Like any country's ratings board, the MPAA is a constant work in progress, one whose standards have grown alternately less and more constrictive over time. A minor example: it was once widely understood that one non-sexual use of "f**k" would merit a PG-13 rating, but now two are allowed (as in "The Social Network"), so long as neither utterance has anything to do with sex. Throughout decades of shifting standards, parents have complained that the board's ratings system is vague and only consistent in being unhelpful to everybody.

In the early '90s, a number of publications began to provide more detailed information about the horrors children might be exposed to at the cinema. Though the MPAA has long abandoned such vaguely threatening warnings as "mild sensuality" for more specific guidelines, it's true that for the most easily offended of parents, the ratings descriptions still don't provide nearly explicit enough rundowns. Here's an overview of the many pedantically thorough parents' guides still going strong:

KIDS IN MIND

A for-profit site that began on AOL in 1992, Kids In Mind unusually claims the MPAA has been outfoxed by filmmakers releasing slightly different/raunchier cuts than those approved by the board, and hence sometimes compares its notes on a film's content with those taken by Kids In Mind if complaints are voiced. The site's "methodology" page promises a system "based on objective standards" for descriptions of three key categories: "Sex & Nudity," "Violence & Gore," "Profanity." There's a separate page explaining how the website's age-appropriate ratings evaluations differ from the MPAA's, with some dated references ("a scene of innocent frontal nudity (as in 'Waking Ned Devine') is not the same as a scene of erotic frontal nudity (as in 'Showgirls' or 'Color of Night' or other sexually explicit thrillers").

The site also apologetically notes that early reviews "did not list scenes in as much detail as we do now." So e.g. an overview of the would-be 1995 Cindy Crawford thriller "Fair Game" is relatively non-plussed (2 sentences to cover all the sex scenes), while the chaste-by-most-standards "Before Midnight" gets a heavy-breathing recap, including a 7 for "Sex/Nudity" ("A woman tells a man crudely that he is only interested in having sex in one way and that she is no longer interested in him sexually; she then shouts a series of body parts that the man focuses on during sex").

COMMON SENSE MEDIA

Probably the most credible and least hysteria-prone of the parents' movie guide websites, Common Sense Media was founded by James Steyer, a civil rights attorney interested in how kids interact with the media. The website's mission statement is careful to note that the organization believes "in media sanity, not censorship" and the overall tone is free of religiously-motivated concerns. If anything, the website's a little too blandly responsible in suggesting post-viewing discussion topics for the whole family, as in their review of "The Bling Ring."

The film's evaluated on a one-to-five scale in seven different categories both positive and negative (zero for "positive role models," a full five for "consumerism") and the suggested viewing age is 16, but the emphasis is more on the post-viewing fallout. Possible things to talk about include "Can you understand why members of the group wanted to steal from the rich and famous?," plus some questions that seem mostly like a frustrated parent beating their head against the wall of contemporary celebrity culture ("Are teenagers really this label-hungry? How do they even hear about what celebrities wear and own? What explains all this consumerism?").

Also check out: The 20 Best Single F-Bombs in PG-13 Movies

PARENT PREVIEWS

Founded in 1993, the tone of Parent Previews' stated goals is initially reasonable-sounding ("It’s our belief that concerns about sex, violence, language and drug use in movies spans all cultural, religious and political beliefs. [...] we strive to provide information that will be helpful with any family’s viewing choices"). Dig around a little more, though, and it becomes clear that this is a website for viewers more easily offended than most. A movie that's rated R is unlikely to be personally viewed by a site writer, since apparently they just won't subject themselves to that kind of thing. Instead, for a movie like "This Is The End," the gory details annotated are "taken from the notes of various Canadian Film Classification boards." Their rundown of the (really pretty innocuous) "Iron Man 3" makes it sound like a relentless atrocity exhibition ("A man is shocked with a homemade weapon. A man shots [sic] a woman. A character is hit by a speeding bus. Characters are thrown agains [sic] walls.").

MOVIEGUIDE

Movieguide is the baby of Dr. Ted Baehr, a fairly loathsome specimen of evangelical hysteria who regularly takes to the pages of the xenophobic/racist/homophobic apocalyptic-Christianity-and-politics website World Net Daily to pen articles like "You can choose: freedom or tyranny"  or a fiery denunciation of "Avatar" ("This theme of kill all the humans, especially the pro-American, capitalist humans, has long been an underlying message of the left-wing, environmentalist movement"). Founded in 1985, Movieguide's ratings scale ranges from +4 ("EXEMPLARY: Biblical, usually Christian, worldview, with no questionable elements whatsoever") to -4 ("ABHORRENT: Intentional blasphemy, evil, gross immorality, and/or worldview problems"). Specific elements are noted through a series of unintentionally comical abbreviations ("Co – Communism (may also be increased to CoCo or CoCoCo"). The result is a website that's predictably easily outraged, as when taking the bait of "South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut" ("the most abhorrent content in the history of mainstream moviemaking").

