for crude/sexual material, violence/bloody images and brief partial nudity.
Reviewed by: Alexander Malsan
CONTRIBUTOR
| Moral Rating: | Offensive to Very Offensive |
| Moviemaking Quality: |
|
| Primary Audience: | Adults |
| Genre: | Action Crime Farsical-Comedy |
| Length: | 1 hr. 25 min. |
| Year of Release: | 2025 |
| USA Release: |
August 1, 2025 (wide release—3,344 theaters) DVD: November 11, 2025 |
| Featuring |
|---|
|
Liam Neeson … Frank Drebin Jr. Pamela Anderson … Beth Davenport Paul Walter Hauser … Ed Hocken Jr. Danny Huston … Richard Cane CCH Pounder … Chief Davis Kevin Durand, … Sig Gustafson Liza Koshy … Detective Barnes Michael Beasley … Detective Taylor Wilbur Fitzgerald (Wilbur T. Fitzgerald) … Dan Daly See all » |
| Director |
|
Akiva Schaffer |
| Producer |
|
Seth MacFarlane Fuzzy Door Productions See all » |
| Distributor |
Raunchy and vulgar
Detective Frank Drebin is back. Wait! Did I say Frank Drebin? I meant Frank Drebin JUNIOR. Following in his father’s footsteps, Frank Jr. (let’s just call him that for continuity purposes) has decided to join us with his father’s old law enforcement department, The Police Squad.
In this reboot (sequel?) Frank Jr. (Liam Neeson) disguises himself as a school girl to infiltrate and stop a robbery. Here’s the catch… the robbery was a ruse, a distraction to steal a device called the Primordial Law of Toughness (or P.L.O.T. Device). This device will turn all humans into wild animals, killing each other in the process.
At the same time, Frank Jr. is called on by the lovely Ms. Beth Davenport (Pamela Anderson) to help her find out what happened to her brother, who died in a fatal crash. She suspects foul play, she is, after all, an amateur crime novelist. Wait, wasn’t Beth’s brother, Simon, employed by the same company that created the P.L.O.T. Device? Surely, these things can’t be connected can they?
It’s up to Frank Jr., his partner Ed Hocken Jr (Paul Walter Hauser), and yes, even Beth, to find out exactly what in the world is going on… and they need to act fast…
He is an influential Liberal atheist. He was named the Harvard Humanist of the Year (2011) for “his active, passionate commitment to Humanist values.” He campaigned for Barack Obama for President and is an active U.S. Democratic Party supporter and a passionate supporter of Gay “rights” and Gay “marriage.”
I’ll cut straight to the point: this is one crude and disgusting film. You know you’re in trouble if Seth MacFarlane (the writer, producer, voice of Ted, in the films “Ted” and “Ted 2” and and creator/voice actor for “Family Guy” and its spinoff, the now canceled “The Cleveland Show”) is a leading producer of the film. You can see Seth McFarlane’s hands ALL over this film. Seth MacFarlane has made a hobby of offending everyone (which some argue that in doing so he’s not offending anyone; in short, everyone is in on the joke): Christians, Jews, Muslims, Asians, African American, the LGBTQIA , and even those with physical and psychological issues. He also tends to add sexual perversion and make it look harmless (e.g., one of his main characters in “Family Guy” is a 50 year old male named Quagmire who ogles and debases women… of ALL ages).
“The Naked Gun” uses a massive amount of sexual content and “potty humor” to get audiences to join in on the fun (a very loose term in many respects). The filmmakers are basically saying, “Yea we have a plot… somewhere. In the meantime, here’s some more sexual content and innuendo.” I suppose that’s part of the definition of a comedic farce. While I found myself laughing at times, it was only in the moments where Frank Jr. wasn’t talking about sexually attractive female characters, or where Frank Jr. wasn’t talking about how he’s going to poop his pants, or when there isn’t implied graphic sexual content occurring.
