http://news.yahoo.com/weinstein-co-release-bully-without-rating-230905441.html Long story short, this film, Bully, is about bullying in schools, and the MPAA rated it R for a few F words. The film is aimed at high school children (who we KNOW hear these words all the time), and giving it an R rating effectively blocks the core audience from seeing it. When the rating appeal failed, the Weinstein co decided to send it out unrated. What does that mean? Well a lot of theater chains have contracts that mandate all their movies be MPAA rated, and many of them treat an unrated movie as the dreaded NC-17, the same rating given to pornography. Though there have been exceptions to the MPAA's strict rules (a war film for instance got off with a PG-13, despite being graphically violent and much worse than Bully), Bully's rating appeal was denied. So what do you guys think? Should documentaries like this be given more lenient ratings, or is the MPAA doing things correctly? I've always disliked the MPAA's system, even before I saw This Film Is Not Yet Rated. Things are so broken. Big name directors get leniency, while start-ups get slammed.