|
| |
|
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 »] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A man (Woody Harrelson) takes part in a kidnapping plot for
money, but winds up getting more than he bargained for. With Elisabeth Shue.
SEX/NUDITY 4 - A woman tries to seduce a man by licking his shoulder and
neck, and sucking his ear. Several lingering shots of women's legs, clothed buttocks and
breasts. A woman wears tight form-fitting dresses. A man caresses a woman's clothed
breasts and buttocks, and he kisses down her body; there is the implication that they have
sex. A woman tries to seduce a man, but nothing happens. We see a woman in her underwear a
couple of times. Two scenes of passionate kissing with the implication that sex occurs,
but nothing more is shown.
VIOLENCE/GORE 5 - A man hits a woman and she hits him back. A man is knocked
on the head with a flashlight. A man and woman knock each other around a bit. A couple of
dead bodies are discovered. A man is shot in the shoulder (we see some blood on the
wound). A man dies after falling into and flailing about in some acid (we see his burning
skin briefly). A person is hit several times with a gun. Threatening with guns.
PROFANITY 7 - A couple dozen F-words, several scatological terms, a few
anatomical references and several mild obscenities. [profanity glossary]
DISCUSSION TOPICS - Crime, imprisonment, being framed for a crime, lust, fraud.
MESSAGE - Crime just doesn't pay for some people.
|
|
Special Keywords: S4 - V5 - P7 - 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. |
|
|
|
|