For years, parents, educators, critics and moviegoers have complained about both the method and limitations of the MPAA ratings system. As a longtime film critic, I also think the MPAA’s four basic ratings are inadequate -- I say four because the NC-17 rating is hardly ever used and for all intents and purposes therefore useless.

The use of G and PG ratings seem to work relatively well, but problems begin to arise when you get into what differentiates a PG-13 film from an R-rated one. And even more problems lie with the R rating itself -- there is such a range of intensity and diversity in R-rated films that an additional rating should be created.

Take for instance the R-rated Steven Spielberg film, “Saving Private Ryan” and compare it to the Bill Murray coming-of-age seriocomedy, “Rushmore.” Both received R ratings even though nothing except some minor swearing is contained in “Rushmore” while the intensely graphic Spielberg war film got the same rating, even though it really should have been rated NC-17. But that rating is the kiss of death at the box office, and so with a powerful director like Spielberg, it was awarded an R rating instead.

What I propose is that the MPAA add a rating called PG-17; like PG-13, it would connote films that may not be appropriate for viewers under 17 -- films like “The Big Lebowski,” “Rushmore” and countless others. Films receiving an R rating would be strictly for adults (the useless NC-17 should simply be done away with).

For a fascinating look at the way in which films are rated, check out a story from MSNBC that ran about a year ago, since which nothing with the currently flawed ratings system has changed.

Click here to read the story.