15 - "Suitable only for 15 years and over",No one younger than 15 may see a '15' film in a cinema, or buy or rentafilm rated 15.

18 - Same as 15, but the age is 18 instead.

Sometimes it seems that they just rate things however they feel like, especially at the PG/12A threshold and the 12A/15 threshold.

Now I shall start at PG. Oh how these guys have got a bee in my bonnet about this rating. I shall give you four examples of a PG.Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Disney's Tangled, Indiana Jones (the first three) and Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga.

Now, to me there is a HUGE difference in the content of these films...

Chamber, i do believe that this is rated correctly (which is why I included it). The snake and a couple of other things are kinda scary, but not too much. There is also the matter of a bit of mild swearing which is also taken into account at PG.

Indiana Jones... Oh dear Lord... I have never scared/gotten weirded out easily (and I first saw this when I was about 10), but I cannot watch 'the face melting' in Raiders, and neither can my older sister who first saw it in her 20's, or when the guy drinks from the wrong cup in Crusade. They're just disgusting and frankly quite horrifying. Even Temple is kinda scary for a PG rating.

"Horror - Frightening sequences should not be prolonged or intense. Fantasy settings may bea mitigating factor."

So which part does Indiana Jones fit into? Yes the premise may be slightly fantasy, but it does not take away the fact that these scenes are both intense and prolonged (given there are cut away shots, but it is still prolonged).

Tangled, urgh. This I do not understand..."The film was ****fied 'PG' for mild violence, threat and brief sight of blood." To me, this seems like an overreaction... The violence and threat is the same as Beauty and the Beast, which is a U, so the only reason I can see it being a PG is the sight of blood. The level of violence is similar, and I actually believe some of B&B is scarier (when the Beast is first introduced and when he gets all angry at some points). I know a lot of parents got freaked out about the violence and complained, but I still think it's an overreaction. I don't see these same parents freaking out over certain recent news features, several of which are far more disturbing than one three second shot of a fresh blood stain on a shirt.

Lego SW, well compared to the others I really can't see why this is rated as such. It"containsfrequent mild violence." and the need to shoot to progress passed what is required of a U. Huh, this is just funny. So why is Lego SW 3 rated a U? It has exactly the same content as "Complete", but it's not as violent? Ding ding ding! Stupid alert.

Now I shall move onto 12/12A. There are only a couple of things in this category that stand out to me, The Dark Knight and Mass Effect.

Dark Knight, not to be honest, I was quite surprised when I saw the 12A rating this got. I had thought 15 judging by what I'd heard about it, but I then though I'd over imagined things. Turns out I hadn't… I think this is frankly pushing what can fit into a 12A. It's the psychological aspects of this that don't quite fit, what the movie implies happens off camera (Joker killing a B-Man copycat) etc.

"The BBFC Guidelines at '12' state that 'violence must not dwell on detail' and that 'there should be no emphasis on injuries or blood' and whilst THE DARK KNIGHT does contain a good deal of violence, all of it fits within that definition."

"In the final analysis, THE DARK KNIGHT is a superhero movie and the violence it contains exists within that context, with both Batman and the Joker apparently indestructible no matter what is thrown at them.
THE DARK KNIGHT also contains some special make up effects that whilst clearly not real, have the potential to be moderately frightening."

Now it may tick all the boxes required for a 12A, but it *only* just does so. And it's not so bad that it's a 15. It seems to have been stuck in a no-man's land, where the, probably, pressure from the movie studio got them to rate it lower.

Mass Effect – This is something else that genuinely shocked me in its content, definitely considering how some rating systems have it down as a 15/18 equivalent. "Contains moderate violence and one moderate sex scene" Moderate violence…. Whoa now. You call two instances of impaling, both of which are 'lingered/put emphasis on' "moderate"? There is also blood splatter, etc. From the 12 rating guidelines…

"Moderate violence is allowed but should not dwell on detail. There should be noemphasis on injuries or blood, but occasional gory moments may be permitted ifjustified by the context."

No, occasionally gory moments should not be dismissed just because they are justified by the context. For a 15 in the violence section: "Violence may be strong but should not dwell on the infliction of pain or injury.The strongest gory images are unlikely to be acceptable."

Now the Matrix Revolutions was rated a 15, and I don't think the content is dissimilar to Mass Effect. So why the difference? (Okay, I believe this is the Matrix film I am thinking of, if I mean Reloaded and am getting them confused, I apologise, It's been a while since I watched them all together).

And a sex scene… well, most films that have sex scenes in are 15s. Huh funny that… I know that there is a provision for it at 12, but I've not often seen it. (And with Breaking Dawn on the horizon I may just have to eat my words, before I burn out my eyes… )

Now Mass Effect 2 was rated 15…

The game contains multiple uses ofstrong language. At '12', the BBFC's Guidelines state that 'The use of strong language (for example, 'f***') must be infrequent'. Although Mass Effect 2 is a long game, the nature of gameplay means that strong language may occur frequently at certain points.

The sex scenes contain no nudity and no detail of sexual activity.

The violence is generally undetailed and takes place in a futuristic setting. Guns will elicit blood wounds but there is no emphasis on injuries or blood.

So, ME2 has less violence and less detailed sex/no nudity, but got rated higher because Jack likes to drop the F-bomb a bit?

Okay now the utter bane of my life. Video games at the 15/18 mark. Call Of Duty: World at War, 15, Modern Warfare 2, 18, GTA IV, 18.

The BBFC even say that the majority of MW2 is suitable for a 15. So why? I guess you know… because of the airport level. "It is bloody and intense", like the rest of the game, "unlike other combat sequences in the game, the civilians cannot fight back and are massacred", very clearly, these guys do not play the games they rate, cos they'd know that crappy AI in CoD can very often lead to instances like this XD, "carry a focus on the 'infliction of pain or injury' which, along with the disturbing nature of the scenario it sets up, was felt to be more appropriately placed at the adult category", so the rest of the game there's no focus on infliction of pain?

I get why they did it. They were covering their asses in case someone (between 15 and 18 ) or their parents decided that it was offensive and complained that it should have been rated 18 or brought some kind of legal action. (Instead they complain and we can just call them bad parents). But in comparison to GTA IV, MW2 is a walk in the fricking park. GTA is way over the top in violence, language, sexual content, whatever, and it deserves its 18. But for MW2, which is about the same as WaW, if not less violent, it just seems over kill for the 18.

And to be honest, I don't care if anyone reads this... I just wanted to get it out of my system. And it's really really long...