|
| |
|
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 »] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julian Sands stars as a surgeon who is so obsessed with
Sherilyn Fenn that he amputates her limbs, in order to keep her with him always.
SEX/NUDITY 9 - Many, very explicit sex scenes, including intimations of oral
sex. Some sex scenes involve unorthodox positions, a lot of thrusting and a lot of nudity.
A number of women are shown topless, under various circumstance (in one scene a woman's
bare breast is shown as she taunts her son who's been watching her make love); there are
also many bare bottoms, both male and female. A woman explains, in explicit detail, how a
woman likes to make love.
VIOLENCE/GORE 4 - A woman is hit by a car and her legs are briefly seen
being torn apart; it's a bloody scene. Fenn is shown limbless in many scenes although the
amputation is never actually shown. There are shoving matches between the two principals
-- with some slapping and choking -- and Sands threatens to kill himself while pointing a
gun at his head; he then threatens to kill Fenn while pointing the gun at her head.
PROFANITY 5 - Seven F-words, as well as several scatological terms and
sexually explicit descriptions. [profanity glossary]
DISCUSSION TOPICS - Unrequited love, amputation, obsession.
MESSAGE - Obsession can sometimes be mistaken for love; do not treat people
as possessions.
|
|
Special Keywords: S9 - V4 - P5 - 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. |
|
|
|
|