|
| |
|
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 »] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A 12 year old boy is an up and comer in the drug infested
streets of New York, while trying to rescue his sister from a drug dealer.
SEX/NUDITY 4 - A boy is shown nude in a fetal position, so nothing is
exposed apart from his behind. A man and woman are shown nude in bed. We see the man from
the back and side, and the woman from the front. Her arms cover her chest. There are
sexual allusions, and young boys proclaim what they think girls like: girls want boys to
hit them.
VIOLENCE/GORE 8 - A boy hangs a dog by its leash and then shoots it while
it's hanging. We hear the dog gasping and see its legs jerking; it's all very graphic and
disturbing. A boy is beaten, two men are beaten with heavy chains and a man is stabbed. A
boy is shot three times, and one of the bullets also hits a young girl; the camera lingers
on the girl, while she's bleeding from the neck. A dog fight is shown, complete with the
bloody demise of one of the participants. A young boy's hand is pinned under a car, and he
is shot off-screen.
PROFANITY 10 - The F-word and its derivations are used approximately 125
times, along with numerous scatological, sexual and anatomical references, gender and
racial slurs. [profanity glossary]
DISCUSSION TOPICS - Broken families, poverty, drug addiction & prostitution,
animal abuse.
MESSAGE - Nobody can escape the violence of the inner city unscathed and
unscarred.
|
|
Special Keywords: S4 - V8 - P10 - 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. |
|
|
|
|