|
| |
|
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 juror (Joanne Whalley-Kilmer) must choose between her own
safety and justice when she is told to acquit a mobster (Armand Assante) during his trial.
SEX/NUDITY 5 - Pictures of nude bodies are briefly shown to jurors (it is
difficult to see what is in the photos). A man tries to watch a woman dress and her bare
shoulders are seen; he then nearly rips her robe from her and stares at her exposed chest.
A woman is shown naked in the shower (we see her back and legs) and it is implied that she
was raped. There is an extended, passionate kissing scene. A man makes overtures to
another man in a prison restroom and photos of the act are shown briefly.
VIOLENCE/GORE 6 - Many references are made to a man's murderous past. A man
hits several people and threatens others. A woman is abducted and thrown around a bit; she
and a young boy are threatened. A woman is shown with a bloody face, and she is then shot.
Several people are shot and killed with varying amounts of blood. A man is stabbed in the
neck with an ice pick (some blood is shown). Gory photos of murder victims are shown.
PROFANITY 6 - About 10 F-words, about 5 scatological references, some mild
profanities, and some sexual references. [profanity glossary]
DISCUSSION TOPICS - Jury duty, organized crime, the Constitution.
MESSAGE - Your family comes before issues of truth and justice.
|
|
Special Keywords: S5 - V6 - P6 - 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. |
|
|
|
|