As a fan of the New York Times film reviews, I am very aware of all of the nuances of the reviews. One of the best things is the blurb that's written after the rating at the very end of the review, to call out any violence or nudity or language. The Times reviewers A.O. Scott and Elvis Mitchell are very funny. Check out these:

The Safety of Objects "has many sexual situations, both overt and implicit, which take place in a general climate of emotional violence."
Bringing Down the House "has strong language, violence and scenes of chronic smoking by Mrs. Arness." [Mrs. Arness is played by Joan Plowright, and if that isn't incentive for you to run to the theater, I don't know what is.]
Chicago "has violence, and the strong language and sexuality, real and implied, befitting an old-school tabloid burlesque."
The Lord of the Rings: Two Towers "is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned) for pounding, long scenes of sword and flaming-catapult action and unsettling mystic evil."
Shangahi Knights "has punches, flips, tumbles and Owen Wilson's ardent pursuit of the single-entendre."
Adaptation "has scenes of sex, violence, drug use, evolutionary biology, flower abduction, journalistic indiscretion and many other things likely to trouble the sleep of neurotic, oversensitive viewers. Not that I have anyone particular in mind."
Daredevil "has dialogue too randy for the comics, sexuality and kung-fu-grip violence, including a major murder staged just like a panel from the comic."
Kangaroo Jack's "naughty talk and violence are kept carefully within the industry-designated bounds of inoffensiveness."
A Walk to Remember: "Before they learn the error of their ways, Landon and his pals dabble in profanity, and Jamie does, for a moment, bare her left shoulder."
Meet the Parents "includes strong language, comic violence and a cat sitting on a toilet." [My favorite]