Explore
Forums
Join Listal
Movies
TV Shows
DVDs
Music
Books
Games
Lists
Reviews
Images
Film certificates/ratings that are wrong.
 1890  8  8.3 Original rating: PG
Rating it should be: PG-13/12 Why? There are moments that perhaps would scare viewers and possibly make them feel emotionally sick. Not in any offensive way, John Merrick's severely deformed face might give viewers some nightmares and also what happens to him within the film due to bullying and moments where he'd be upset, that would make it a depressing film too. Plus, I'm surprised that a film from David Lynch has reached the PG rating position when, quite frankly, there is nothing PG standard about this film at all and Lynch usually makes films over the PG-13/12 rating. SJMJ91's rating:
 
1479 6.6 6.6 Original rating: PG-13/12
Rating it should be: R/15 Why? Well I have a list of why the rating of this film is completely wrong. I mean, child murder alone should make it a R/15 rating, surely?! The fact it involves a pedophile and a girl's bones in a sack and despite that, it still being a 12/PG-13 is beyond me! That is an absolute scandal and I wouldn't be surprised that people have made a few complaints about it. I mean, the film itself is indeed an enjoyable film but I was just totally against the certificate rating it was given. SJMJ91's rating:
 
3656 7.2 8.2 Original rating: PG
Rating it should be: R/15 Why? Well, it's so damn obvious why! People getting brutally attacked and eaten by a massive great white shark. I mean, yeah the shark looks fake compared to effects nowadays but that's no reason for it to be a PG. The horror at the opening scene with the young girl, the little boy on the float, the lifeguard in the boat and Quint when half of his body was inside the shark's mouth. Oh and when the shark met it's end when it had it's head blown up. It's a very dark, horrifying for a film made in the 1970s but it's shocking how it was originally a PG. SJMJ91's rating:
7748 7 7.6 Original rating: PG-13/12
Rating it should be: R/15 Why? Well, for starters, there's nudity within like Kate Winslet naked from behind and seeing her breasts. Also, the very saucy sex scene in the car doesn't seem to have what 12/PG-13 films should. Most importantly, it is very depressing for even under 12s to watch by watching people in the film die. I mean, yeah it's just a film but it's something that really did happen and this film demonstrates how every single passenger felt during the sinking of the ship. I obviously love the film to pieces and it interprets the disaster marvelously but I do think it's more R/15 rated. SJMJ91's rating:
1267 8 8 Original rating: PG
Rating it should be: 15/R Why? A PG?! What in the hell?! Hang on, let me guess: because there's hardly any violence? Look at Psycho: there's almost no violence at all (yeah there's blood but you don't see a shot of a character getting stabbed) and that gets a 15/R rating. Also, the Count Orlok/Nosferatu vampire alone is terrifying to even look at, let alone to see him kill. Atrocious that this is a PG! What's wrong with people nowadays?! SJMJ91's rating:
1856 7.5 7.7 Original rating: PG
Rating it should be: PG-13/12 Why? Coraline is one of those animated films that goes too dark for it's target audience. I mean, an old woman wanting to take a little girl's eyes out and put buttons in them instead and the Other Mother was very terrifying and it has scared a lot of adults. It even spooked me when I first saw it. I wouldn't call it a family film but it's still an awesome film. Will take a lot of guts for a kid under 10 to watch this! SJMJ91's rating:
 
852 5.3 6 Original rating: PG-13/12
Rating it should be: 15 Why? Well, because the war that is going on now and 9/11 was the main key event that started it all off and because it was almost just 10 years ago that it happened, there would be younger viewers who would find it hard to watch. I mean, no they don't have to watch it but could because of the rating. This, in my opinion, is perhaps a lot more dangerous and causes more peril than United 93 does but that is more disturbing. World Trade Center should NOT be a PG-13/12 whether it's a true story or not! It's people getting crushed under a rubble after a massive building collapsed on top of them and are talking about death, pain, bleeding etc. Great film obviously but astounded that it was a PG-13/12 rating. SJMJ91's rating:
5960 8.4 9 Original rating: PG-13/12
Rating it should be: R/15 Why? There are quite a few reasons why The Dark Knight needs to be R/15. I'm going to say that the main reason is because the villain involved is a mass murdering serial killer who uses knives to kill. He puts knives in people's mouths. Despite Harvey Dent's Two-Face burns are CGI, it still looks realistic enough for it to be real-life burns. Also, this is more like a gangster crime-drama than a comic book adaptation on Batman. I guess because Heath Ledger passed away they wanted to make lots of money out of it and the hype was mega, they needed to make it PG-13/12! I mean, the Tim Burton Joker version of Batman was a 15 and this one should have been too. SJMJ91's rating:
