Anyone can give a movie a rating in terms of a review, but a movie rating in terms of its certificate, which dictates the age of the audience members who are allowed to see it, is decided upon by certain organizations, and can have a big impact on the financial viability of a film when its distributed. Recently, I came across a movie that jumped out to me as an anomaly, in terms of its rating. When I was younger, I always thought of movie ratings as being part of a strict grading system, but over time, I’ve discovered there are numerous exceptions to the many rules and a plethora of oddball ratings for movies that, if the rules really were so strict, should have been rated differently.
I’ve written about movie ratings before, and I’m yet again coming back to the topic, but this time, it’s far more complicated. I’ve never before fully explained the rating system that I grew up with, which is different than the ones many others did, even within my own country. All the advertisements I saw for movies always had the epic trailer voice guy say “Rated PG” or “Rated PG-13” or, most severe and foreboding of all, “RATED R…” because those are standard in the United States set by the Motion Picture Association (MPA), but in Canada, ratings depend on the province you live in. For British Columbia, we have General (G), Parental Guidance (PG), 14 Accompaniment (14A), 18 Accompaniment (18A), Restricted (R), and Adult (A).
When I was a teenager, I started to discover there were movies people my same age couldn’t see in theatres in the US without their parents because they were rated differently. Many movies that are very violent, action-packed, and full of cursing will be rated R in the US but only 14-A in Canada. If you could pass for age 14 (not hard at 12 or 13 for many kids), no one questioned you seeing movies like The Matrix (1999) or The Conjuring (2013), or Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) with just your friends. I recall seeing a few 18-A movies with my mom or dad in accompaniment, but it was rare for any movies to ever be R-rated at our local theatre—R-rated in terms of the Canadian R, which is more restrictive than 18-A, comparable to the US’s NC-17.
Country and rating systems aside, there is usually consistent correlation between the way a movie gets rated in the US and Canada, but then there are some anomalies that, for whatever reason, the ratings board were laxer with. Case in point: The Martian (2015) is rated PG-13 (PG in BC), so the expectation is that it only has one use of the F-word at most and nothing too violent or crass. Matt Damon as main character Mark Watney utters a hearty “fuck” after doing gruesome surgery on himself to remove a metal spike from his abdomen in the first twenty minutes, then a couple scenes later he says, “Fuck you Mars” and I was completely taken aback. It wasn’t just because I hadn’t seen the movie in years (and happened to be showing it to a grade eight class, having forgotten how intense the first twenty minutes really were), but how did the MPA let this slip past? It’s been a well-known rule for years: any more than one F-word gets a movie an R-rating in the US, but The Martian is a rarity with two clearly spoken instances, plus the implication of many more when Watney sends some frustrated messages to NASA and the expletives are left unspecified. In Canada, I’m not sure there is a specific number of F-bombs that can be dropped before 14-A turns into 18-A.
I both love it and hate it when movies get to break the rating rules—love it because it often comes as a surprise when you’re watching and perhaps enhances the film, and hate it because it reminds me of how arbitrary, contradictory, and often pointless the rating system ultimately is. When I was a kid, I didn’t think it was a big deal to get to sit down with the family and watch The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966) for the first time. I didn’t know what it was rated, and my parents didn’t seem to care. It was a western with some shooting violence, and I grew to appreciate the movie far more when I was older, but at the time, it felt pretty tame, especially compared to something like Aliens (1986), which I watched for the first time around the same time.
My younger cousin later pointed out to me that The Good, the Bad and the Ugly had an R-rating, which seemed a bit extreme to me, but it gets even more confusing. The two-disc special edition DVD has a 14-A rating, but the Blu-ray says both R and 14-A on the back. Historically, it was given an M certificate in 1969 (meaning for Mature Audiences only: part of the earliest version of the MPA’s rating system), then it was re-certified and given an R-rating in 1989. For the time it was made, sure, I guess I get it, but nowadays, it would get the frequently used PG-13 at most. It used to be that movies like Jaws (1975), Poltergeist (1982), and Gremlins (1984) pushed the limits of PG (which led to the creation of PG-13), but now PG-13 pushes the limits of what often leads to an R-rating. There’s a phenomenon called “ratings creep” which highlights how movies are generally more violent and explicit than they used to be, and people are becoming desensitized by it all as more and more movies rated for younger audiences are becoming more intense than movies from the past.
A prime example of PG-13 pushing the boundary is 2004’s Alien vs. Predator. The prior Alien and Predator films had all been rated R, and AVP could have (and should have) easily been given the same rating, but the studio wanted to ensure a higher box office gross, so two main tactics were employed: show minimal human blood and have minimal cursing. We get the singular, impactful use of the F-bomb from main character Alexa Woods (Saana Lathan) after she realizes the last surviving Predator intends to blow up the alien horde: “Well, I hope it kills every fucking one of 'em!” But then, a little later, she tries to quote Arnie from the original Predator (1987), only isn’t allowed to quite say the whole line. “You are one ugly motherfu—” and then the blast of her gun cuts off the rest.
More recently, we’ve had Predator: Badlands (2025) bring the franchise back to PG-13 for the first time since AVP, however it felt less neutered in comparison given that there were no human characters to be maimed and killed, and like AVP, the creature-on-creature action is still incredibly violent and unrestrained. Violence has always been a point of contention for people who take movie ratings seriously; how come young viewers can be exposed to blood and dismemberment but saying the F-word more than once constitutes increased adult guidance? Red human blood in particular will result in a more restrictive rating if the quantity is great enough, which is why films like AVP, Badlands, and even more intense horror examples like Evil Dead 2 (1987) and From Dusk Till Dawn (1996) will use different colours for blood so the censors won’t come down as hard on them.There are plenty more mystifying ratings for movies, including a whole other topic that I haven’t even touched on yet as far as what influences a movie’s certificate, so stay tuned for more, because this is going to be a two-parter!






.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)

.png)

.png)

.png)
.png)