Become a Premium Member | Only $2 a month

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


Sugar Hill



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: R

Wesley Snipes stars as a gangster attempting to go straight.

SEX/NUDITY 5 - A very brief scene in which a woman is in her underwear. One near-rape scene (see Violence/Gore below). There are also many references to sexual acts.

VIOLENCE/GORE 7 - Lots of gunfire, but not much blood. Two women are punched repeatedly in the face. Several dead bodies are seen in the distance. A torture scene in which a man is burned by cigarettes -- off screen -- and then he is doused with gasoline and set on fire. Another man is beaten and shot several times, as well as urinated on and finally shot in the head. A woman is attacked in an attempted rape: she is pushed around, beaten in the face and then forced to her knees to perform oral sex. Scenes of shooting up heroin including one in which two small boys are witnesses to their mother's shooting up and one is actually made to assist her. She goes into convulsions and dies in front of the children. The father is beaten and shot.

PROFANITY 9 - The F-word and its variations are used repeatedly. There are also racial slurs and insults. [profanity glossary]

DISCUSSION TOPICS - Drug dealing and drug use, rape, murder, extortion, gang violence, betrayal.

MESSAGE - One must take action to stop a cycle of violence.

Special Keywords: S5 - V7 - P9 - MPAAR

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.