181 5.8 5.8 Original rating: PG-13/12
Rating it hould be: R/15 Why? There is a lot of terrifying suspense despite the fact that there's hardly any violence at all. I mean, that toy clown is really scary and the boy in this film reminds me a lot of Danny Torrance from The Shining and Cole Sear from The Sixth Sense. I've seen taglines for this film that says "for the family" and I'm like "What in the hell?!" It's not even for a whole family. Admittedly, it does show what thrillers really are about with lots of suspense but hardly any violence and I appreciate this film for that. SJMJ91's rating:
1352 6.5 6.8 Original rating: U
Rating it should be: PG Why? Despite that this is a story from the Bible and is intending to be a child-friendly animated film as well as adult moments with slavery, cruelty and even murder. It was a psychologically disturbing for a kids film but I did like how they merged the horror of what human beings can be like to each other but also the beauty in the world as well of what people are like to each other whether it's love, friendship or both. One of my favourite animated films of all time but I wouldn't say it was for ALL ages like the rating it has been given suggests. SJMJ91's rating:
942 6.6 6.7 Original rating: PG
Rating it should be: PG-13/12 Why? Just like Coraline, A Christmas Carol is another one of those animated films that has become way too scary for it's target audience! I mean, the dark animation and there was a lot of suspense in this one and that's not exactly normal for a film based on a children's novel. I think because it's a children's novel, it was rated PG. Didn't ruin my enjoyment for the film, was just surprised that it did have its scary moments. SJMJ91's rating:
651 6.2 6.5 Original rating: PG-13/12
Rating it should be: R/15 Why? Because it stars Harry Potter star Daniel Radcliffe in his first motion-picture after the series concluded, the makers clearly wanted a larger capacity of viewers. Nevertheless, this film involves dead/dying children and haunting ghosts and spirits in a eerie mansion! So, it should have been given a 15/R rating. Like every film in this list, the liking of the film wasn't ruined but it was quite a mistake by the BBFC. SJMJ91's rating:
3057 7.6 8 Original rating: 15/R
Rating it should be: 18/NC-17 Why? Well, because of the very violent and gory moments! I mean, I feel all films that involve gore should be an 18/NC-17. This doesn't only involve zombies and beating them to death but there is cannibalism involved too. I guess the comedy made it suitable for 15 year olds to watch at the cinema and buy on DVDs but I don't agree. This, like Hot Fuzz and the upcoming World's End should be an 18/NC-17. SJMJ91's rating:
176 6.3 6.7 Original rating: 15/R
Rating it should be: 18/NC-17 Why? For starters, all three seasons in the original TV series were all rated 18/NC-17 due to the crude sexual references and strong language. So, it is only fitting that the film, which is roughly a longer episode of the series featuring the same type of gags, were rated 18/NC-17. We all know the real reason why it was rated R/15: to get a wider audience. And the fact that the DVD/blu-ray release is with an 18/NC-17 rating, this ultimately shows the makers of the film's attempt at more money. SJMJ91's rating:
2287 7.5 7.9 Original rating: 15/R
Rating it should be: 18/NC-17 Why? Well, there's obviously a lot of bad language involved but that isn't the reason why it should be an 18/NC-17. I think the main reason is because of the VERY graphic violence! I mean, a part of a church with a sharp point going through a guy's head into his body, a guy falling over and a spike going through his chin and back out through his mouth and a guy getting his head caught in a bear trap! Yeah it's over-the-top comic violence but still should be an 18. SJMJ91's rating:
8215 8 8.8 Original rating: PG
Rating it should be: PG-13/12A Why? I have been asked quite a few times as to why I think Fellowship Of The Ring should have been a PG-13/12A over a PG. Ok, for starters, the story. I have absolutely nothing against it whatsoever but for anybody to see, it can be a bit complex for the rather younger ones. Plus, the fact that it is quite possibly the scariest one of the trilogy. The Nazgul/Ringwraiths are scary enough (such as when the Hobbits hid under the tree, in Bree and then Weathertop) but the fact that there are all these Orcs, goblins and trolls too! Of course, it depends on the viewer and how sensitive they are but in my opinion, it is perhaps a bit too much for kids. SJMJ91's rating:
2810 7 7.3 Original rating: R/15
Rating it should be: 18/NC-17 Why? It is perhaps the most vulgar film involving sex in a film that I have ever experienced. I mean, yeah 16 is the legal age limit for sex in the UK and I think in the US as well, but it's still very vulgar talk for a R/15 rating. I saw the film for the first time when I was 16 and I thought this automatically but I still have a strong fondness for this film. SJMJ91's rating:
