|
| |
|
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 »] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mistaken identities comedy with Monty Python alumnus Eric
Idle as an English duke, who is switched at birth with Rick Moranis, an uncouth American.
Barbara Hershey and John Cleese co-star.
SEX/NUDITY 5 - There's one brief scene of exposed breasts on a poster, and
lots of cleavage from Barbara Hershey. There are scenes of exposed behinds (male and
female) and one suggested sex scene, with Idle partially covered by sheets. A stripper
dances with a G-string and pasties. And, lots of sexual and anatomical talk, including
insinuation of mother/son incest.
VIOLENCE/GORE 4 - Violence consists of a lot of cartoon stuff, while Idle
tries to bump off Moranis. There's an exploding Nanny (off-screen), a pool vacuum runs
amuck and tries to strangle Moranis, and a house is set on fire. A pastor dies from
poisoning and a woman is found frozen in a meat-locker. The only really violent on-screen
scene is when a woman drops a statuette on a man's head. There's no gore.
PROFANITY 5 - There are 4 hand gestures, which translate as the F-word, one
F-word fully enunciated and one almost enunciated. Also, an assortment of name-calling,
sexual references and scatological terms. [profanity glossary]
DISCUSSION TOPICS - Murder, class distinctions, incest, promiscuity, marrying for
money, illegitimacy, drunkenness.
MESSAGE - Murder is wrong, especially if you are trying to kill your
friends.
|
|
Special Keywords: S5 - V4 - P5 - 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. |
|
|
|
|