Become a Premium Member | Only $2 a month

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


My Fellow Americans



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: PG-13

Jack Lemmon and James Garner are former U.S. Presidents caught in a scandal for which they aren't responsible.

SEX/NUDITY 3 - Lots of sexual innuendo (including homosexual references). A woman is lying in bed with bare shoulders (sheets pulled up) as Garner puts on his pants obviously after sex. A man in his sleep begins massaging Lemmon's chest. A couple are tussling under covers.

VIOLENCE/GORE 3 - Chases by foot and car, reckless driving, threatening with guns, a couple of explosions, a golf ball hits someone in the head but we only hear it, a rocket is shot at a helicopter. A man is shot in the head through a car window and we see some blood. Pushes and falls, a boy kicks a man in the crotch, hot coffee is thrown on a man. A man is knocked in the head, a man knocks another's gun out of his hand with a sword leaving the man's hand bloody, a man is shot and we see his surprised face and then see him fall.

PROFANITY 6 - One F-word and three derivatives, many mild obscenities, some scatological references, many anatomical references. [profanity glossary]

DISCUSSION TOPICS - Political scandal, the presidency, deceit.

MESSAGE - The truth is not always what it appears to be.

Special Keywords: S3 - V3 - P6 - MPAAPG-13

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.