Become a Premium Member | Only $2 a month

► You're making sure we survive
► Exclusive previews
► No more ads


In the Name of the Father



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.


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 »]

Sex & Nudity
Violence & Gore
1 to 10

MPAA Rating: R

Based on a true story, about an Irishman (Daniel Day-Lewis) who was incarcerated in a British prison for a terrorist bombing he did not commit.

SEX/NUDITY 3 - Daniel Day-Lewis is briefly shown in a shirt and bikini underpants; in the nude, although only his upper body and legs are shown; and he is also shown with his hands over his crotch -- pubic hair and his behind are shown. In another scene he thrusts his hips up at a mirror and briefly touches a vibrator. A couple of kisses.

VIOLENCE/GORE 6 - A building is shown exploding, but no people are shown. The police chase a crowd and a stand-off ensues with rock-throwing, shouts and gunfire, but no blood. A man threatens to shoot Day-Lewis' kneecaps. During interrogation, the police pull Day-Lewis' hair and ears and hit him in the face. A prison guard is set afire and staggers around in an extended scene; once the flames are doused he convulses and shakes on the floor, but his burns do not look horrific.

PROFANITY 8 - Approximately 75 F-words and a few anatomical references. [profanity glossary]

DISCUSSION TOPICS - IRA and terrorism, corrupt law enforcement and police brutality, prison life.

MESSAGE - Never give up the fight to clear your name.

Special Keywords: S3 - V6 - P8 - MPAAR

Our Ratings Explained

Tell Friends About Our Site

Become a Member

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.

INAPPROPRIATE ADS? We have little control over ads since we belong to ad agencies that serve ads automatically; a standing order should prevent provocative ads, but inappropriate ads do sneak in.
What you can do



Become a member: You can subscribe for as little as a couple of dollars a month and gain access to our premium site, which contains no ads whatsoever. Think about it: You'll be helping support our site and guarantee that we will continue to publish, and you will be able to browse without any commercial interruptions.


Tell all your friends: Please recommend to your friends and acquaintances; you'll be helping them by letting them know how useful our site is, while helping us by increasing our readership. Since we do not advertise, the best and most reliable way to spread the word is by word-of-mouth.


Alert local & national media: Let major media know why you trust our ratings. Call or e-mail a local newspaper, radio station or TV channel and encourage them to do a story about our site. Since we do not have a PR firm working for us, you can be our media ambassadors.

Copyright © 1992- Critics. All rights reserved. "Kids-In-Mind™" and "Movie Ratings That Actually Work™" are Service Marks of Critics. For legal queries please see our Terms of Use; for comments or questions see our contact page.