|
| |
|
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 »] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yet another variation on the "Die Hard" formula,
with Steven Seagal as a Navy cook who moonlights as a weapons and martial arts expert. His
non-culinary skills come in handy when his ship is hi-jacked by the obligatory terrorists.
SEX/NUDITY 5 - Seagal's companion in this piece is Playboy's Miss July of
1989, Erika Eleniak. We see lots of cleavage and she appears briefly topless. We also see
her bare behind, clad only with a G-string. One kiss.
VIOLENCE/GORE 8 - Thumb in the eye, knife through the brain, and it works
it's way down from there to bone-crushing, shooting, and blowing people up. A plane and a
helicopter full of SEALS are shot down. A microwave is booby trapped to explode and when
it does one guy ends up with shards of glass in his face and neck. Another guy gets
stabbed int he neck, another gets choked. A bunch get shot. A helicopter blows up on the
deck of the ship and a number of guys are shown flying and on fire. One guy gets shoved
into a running saw. Miss July shoots a guy in the back. We see a guy get killed by having
his throat ripped out, we hear him gurgling.
PROFANITY 6 - These are sailors; profanity is prevalent. The F-word and its
variations, the S-word, the A-word, G.D., are all used often as well as some other nasty
banter. [profanity glossary]
DISCUSSION TOPICS - Terrorism, Playboy playmates.
MESSAGE - Good guys legitimize violence. Don't judge by appearances.
|
|
Special Keywords: S5 - V8 - 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. |
|
|
|
|
