Boxing Helena

 
 

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 »]


Sex & Nudity
Violence & Gore
Profanity
1 to 10

MPAA Rating: R

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

Our Ratings Explained

Tell Friends About Our Site

Become a Member


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.




INAPPROPRIATE ADS? We have little control over ads since we belong to ad agencies that serve ads automatically; a standing order should prevent provocative ads, but inappropriate ads do sneak in.
What you can do



HOW TO SUPPORT KIDS-IN-MIND

1. 

Become a member: You can subscribe for as little as a couple of dollars a month and gain access to our premium site, which contains no ads whatsoever. Think about it: You'll be helping support our site and guarantee that we will continue to publish, and you will be able to browse without any commercial interruptions.

2. 

Tell all your friends: Please recommend kids-in-mind.com to your friends and acquaintances; you'll be helping them by letting them know how useful our site is, while helping us by increasing our readership. Since we do not advertise, the best and most reliable way to spread the word is by word-of-mouth.

3. 

Alert local & national media: Let major media know why you trust our ratings. Call or e-mail a local newspaper, radio station or TV channel and encourage them to do a story about our site. Since we do not have a PR firm working for us, you can be our media ambassadors.





Copyright © 1992- Critics. All rights reserved. "Kids-In-Mind™" and "Movie Ratings That Actually Work™" are Service Marks of Critics. For legal queries please see our Terms of Use; for comments or questions see our contact page.