Have you ever seen a preview for a movie that looks really good but is rated-R R? And when you ask your Mom or Dad if you can see it they automatically say “no” just because of its rating? Well maybe that movie didn’t deserve to be rated-R. Maybe it got the rating that it did for someone dropping the f bomb a few times or a brief nude scene. In the current American rating system, there are some rules that I think are very unfair.

When a movie is rated-R, it has one or more of the following: Adult themes, adult activity, strong language, strong violence, and nudity. If a movie is rated-R for violence, the assumption is that if a kid sees it, he might think violence is okay and tries to hurt someone. That’s understandable. If it has adult activity, a kid might see it and be disturbed by it or not understand. I can also see why some people might be worried about that. But if a movie is rated-R for language? The kid might say it somewhere else and shock someone somewhere. But is that really as bad as trying to shoot someone?

My other problem with the ratings system is the nudity rule. I mean I can understand why something would be rated-R if it has hard sexual themes. But if you’re just seeing someone naked, it’s not that big a deal. There are paintings of naked people in art museums. You don’t have to be over 17 to see those.

One movie I saw that didn’t deserve to be rated-R was Milk. It had swears and a few sugusestive themes. There were 2 deaths but one was off camera and the other wasn’t too bloody. Milk was about Harvey Milk, the first openly gay politician. It’s a very inspiring story that everyone should see, even if you’re fewer than 17.

What I’m trying to say, is that people make too big a deal aout of things that can be shocking, but not harmful. Things that just make someone slightly shocked do not deserve an R-rating. The rating “R” meaning restricted, means that kids will be badly influenced or mentally disturbed. Not slightly shocked.