|
| |
|
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 »] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woody Harrelson and Randy Quaid are bowlers trying to win
money on the bowling tournament circuit.
SEX/NUDITY 4 - Lots of sexual innuendo including references to oral sex,
bestiality, homosexual acts, transvestism, and masturbation (a couple of gross sexual
jokes and graphic sexual references). Kissing, clothed breasts and buttocks of women often
fondled by men and scantily clad women. A necking couple with the man fondling the woman's
clothed breasts, erect nipples showing through clothing, a naked woman lying in bed with
sheets up to her neck, smoking -- obviously post-sex.
VIOLENCE/GORE 4 - Sometimes played for laughs: a man is pushed and shoved by
an angry crowd and his hand is shoved into a ball return machine as he screams and begs.
Some hitting and shoving, men are hit/kicked in the crotch, a woman puts a cigarette out
in her hand. A fistfight which results in some blood. Animal abuse: a man hits and bites a
snake after the snake bites him, a horse's hooves are accidentally cut off with the horse
screeching. Hot coffee is thrown in a person's face and on a baby. Reckless driving.
PROFANITY 4 - Many scatological references, some mild obscenities and
anatomical references. [profanity glossary]
DISCUSSION TOPICS - Conning and hustling, disability.
MESSAGE - Don't give up on your dreams.
|
|
Special Keywords: S4 - V4 - P4 - MPAAPG-13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|