|
| |
|
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 »] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remake of the 1967 film, with Eddie Murphy in the title
role as a man who can hear and talk to animals.
SEX/NUDITY 2 - Some sexual innuendo. Part of a woman's buttocks is exposed
in preparation for an injection. Discussions of sex between humans and animals, and
preparation for an impending sexual encounter, but nothing happens.
VIOLENCE/GORE 3 - A man's nose is broken after being hit by a door. A man
punches another man in the face. A woman has a very swollen face (due to an allergic
reaction). It is implied that a dog has been run over by a car and in another scene it is
implied that a tiger is not going to survive surgery. Reckless driving.
PROFANITY 2 - A lot of scatological humor, including a couple of
scatological terms, a discussion of the use of a rectal thermometer, flatulence, and birds
defecating on people. Also about 10 anatomical references, and about a dozen mild
obscenities and insults. [profanity glossary]
DISCUSSION TOPICS - Bestiality, delusions, ambition and greed, being a vet.
MESSAGE - There are higher callings in life than making a lot of money.
Animals are as special as humans.
|
|
Special Keywords: S2 - V3 - P2 - 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. |
|
|
|
|