChat Forums > Prince Avalanche (2013) Discussion > Should be rated PG13

Should be rated PG13

posted 11 years ago by filmmagnet
5 replies | jump to latest

Alcohol/Drugs: A bit of Drinking Sex: No activity or nudity, some frank talk but not particularly explicit. Violence: A scuffle, fairly slapstick in nature. Profanity: None of the usual F and S bombs, some sexual talk as mentioned under sex.

Point: Hard to imagine what the MPAA saw to give this an R rating (or what their UK counterparts saw to give it a 15. Granted it's not likely to appeal to kids or teens but nothing here that they need to be protected from or haven't seen much worse. Also the lack of strong language robs the film of some authenticity. Alvin seems to be the sort of character who might avoid swearing but the same can't be said for Lance. I would imagine someone of that character in the situations he finds himself in to be swearing like a trooper. Perhaps this movie was intended by the makers to be a PG13 but the prudes at the MPAA balked at a bit of sex talk.

[–] DogtownGirl 11 years ago

I agree!

Our country (I'm an American and am posting from America -- assuming that you are too) has gotten more and more prudish over the years, such that stuff can almost get an R-rating for stupid things such as "thematic elements" (you know, making smoking look like it's a cool thing to do).

It's really dumb-dumb how much the MPAA (filled to the gills with religious zealots, or so it seems) wants to protect people from stuff in films.

R.I.P. to a great AND beloved American film Critic, Roger Ebert.

[–] filmmagnet 11 years ago

I'm not actually from America, from New Zealand but tend to notice film ratings (in particular I will notice US ratings because a majority of film sites I go to are American). The rating this film got here is M (which recommends for 16+ but doesn't restrict at all). An M rating here is what most PG13s get (lower level PG13s get a PG here), and maybe about a third of your R rated films (the rest of the R rated films get an R13, R16 or R18 rating, these ratings do not allow younger children to go in with their parents. So New Zealand is less restrictive for R rated films such as this one, but more restrictive for harder Rs.

[–] DogtownGirl 11 years ago

filmmagnet,

Thank you for this highly informative reply. I hadn't known about how movies are rated in NZ. Now, I do. Seems to me that films in NZ, Australia, and Europe get rated far less severely than they do, here, due in large part to how very religiously-influenced and damn prudish this nation / America truly IS.

R.I.P. to a great AND beloved American film Critic, Roger Ebert.

[–] noogyburger 11 years ago

I just remember that scene where Emile's character was masturbating under his sheets. That's why it got an R rating. It's pretty tame by today's standards, but to the MPAA it's a no no.

You are now spoiled.

[–] chuck-526 11 years ago

IMHO the U.S. ratings system is garbage. Indy films are virtually always rated two notches lower than they would be if the same film came out of a studio. This restricts their audience, which restricts how much money they can make, which limits which screens they are scheduled on, which further restricts how much money they can make, which means Indie films can never present an effective challenge to the studios.

I'm over 17 anyway, and I've found a place that plays a lot of Indy films anyway, and so personally I'm all set. I just ignore the ratings because I know they're crazy. How's that for cynical?