Movie ratings in the US didn't always include specifics about a movie's content. Now that they do, even those specifics can be extremely... nonspecific.
For example, what the hell are "thematic elements?" How does one judge the appropriateness of a movie for a kid, for a relative who's easily offended, or even for oneself with that kind of designation? You're not going to see that movie, young lady. No daughter of mine is going to be exposed to thematic elements!
Then there are "disturbing images." Today's torture-oriented horror flicks certainly have a lot of those. But just what constitutes a disturbing image? It could be someone being dismembered, no doubt. It could also be an obese old person naked or George Bush winning an election. Or any image of Julia Roberts.
A seemingly new edition to the list of film ingredients is "graphic nudity;" the "graphic" part being the recent phenomenon. When I first saw this listed I was intrigued. You mean there's a whole new level of nudity out there yet for me to discover? A graphic level? Va-va-voom. I mean, if you liked nudity, you're gonna love graphic nudity.
Well, turns out the graphic kind was really just plain old full-frontal nudity with a new name. So disappointing. Almost as dissappointing as when the nudity turns out to be a guy. I mean, Jesus, who needs to see that? It's sick and degrading.