834 7.8 8.1 Original rating: PG
Rating it should be: PG-13/12A Why? It is clearly given the PG rating because it's a visually cute and magical film that is filled with stunning effects and heartwarming characters. However, why I don't think it should have been a PG is because if you really think about it, it's sometimes quite a dark story. I mean, the shipwreck alone and the fact a teenage boy has lost his family and being adrift at sea is hard enough. Also, even when he does get onto his raft, the audience still experience violence particularly when we see the zebra and orangutang get killed (and probably eaten) by a hyena. If it was a PG-13/12A or an R/15 rated film, fair enough but I don't agree it's suitable for children's eyes at all, especially if they are animal lovers. SJMJ91's rating:
6018 7.9 8.4 Original rating: U
Rating it should be: PG Why? Yeah, The Lion King is one of the most beautiful and magical films in history but there were a lot of incredibly dark and slightly disturbing moments. I mean murder alone should make it a PG but the fact it's someone killing his own brother and it's a U rating? Just wrong! Also, the hyenas and their ravaging behaviour. They chase and try to eat small cubs that are like children! Admittedly, almost every Disney film has at least one moment where they go a bit over the top but I guess that makes the kids get used to the films they'll see as they gradually get older. Despite all this, absolutely NOTHING wrong with the film! SJMJ91's rating:
5362 7.3 7.7 Original rating: PG
Rating it should be: PG-13/12 Why? This was when the Harry Potter started to get serious and more terrifying. I mean, a ghost-like figure sucking life out of someone, a werewolf, the fight between the werewolf and the wild black dog known as the Grim and perhaps even the dialogue of the film so wouldn't agree that it's for little children's eyes. Good job Goblet Of Fire, Order Of The Phoenix, Half-Blood Prince and most likely both parts of Deathly Hallows were rated PG-13/12. SJMJ91's rating:
2650 7.2 7.8 Original rating: U
Rating it should be: PG Why? Despite that it tells a beautiful fairy tale, there are some over-the-top moments such as a poisoning apple, going to kill a princess with a dagger, intentionally burying said princess alive and most of all:  One has to admit that (^^) is terrifying to see in a kids film. I'm pretty sure there are many adults who are terrified by the Queen in this peddler woman disguise. I still loved the film, don't get me wrong! Just think that specific characters would give its target audience nightmares. SJMJ91's rating:
1272 7.6 7.7 Original rating: PG-13/12
Rating it should be: R/15 Why? How on Earth does this get a PG-13/12 instead of an R/15?! I mean, it involves children in the Holocaust! That makes it even more depressing than when it involves adults in the Holocaust like Schindler's List and The Pianist but The Boy In The Striped Pajamas does show the innocence of children. Astounded that it's a PG-13/12 not an R/15 but it is a great film nevertheless. SJMJ91's rating:
6629 7.1 8 Original rating: PG
Rating it should be: PG-13/12 Why? Well, because there is quite a bit of violence and the fact it involves human danger especially getting eaten by dinosaurs. I mean, now I think the scene when that guy got eaten by the dinosaur in the toilet cubicle is absolutely hilarious but can effect either sensitive viewers or younger children. I wouldn't call this a family film with children who are like 5 or under but definitely one for a family with at least 10 year olds. The sequel is a PG too but have no idea why. SJMJ91's rating:
3520 6.1 6.3 Original rating: PG
Rating it should be: PG-13/12 Why? Well, pretty much for the same reason as the first Jurassic Park film. This perhaps needs to be a PG-13/12 rating more than the first one. There is one scene that freaked me out when I saw this when I was about 10: when this T-Rex dinosaur picked this guy up from the car and had his head in it's mouth while the other dinosaur had his feet and they both ripped the guy in half and this man was still alive during when this happened. Still an awesome film nevertheless. SJMJ91's rating:
|
People who voted for this also voted for
But what am I complaining, it is rated 15 here in Finland.
Yeah exactly. Well, it would be if you've got fat sharp teeth in your stomach! lol
I guess maybe they rated it PG was because the graphics are quite cheesy.
Ahhh... not surprised that it is but its original release rating was PG.
How come you think The Dark Knight?
--That's just me tho. hahaha
But still a guy's face and head being half-burned. lol
The Secret of NIMH:
Original rating: G/U
Rating it should be: PG-13/15
Why?
Had blood, violence frightening sequences, a tragic death and the word "damn". Don Bluth's darkest film ever.
Howard the Duck
Original rating: PG (Both US and UK)
Rating it should be: R/15
Why?
Had strong sexual references including a condom and female duck nipples.
I totally agree with you on Jurassic Park 1&2, Jaws, & The Lovely Bones.