|
| |
|
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 »] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Babe is back, this time trying to save his boss's farm
from foreclosure. Starring James Cromwell, Magda Szubanski, Elizabeth Daily, Glenne
Headly, Mickey Rooney and Steven Wright.
SEX/NUDITY 1 - Very mild sexual innuendo. In two scenes, we briefly see
women in very revealing bikinis. Two dogs have puppies.
VIOLENCE/GORE 5 - Growling and barking dogs chase an animal. A few men try
to grab a woman's bags and she fends them off. An animal falls off a truck and onto
the road; he shakes a little bit but is not injured. An animal appears to have drowned but
is then saved (the scene is long and excruciatingly tense). A group of animal control
workers capture several animals in nets, sometimes using force; we see a fish on a floor
and an animal caught, pulled and hung by its neck. An animal hanging on an electric line
is shocked and falls. An animal accidentally lands in front of a target at which shots are
being fired, but the animal is not hit. A handicapped dog (he is in a doggy wheelchair)
chases a car, is dragged alongside and we're left with the impression that he's
hurt and gone to the big running field in the sky, but he recovers. A man is hit and
injured by falling objects.
PROFANITY 1 - Several insults. [profanity glossary]
DISCUSSION TOPICS - Financial problems, city life, loyalty, super smart animals.
MESSAGE - Pluck and loyalty will win in the end.
|
|
Special Keywords: S1 - V5 - P1 - MPAAG |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
