|
| |
|
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 »] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two men try to have safe sex with their girlfriends during
a wild night in New York City. With Jamie Foxx, Tommy Davidson, Vivica A. Fox and Tamala
Jones.
SEX/NUDITY 8 - A man's bare buttocks. Rhinos have graphic sex on television.
A dog "humps" a man's leg. Women in bras and panties are seen in a few scenes.
The sides of a woman's bare breasts are seen. Lots and lots of sexual innuendo (including
references to homosexuality and oral sex). An intense game of footsie has the couples
oohing and aahing. Lots of passionate kissing. Graphic talk about oral sex and once it's
implied as a man kisses down a woman's body and talks about what he will do when he
reaches his destination; she moans once he gets there. A few scenes of people having sex
with kissing and thrusting in many different positions. A dominatrix scene with handcuffs,
whips and leather outfits.
VIOLENCE/GORE 2 - A man is shot in the leg with a brief spurt of blood. A
machine gun ruins a store with a hail of bullets. Threatening with guns. Pratfalls. Two
men fall when they run into a door. Chases.
PROFANITY 10 - 100+ F-words, many anatomical references, many scatological
references, some mild obscenities, some racial slurs primarily by African-Americans
towards other African-Americans. [profanity glossary]
DISCUSSION TOPICS - Safe sex, friendships, blind dates, waiting for sex.
MESSAGE - One should only have safe sex.
|
|
Special Keywords: S8 - V2 - P10 - MPAAR |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|