|
| |
|
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 failing actor and his friend receive their own form of
comeuppance for their pretentious and shallow ideals.
SEX/NUDITY 7 - Lots of sexual innuendo, lewd sexual remarks and discussions
of sexual acts (including bestiality). Several scenes of men and women in their underwear.
Some cleavage, a woman's bare breasts are seen briefly and the side of a woman's breast is
shown a few times. A man and woman attempt to have sex, but are interrupted; the woman is
shown in her panties covering her breasts with her arms. A painting of a woman shows bare
breasts. A man watches a peep show, but the woman he's watching is not shown. A man pulls
at a woman's underwear in order to look at her crotch. A man and woman kiss and he
caresses her clothed breast. A man and woman kiss and undress each other (sex is implied,
but not shown).
VIOLENCE/GORE 4 - A man hits a woman and a man is knocked to the ground and
threatened with a gun. A woman hits a man in the chest and then in the groin during a
self-defense class. A woman has a black eye. During a TV show a woman commits suicide with
a gun.
PROFANITY 8 - About 50 F-words, many sexual and anatomical references, about
25 scatological terms, several derogatory terms (for women, homosexuals, et al) and many
mild obscenities. [profanity glossary]
DISCUSSION TOPICS - Ambition, sexual promiscuity.
MESSAGE - Judge people for who they are, not what they look like.
|
|
Special Keywords: S7 - V4 - P8 - 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. |
|
|
|
|