|
| |
|
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 »] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Daly is a scientist who discovers the Jekyll/Hyde
formula and finds that his alter-ego is Sean Young.
SEX/NUDITY 6 - A man's bare rear end and bare chest are shown a few times.
Some kissing. Full frontal female nudity in a shower scene (it's hard to see but not
impossible). Two close-up shots of female breasts and a great deal of cleavage. Lots of
sexual innuendo and some scatological references. Two suggested sex scenes with moaning
behind closed doors. A man fondles himself a couple of times. A man hangs naked in front
of a window to the obvious delight of an older woman who is eye level with his crotch. A
woman fondles men with her feet under a table; they sigh. A woman fondles a man's crotch;
they fall onto a bed and she uncovers her breasts.
VIOLENCE/GORE 3 - Young slams a desk into a man's crotch, a man is hit in
the nose a few times. A man is burned (we don't see it, but we later see his burned face).
A man is shocked and he writhes and yells as his body jerks. The transformation sequences
from Dr. Jekyll to Ms. Hyde appear painful.
PROFANITY 5 - One F-word and one of its derivatives, some scatological
references, a few milder obscenities. [profanity glossary]
DISCUSSION TOPICS - Science and biological differences, betrayal.
MESSAGE - We all have a dark side. We must choose to not give in to it.
|
|
Special Keywords: S6 - V3 - P5 - 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. |
|
|
|
|