To the film’s credit, Liam Neeson really puts together a strong performance. Ever since “Taken” (2009), it’s hard not to think of Neeson as the “I’m a tough guy behind it all” kind of character, as that’s how he’s been typecast for some time now. His banter and on screen chemistry with Pamela Anderson includes some witty dialog. The rest of the cast either shows up for a scene, and then disappears till the second half of the film or, with a many of the characters, some make one appearance at the beginning and then never come back. Frustratingly, when they some are on screen they barely say anything.
Moving on to the content of concern… oh boy…
[Beware that some descriptions of sexual content is somewhat graphic. Reader discretion advised.]
SEXUAL CONTENT/DIALOG (only a partial list): Frank and Beth kisses a few times. They are in bed together in a sexual scene with a snowman. Frank goes to a bank robbery dressed as a little girl before he takes off his disguise and displays his strawberry under-shorts. Several male characters lust after Beth, describing more of a piece of meat rather than an actual human being (again I won’t write what the males said as it’s far too inappropriate and demeaning, but let’s leave it at that). Frank mentions that he won’t stop scratching till he breaks skin (genitals implied). Someone comments that another person was “breast milked till he was 13” (… okay…). There are more moments where Beth’s figure is described in various ways (her breasts are like a chicken roasting in the oven, her butt being a talking butt, having a bottom that would make a toilet “Beg for the brown,” etc.).
Someone makes a very dark joke about not having the “Bill Cosby drink” (I’m not even going to touch that one). As a male is looking through thermal imaging binoculars, he mistakenly sees two dark figures in positions that look like a male “e*ac*lating” in front of a female and also an absolutely repulsive moment where the dog enters the picture (again a silhouette figure of a dog) and the male character looks like he is having s*x with the dog (bestiality).
NUDITY: We witness various female characters in bikinis. Woman in negligee that reveals cleavage. There are a couple scenes where we witness partial male nudity as males receive red light therapy on their genitals. A male character hangs upside with his bare rear end exposed to everyone at a stadium and his p*nis blurred out by the camera crew at the stadium, and an innuendo about its size.
VIOLENCE: There is bank robbery, with hostages, followed by Frank showing up and beating the robbers senseless. A robber is also used as a human shield. A character is murdered. A dead corpse’s head is decapitated from its body. Someone rolls out of a car. Someone is seen getting their hand smashed by a car door. Frank runs over a person in the street in two separate instances. Frank purposely drives his car onto a sidewalk. A man has his face slammed onto a bar table during an interrogation. There’s some slapstick humor involved as well: Frank falling down stairs, etc. In one of these “gag” moments, Frank rips a bad guys arms off and slaps him in the face with the bad guys own hands. In a very weird dream-like montage, Frosty the Snowman comes to life, pulls out a gun and chases Frank and Beth. A guy falls off a ledge. There is an MMA fight. When the P.L.O.T. Device goes off people are seen viciously attacking each other up in the most violent of ways.
There are NO positive or redeeming messages I can draw from this film
This isn’t the first time Liam Neeson has broken out of his typecast “rough and tough” persona. He made a brief appearance in one of the “Ted” movies a while back where he had a clean, but hilarious back and forth with Ted over some Trix and it being for kids. This is an example where he can be funny without being crass.
Maybe I’m missing the point of the film. Again, I reference again the whole “everyone is in on the joke” mentality that is supposed to define a comedic farce. Maybe I’m a grouch. Maybe I’m not privy to what a comedic farce is. Or…
MAYBE, just maybe, comedy doesn’t have to push the boundaries so hard on what is funny and what is downright crossing the line. This material just crosses the line, if not for the innuendo and dialog, then certainly the joke about bestiality. It’s just not okay.
In short, while there are some moments that are genuinely funny, it’s bogged down with far too much sexual content, partial nudity and innuendo. For these and many more reasons, I discourage anyone of any age, especially Christians, from viewing “The Naked Gun.” There are way better ways to spend your time. This isn’t one of them.
Learn about DISCERNMENT, wisdom in making personal entertainment decisions


PLEASE share your observations and insights to be posted here.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 4½