Become a Premium Member | Only $2 a month

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


White Fang 2: Myth of the White Wolf



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: PG

The myth of the white wolf continues with Henry Casey (Scott Bairstow) and his pal White Fang helping a Native American-Eskimo tribe ward off impending starvation.

SEX/NUDITY 1 - One brief, resisted kiss and one passionate kiss. A woman is shown briefly from the back while sitting and wrapping a blanket around her seemingly nude body.

VIOLENCE/GORE 3 - A man falls on a steel trap and is in obvious pain, and a man is trampled by a herd of caribou, although very little is shown. A few scenes where men point guns, a Native-American is shot and killed but no blood is seen and one man hits another man across the back. Two decayed bodies are briefly shown (one is hanging). Henry and White Fang fall into the rapids, are pummeled about and seem worse for wear (Henry has a little bit of blood on his face). There are a few scenes where White Fang growls at people, and one scene where he falls down on a man and injures him.

PROFANITY 1 - A couple of very mild obscenities. [profanity glossary]

DISCUSSION TOPICS - Greed, white settlers vs. Native Americans, hunger, befriending wild animals.

MESSAGE - It's good to learn about other cultures; when you're in love you must compromise.

Special Keywords: S1 - V3 - P1 - MPAAPG

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.