|
| |
|
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 »] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this melodrama, Richard Gere plays an older man who
falls in love with a younger woman who's dying (Winona Ryder). Also with Vera Farmiga,
Jamie Harrold, Anthony LaPaglia and Sherry Stringfield. [1:45]
SEX/NUDITY 4 - Some sexual innuendo and some kissing (a few times it's
passionate). A couple lies in bed together and kisses passionately, then they have
intercourse (we only see what appears to be body movement through a steamy window and some
close-ups of her pleasured facial expressions). We see an obviously nude but mostly
sheet-covered woman in bed; it's implied she spent the night with a man. A clothed couple
lie in bed together. A woman wears a slightly cleavage-revealing nightgown.
VIOLENCE/GORE 1 - A woman slaps a man on the arm and pushes him away. A
person falls down a couple times from a heart condition. A person in a hospital bed has
tubes in both nostrils; eventually this person dies (we don't see it happen, though).
PROFANITY 5 - 2 F-words, a few anatomical and scatological references,
several mild obscenities, a few religious obscenities and some insults. [profanity glossary]
DISCUSSION TOPICS - Terminal disease, falling in love, commitment,
infidelity, womanizing, loss of a parent, loss of a lover, death, casual sex, deadbeat
dads, lying, older men/younger women relationships.
MESSAGE - Go for the one you love even if you know you'll soon lose that
person.
|
|
Special Keywords: S4 - V1 - P5 - 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. |
|
|
|
|