|
| |
|
PLEASE HELP! Although our site is very popular, the current economic climate has reduced our revenues just when we need extra security to prevent attacks from hackers who don't like what we do. If you think what we do is worthwhile, please
donate or
become a member. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASSIGNED NUMBERS |
|
|
Unlike the MPAA we do not assign one inscrutable rating based on age, but 3 objective ratings for SEX/NUDITY, VIOLENCE/GORE and PROFANITY on a scale of 0 to 10, from lowest to highest, depending on quantity and context. |
|
[more »] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is the fifth screen retelling of Mark Twain's river
saga, given a contemporary polish, courtesy of Disney. Elijah Wood plays Twain's answer to
Bart Simpson and Courtney B. Vance is his good buddy Jim.
SEX/NUDITY 0 - None.
VIOLENCE/GORE 5 - Several fist fights erupt, with solid, painful-looking
blows. Huck's father threatens him with a knife, and Huck holds him off with a rifle.
Eventually the father is shown dead of a gunshot wound. Huck kills a rat by winging a
bottle at it. He also shoots a boar, drags it around and smears its blood on the walls of
his father's cabin. During a gun battle between feuding families, a young boy named Billy
is shot (off-screen) and his corpse is found floating in the river. A slave receives a
whipping, just out of camera range. Huck's companion, Jim, shows the deep welts of a
whipping he's been subjected to. During a mob scene, a shooting and a stabbing occur. Two
villains are shown to have been coated with hot tar. A noose is placed around Jim's neck,
but he does not hang.
PROFANITY 2 - Huck enjoys salty language, consisting mainly of mild
profanities. [profanity glossary]
DISCUSSION TOPICS - The mindset behind slavery is examined, though hardly
in-depth. Alcoholism and child abuse are demonstrated by Huck's father. Huck smokes a
pipe.
MESSAGE - The value of friendship is the point most strongly delivered here.
|
|
Special Keywords: S0 - V5 - P2 - MPAAPG |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A CAVEAT: We've gone through several editorial changes since we started covering films in 1992 and some of our early standards were not as stringent as they are now. We therefore need to revisit many older reviews, especially those written prior to 1998 or so; please keep this in mind if you're consulting a review from that period. While we plan to revisit and correct older reviews our resources are limited and it is a slow, time-consuming process. |
|
|
|
|
