|
| |
|
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 »] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Attorney Rebecca De Mornay stars as a lawyer representing
Don Johnson, who's accused of murdering his wife. When she realizes that Johnson is
obsessed with her, she believes she will be his next victim.
SEX/NUDITY 4 - De Mornay is shown disrobing from the back, and is shown in a
bra and underpants. During one sex scene, she kneels in front of her boyfriend and helps
him take off his pants; there is a veiled insinuation of oral sex, but nothing is shown.
During another encounter, De Mornay is shown in bed with a sheet wrapped around her; only
her shoulders and some cleavage are visible.
VIOLENCE/GORE 6 - A man is kicked and hit with a club, and the result is a
bloody face. A woman is dragged and pushed out of a window. Johnson brandishes a knife at
De Mornay. Another man is hit over the head and left unconscious in a burning building.
And a man and a woman struggle and fall over a railing. When they land, a great deal of
blood gushes from the man's head and a lesser amount from the woman's nose and mouth.
PROFANITY 6 - 22 F-words, 4 scatological references and some lesser
profanities. [profanity glossary]
DISCUSSION TOPICS - Womanizing, attorney/client privilege, murder.
MESSAGE - You must honor your professional code, but don't forget to honor
your conscience as well.
|
|
Special Keywords: S4 - V6 - P6 - 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. |
|
|
|
|