PARENTALGUIDE

Founded in 1998 and therefore a relative newcomer, ParentalGuide's both a source for scoldy evaluations of movies' moral content and a savilly synergized one-stop-shopping site ("Our site marries relevant information for your family with high quality products at value prices to help make our lives a little smoother"). The website's understanding of what is and isn't appropriate for young viewers seems a little laxer than that of its competitors. (E.g., their rundown of what the MPAA ratings mean includes the questionable assertion that "a PG-13 movie can have brief nudity, if it is in a non-sexual context; 'Titanic' is a perfect example of this." Kate Winslet just wanted a drawing, after all.) Not that they're not capable of getting indignant when a movie is more objectionable than its rating, as in their take on Tyler Perry's "Temptation: Confessions Of a Marriage Counselor," praised as "a drama made more complex by the complexities of its characters" before noting that the "entire content [...] is based on activies and morals that are deplorable" and that "the film technique stopped barely short of crossing the line into an R rating" — one way of calling Tyler Perry out for offering titillation as a hypocritical bait-and-switch for religious browbeating purposes.

ROGER MOORE'S "PARENTS' GUIDE" COLUMN

Longtime "Orlando Sentinal" film critic Roger Moore writes a syndicated column that still appears in papers across the country (assuming your city's lucky enough to still have a working daily journal of record). A typical recent recent sample is pragmatically terse rather than hysterically thorough (sex in "42" is limited to "a bit of innuendo") and the tone is laid-back and common-sense rather than easily affronted. It's an anomalous entry in an otherwise alarmist genre.

SCREEN IT

Like Kids In Mind above, "Screen It" is the product of a former AOL employee (Jim Judy, reviewer for their now defunct "Entertainment Asylum" subdivision). It's the only parents' guide site successful enough to operate as a paid-content, subscription-required (a shift made in 2004), meaning I couldn't get a full sample of its prose ($47 gets you full access for a year). The site assures prospective subscribers that it's "not affiliated with any political, social or religious group." 15 different categories of potentially objectionable content (including "Jump Scenes" and those featuring a "disrespectful/bad attitude") are evaluated in every review; as founder Jim Judy's Rotten Tomatoes profile promises, "a standard artistic review" is also included.

The "Testimonials" page suggests who some typical subscribers might be: those seeking moral assistance ("I do not want to waste time or money on something that would not please God"), elderly viewers without kids who can't handle the routine increase of comparatively extreme content that's occurred over their lifetime ("I'm a 75-year-old senior. My wife and I had to stop going to the movies theaters for one simple reason; we couldn't fast forward past the over-the-top immoral parts and terrible language"), those seeking sensible reviews ("I also appreciate the artistic reviews. It's certainly good to know whether the movie is artistically satisfactory as well").

PLUGGED IN

"Plugged In" is one of the many publications overseen by Dr. James Dobson's "Focus on the Family" organization. Dobson is the author of books like 1970's "Dare To Discipline," which urged parents to consider the benefits of corporal punishment, approvingly citing his wife's slapping their two-year-child with a switch across the shins. More recently, Dobson was the author of a 2006 editorial in "Time" magazine self-explanatorily entitled "Two Mommies Is One Too Many," succinctly summing up his social views. The Plugged In website takes a lighter touch, largely avoiding apocalyptic condemnations, though they're still concerned about how "Moonrise Kingdom" might stoke pedophilia "by showing 12 year olds in their underwear" and condemn "Superbad" for its "effort to glamorize a host of social ills: drunk driving, drug abuse and underage sex."

THE CAP MOVIE MINISTRY

In business since the mid-90s, the "Christian Action Project" (CAP) Movie Ministry evaluates movies evaluates movies in the six categories of the acronym WISDOM (W is for "Wanton Violence/Crime," I is for "Impudence/Hate" and so on). CAP is probably the most easily alarmed of any of the websites, finding offense in something as innocuous as "Speed Racer" ("Much of the violence comes in the form of very loud and invasive racing violence"). When it's to take the bait and really froth at the mouth, CAP obliges, as when denouncing the "South Park" movie ("an incredibly dangerous movie for those who do not understand or are developing an understanding of the Gospel ....... INCREDIBLY dangerous!") or "Brokeback Mountain ("There might not be a better description of this film than "seductress" which might lead many to sin [Rom. 5:19]"). All reviews close with scriptural citations for better understanding of the evaluations' basis.

THE DOVE FOUNDATION

Founded in 1991, The Dove Foundation identifies its target audience in its self-introduction ("If you're like a handful of parents from Grand Rapids, Michigan chances are you've complained more than once about the lack of family-friendly films at your local movie theatre"). Like CAP, The Dove Foundation also has six categories of potential offense (sex, language, violence etc.), and — like Parent Previews above — there are certain movies they won't watch, as explained in this standard "Dove Worldview" disclaimer on the page for "This Is The End": "Effective January 1st, 2009, The Dove Foundation Review Team has ceased reviewing all NC-17 rated movies and certain extraordinarily explicit R-rated films. This decision was reached due to the fact that Dove reviewers are parents or grandparents with conservative values." One recent movie they made it out to was "Man of Steel," and their reaction was pretty much what you'd expect: not family approved with a "Dove Seal," cited for "Violence" ("planet implodes"), "Drugs" ("Man drinks beer; woman drinks scotch," which sound like a relationship guide) and "Nudity" ("New-born boy's genitalia seen twice").