|
| |
|
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 »] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Danny DeVito's biopic of Jimmy Hoffa, the Teamster union
boss whose Mob connections caused his "disappearance" more than a decade ago.
SEX/NUDITY 2 - Sexual innuendo. A woman is shown naked in bed, under covers.
We see a woman nude from the side and then from the back sitting on a bed, no sex is
shown.
VIOLENCE/GORE 8 - There is a huge brawl at a truck yard between pro-union
and anti-union truckers; we see a mass of swinging arms and wrestling bodies. There is a
threat with a knife, then with a gun. We see a man in flames, then we see him in the
hospital; the camera lingers on his charred body. Another brawl between working and
striking truckers results in men dying in various ways. A deer is shot with a hand gun;
its body lies dead, there's no blood. Two men are shot three times each. Particularly
disturbing: a reporter gets a present from Hoffa which is a jar containing severed
(anatomically precise) male genitalia.
PROFANITY 10 - At least 134 F-words, lots of references to male and female
genitalia, scatological references, some racial slurs. [profanity glossary]
DISCUSSION TOPICS - Unions and union-busting. Mob connections.
MESSAGE - Hoffa comes across as a sympathetic figure, despite connections
with organized crime and a number of illegal activities. Loyalty to one's laboring
brethren is considered the ultimate virtue.
|
|
Special Keywords: S2 - 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. |
|
|
|
|