MPAA a bigger joke than Wolf of Wall Street

Rating: 6/10 (3 January 2014)

The MPAA has opened the doors to huge scrutiny on how movie ratings are determined with the rating of Wolf of Wall Street. Before I express my opinion, allow me to say that, yes, the movie had great potential to be amazing and most of the actors were exceptional. First, the MPAA, in my opinion, is a joke. The Wolf of Wall Street has more graphic nudity and graphic sex than any NC-17 movie in recent years. In fact, more than one scene shows penetration. Another scene graphically shows a male doing drugs from a female genital-anal area (this scene was so intense that several people left the theater...and this is only the first ten minutes of the film). The amount of graphic drug use and graphic talk of sex does add to the uncomfortable and intense feelings throughout the film. Mind you, this is a three hour long movie that has an intense, continuous, and vulgar amount of graphic sex, orgies, nudity, language, a scene that can be considered rape, and drug use. I could understand if there were 3, 4, or 5 scenes. However, when you consider the entire graphic nature of the film, I don't understand only a R-rating. Second, several NC-17 films of recent years have less graphic nudity, sex, and violence. Look at Killer Joe that was rated NC-17 because of the ending. The ending was considered too violent, graphic, and realistic; and included a scene of simulated oral sex with a chicken/drum stick. Wow, that is not even close to the amount of graphic and realistic "stuff" in Wolf of Wall Street. There are more examples, but the point I am trying to make is this...I felt awkward and embarrassed to watch several scenes of Wolf of Wall Street; whereas, I did not feel that way while watching NC-17 movies like Shame, Killer Joe, Anti Christ, Enter the Void, Requiem for a Dream, and even The Last Tango in Paris ( originally was rated X in 1972, but re-rated NC-17 in 1997). It seems to me that the MPAA has less tolerance for movies made by independent sources, and has an anything goes attitude for well-known directors. Lastly, the acting and script. The acting was amazing, except for Leonardo. Leonardo seemed to be overacting and unbelievable. Noah and the rest of the cast were exceptional...so I don't understand why Leonardo seemed to be poorly acting to me. He is usually really good and over looked at the Oscars. I feel that Noah and the others will be up for nominations, but not Leo. The script was great overall, but lacked a lot of explanation of the scheme and how it worked and why it was illegal. Maybe more time explains the con and legalities would have been better than filling the scenes with sex, drugs, and nudity. So, allow me to leave you with a question. Would you want your 14-16 year old to watch a movie that glorifies sex, drugs, and money in an extremely graphic way? Well, the MPAA say yes.