3 NINJAS KICK BACK

Content -1
Quality
None Light Moderate Heavy
Language        
Violence        
Sex        
Nudity        

Release Date: May 06, 1994

Distributor: TriStar Pictures

Director: Charles T. Kanganis

Executive Producer:

Producer: James Kang, Martha Chang & Arthur Leeds

Writer: Mark Saltzman

Address Comments To:

Content:

(Fr, NA, L, V, N, M) Mild false religious worldview with New Age overtones; 2 Obscenities & numerous vulgarities; numerous kick fights, 1 facial cut (not graphic), slapstick violence, & several references to "kicking someone's butt"; several scantily-clad male sumo wrestlers; and, expelling gas depicted.

Summary:

In 3 NINJAS KICK BACK, the sequel to 3 NINJAS, Colt, Rocky and Tum Tum travel to Tokyo to rescue Grandpa, deliver a ceremonial dagger and thwart the bad guy who wants the dagger for himself. This is a poorly-crafted, unoriginal film with sufficient vulgarity, mild violence and a poor portrayal of the parent/child relationship which warrants caution on the part of parents of young children.

Review:

In 3 NINJAS KICK BACK, the sequel to 3 NINJAS, Colt, Rocky and Tum Tum must decide whether to travel to Japan for the Ninja tournament with Grandpa, who must present the ceremonial dagger he won 50 years ago to the new winner, or to play in the championship baseball game. When Grandpa runs into trouble in Tokyo the boys decide they are needed there. The man who lost the tournament to Grandpa has wanted the dagger back because of the legend attached to it and has employed his nephew to steal it. When the 3 Ninjas arrive in Japan, they thwart the efforts of the bad guys in some highly improbable Ninja battles with a trained Ninja army and manage to make the baseball championships after all.

A poorly-crafted film, 3 NINJAS KICK BACK might well be named THE THREE STOOGES GO TO JAPAN, except for the fact that it is not nearly as funny or engaging as an adventure with Larry, Moe or Curly. A low-budget movie targeted primarily for children, there is an upsetting amount of vulgarity, lots of violence (though not graphic) and a disappointing portrait of the parent/child relationship. With one direct rip-off from HOME ALONE, it might be compared to that film simply because the violence is often of the same slapstick nature, but this is an uncreative, unoriginal, improbable film which will appeal only to the lowest common denominator.

In Brief: