|
| |
|
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 »] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Lambert and Mario Van Peebles team up as
partners/rivals and use big guns to fight Patrick Stewart, as the bile-filled villain.
SEX/NUDITY 4 - A bedroom scene takes place in a brothel. There is no nudity,
and it ends in violence, not sex. There's a comic scene of Van Peebles trying to coax
information out of a sleep-talking Lambert: they hug, and Van Peebles considers giving him
a kiss. In another scene, there is a brief shot of a woman getting out of a bubble bath,
exposing her breasts.
VIOLENCE/GORE 6 - A man is shot in the head in front of his young child.
There are also various beatings, and Lambert is shown dangling from a helicopter and being
dragged through the ocean; a wheelchair-bound man is tossed into a grave and buried alive.
Both protagonists are shot in the legs. A woman shoots her boyfriend, and later she is
shot in the shoulder with a spear gun. She also puts a gun barrel in Lambert's mouth.
Plus, the usual violence and gunplay typical of the genre.
PROFANITY 6 - The F-word is used several times, plus an assortment of other
scatological and anatomical references. [profanity glossary]
DISCUSSION TOPICS - Organized crime; drug dealing.
MESSAGE - There is a vague underlying message about the evils of drug
trafficking.
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|