Become a Premium Member | Only $2 a month

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


A Thin Line Between Love and Hate



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

Martin Lawrence finds himself in a real-life fatal attraction when spurned girlfriend Lynn Whitfield won't take no for an answer.

SEX/NUDITY 5 - Scantily clad dancers in a club, suggestive dancing, lots of kissing, lots of sexual innuendo (sometimes graphic). A sex scene contains kissing and we see thrusting and glimpses of her bare breasts.

VIOLENCE/GORE 6 - A man is injured when falling off a horse, a man is in a pool with a bloody head wound, a brawl breaks out with fistfighting and tables breaking, a man pushes a woman around. A woman hits herself in the face causing bruises, and she also slams a door on her arm causing a sprain. A woman terrorizes a man (ruins his car, almost runs him down in the street), hits him over the head with a vase, kicks him in the crotch and shoots him (we see a little bit of splattered blood). Two women fall amid breaking glass into a pool. A man is shown stitched and bandaged in a hospital bed.

PROFANITY 9 - 30+ F-words, many scatological references, some mild obscenities, many anatomical references, some racial slurs. [profanity glossary]

DISCUSSION TOPICS - Womanizing, maturity, stalking, falling in love.

MESSAGE - Passion is not love.

Special Keywords: S5 - V6 - 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.