|
| |
|
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 »] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Val Kilmer plays a blind man who's convinced by
his new girlfriend, Mira Sorvino, to undergo experimental sight-restoration surgery. Based
on a true story by Oliver Sachs, M.D. Also with Kelly McGillis, Nathan Lane and Steven
Weber. [2:08]
SEX/NUDITY 5 - Some sexual innuendo. Kissing, sometimes passionately. A
couple has intercourse, and we see their bare backs, shoulders, arms and legs; we also see
them embracing and kissing in the shower, but a glass shower door prevents us from seeing
anything more than the shapes of their nude bodies. As a woman undresses, we see the
bottom of her breast from a back/side angle; we also see her bare back and legs as a man
massages them. One scene takes place in a topless bar; we see a few bare breasts, but
mostly from a distance. A woman is seen in just her bra and underwear, then without her
bra (we see her from the back).
VIOLENCE/GORE 1 - A man walks into -- and shatters -- a plate-glass window
and gets a small, bloody cut on his forehead. We see doctors performing surgery on a man's
eyes, but we don't see any blood.
PROFANITY 3 - Several scatological references (one is written) and several
mild obscenities. [profanity glossary]
DISCUSSION TOPICS - Blindness, abandonment, family relationships, falling in
love.
MESSAGE - You don't have to see the world in order to truly experience it.
|
|
Special Keywords: S5 - V1 - P3 - MPAAPG-13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
