|
| |
|
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 »] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The stars of "A Fish Called Wanda" are back again
and this time they are running a zoo.
SEX/NUDITY 4 - Lots of sexual innuendo (with implied bestiality and orgies).
A woman is often seen in cleavage-revealing outfits and short, tight dresses. Kissing,
sometimes passionate. A man undresses but we only see his bare back, a couple of times a
man is stripped to his boxers and a woman is seen in her bra and panties. A man puts his
hand on a woman's clothed breasts.
VIOLENCE/GORE 4 - Mostly played for laughs: people put fake blood on their
bodies to fake animal bites. Men struggle for a gun, a man is shot in the head (some
blood) and a man pokes his finger in the wound and tastes it to see if it's fake. A man is
nearly stabbed with a knife and the assailant accidentally stabs himself in the leg
instead. A woman falls and there is blood on her leg (a man again tastes the blood). A man
is hit with a purse. People are punched in a few scenes (primarily in the abdomen). A
corpse is hit a couple of times.
PROFANITY 5 - One F-word, a scatological reference, some mild obscenities,
some anatomical references, a few British obscenities. [profanity glossary]
DISCUSSION TOPICS - Zoos and wild animals, greed, father/son relationships.
MESSAGE - Some things are better left unchanged.
|
|
Special Keywords: S4 - V4 - 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. |
|
|
|
|