Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The CAP Movie Ministry - Movie Reviews for "Good" Christians
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 1 of 18 (187814)
02-23-2005 2:35 PM


In the thread Shrek 2 promotoes homosexuality... Schraf stated something quite well that I've thought for a long time:
Nobody thinks about smut and sex more than everyone on the Religious Right.
They have the dirtiest minds of all.
They see sex EVERYWHERE. They pay great attention to EVERYTHING that can be considered even the least bit sexual, and then tell everyone they can about how sexual it all is.
I used to frequent this crazy ultra-right wing religious Christian movie review site, and they used to quantify the number of instances of sexual and other offensive content in all movies.
I remember them mentioning a scene in Jurassic Park in which Sam Neal's character touched his 12 year old female co-star's breast... It turns out that in the scene, Neal grabs the girl around her body to save her from getting eaten or something, and his arm is around her chest.
I've frequented that crazy site before, it's strangely addictive:
The ChildCare Action Project (CAP): Christian Analysis of American Culture Ministry
and their complete list of reviews.
From their review of Jurassic Park:
Jurassc Park could have as well been titled "The Legs and Other Anatomy of Laura Dern." Of particular offense in the Sex/Homosexuality Investigation Area was inappropriate touching of a minor child by an adult. There is no need for any male actor, adult or otherwise, to touch the chest or groin area of a preteen girl, even in the name of Hollywood-style rescue -- this was not real life, it was a movie. Neither is there ever any need to reveal such a large portion of a preteen girl's breast as was seen twice
They really do find sex in anything and everything. Spongebob Squarepants is a thong-wearing sadomasochist. Getting kicked in the crotch is sexual. Nude paintings are sexual. Tim Allen in a speedo is sexual.
The Rugrats are sexual:
But this new installment in the Rugrats/Thornberrys franchise of Nickelodeon also pushes the sexual limits by presenting one of the mothers removing her skirt to enable her to swim better... Additional programming bordering sexual was the Thornberry's teenage daughter in positions and dress that clearly indicate attempts at portraying sensuality.
Swimming without a skirt! We should boycott Nickelodeon for forcing such hardcore pornography down our throats!
Besides Sex and Violence, they also have categories for Impudence/Hate, and Offense to God.
Particulary offensive to me, they include any mention of a non-Christian religion as an Offense to God, and thus unsuitable for children. I file that under "Offense to Tolerance".
Descriptions of evolution are an Offense to God, which is probably of little surprise. Of course, the review of Dinosaurs implies that talking dinosaurs and lemurs somehow support the theory of evolution. The review also states that the film is Offensive to God because in its Biblical time period, before the Fall, there was no predator/prey relationships.
One of my favorite anti-Christian moments described is from Babe II: Pig in the City:
Of significant importance to the Christian viewer, Babe presented an out-of-body experience and resurrection. A dog, both rear legs paralyzed riding around in a special wheeled prosthetic, was seen quivering after a trauma with the next scene of the dog jumping around after butterflies in a colorful meadow. Then the other animals called to the dog and he recovered. Only Jesus can resurrect. And the only resurrections were those performed by Jesus, including His own.
Somehow a dog getting knocked unconscious is equivalent to the resurrection of Jesus in this reviewer's mind (in a odd turn, though, there are reviews that count nudity and crucifixion from Biblical stories as Sex and Violence).
The most bothersome thing to me about the site is their total lack of objectivity, despite their claim, "We give you OBJECTIVE tools NO ONE ELSE CAN to help YOU make an informed decision for yourself whether a film is fit for your family!"
A glaring example:
First, from the review of Harry Potter:
Professor Sprout may be bubbly and Hermione may be sparkling but none of what the movie characters do is either. For all are representative of the evil of witchcraft, sorcery and wizardry [Deut. 18:10-11]. There certainly examples of courage friendship, loyalty as well as moral standards, but there is no authority behind the morals, making them optional at best.
There was much "magic" in the form of wizardry and sorcery to control (open, close, move) and to assault (hit, slam, harm) [2Chr. 33:6, Rev. 22:15]. There was "magic" to heal, transform and do chores.
Several Christian leaders, including myself are waking up and seeing that the entertainment industry is, whether intentional, the single greatest tool of Satan to remove Jesus from our lives. Comfortably. Efficiently. Desirably. Acceptably. Popcorn flavored. An example of this is Professor Lockhart who teaches protection against the dark arts using witchcraft, sorcery and wizardry. That, in and of itself is misleading and false, saying that witchcraft, sorcery and wizardry are not dark arts while God says they are. Now this movie has planted in your young child's mind that which God specifically calls evil is not evil.
And then, hypocritically, from the review of Mary Poppins:
Mary Poppins was a delightful romp for children and the young at heart through a make-believe world of frolic and fantasy. There were no instances of offensive material throughout the movie. While there were several occurences of "magic," there was nothing evil or sinister about any of the "magic." Mary could have been angelic. While some might consider the "We won't go to sleep!" from Michael to Mary Poppins to be arrogance and/or impudence, the obstinence was NOT at his parents. All instances of Jane and Michael taking issue with parental authority (e.g., the song) were with respect and even apology
Nothing offensive in Mary Poppins? Magic aside, what about the talking animals? Don't they support evolution?
When magic is used by the adults in Harry Potter, they are preaching evil; when Mary Poppins does so, she is "angelic".
Mary Poppins is "a delightful romp... through a make-believe world of frolic and fantasy"; Harry Potter is "the single greatest tool of Satan to remove Jesus from our lives."
In the end, the site and its review system fails because the reviewers do not grasp the idea that a plot must have a conflict. Any conflict fits into one of their offensive categories, unless they have predetermined that the film is fine, and simply do not apply their rating system to it (as with Mary Poppins).
The reviewers do not understand teaching and learning through mistakes and misjudgement. The following count against the rating of Pooh's Heffalump Movie:
Wanton Violence/Crime (W)
"child" venturing into woods alone
"child" endangerment, requiring rescue
Impudence/Hate (I)
"child" encouraging another to defy his mother
playful mischief leading to private property damage
"child" ignoring his mother's call
I doubt that a child venturing into the woods alone was a sensational inclusion of "Wanton Violence/Crime". My guess is that it established a conflict, lessons were learned along the way, and everyone ended up a little wiser in the end...
However, I would love to see the CAP Project apply their rating system to The Bible - I'm sure it outranks every film in their database.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by CK, posted 02-23-2005 2:49 PM pink sasquatch has not replied
 Message 3 by kjsimons, posted 02-23-2005 3:06 PM pink sasquatch has not replied
 Message 8 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 02-24-2005 2:03 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 2 of 18 (187822)
02-23-2005 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by pink sasquatch
02-23-2005 2:35 PM


I find that site very useful and have used it for a while. Helpful to see if an action movie has enough firepower in it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-23-2005 2:35 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 3 of 18 (187830)
02-23-2005 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by pink sasquatch
02-23-2005 2:35 PM


Well no surprise that they gave "Dogma" a CAP rating of 6! These people have no sense of humor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-23-2005 2:35 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 18 (187844)
02-23-2005 3:57 PM


The following is from their review of A Beautiful Mind:
Sexual issues included...a man and woman in bed (clothed). Maybe the man and woman in bed together were married in the movie but the actor and actress were not [James 1:21, Hebr. 13:4].

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by ohnhai, posted 02-23-2005 5:43 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 6 by Coragyps, posted 02-23-2005 6:20 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5162 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 5 of 18 (187874)
02-23-2005 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Chiroptera
02-23-2005 3:57 PM


so would a porn movie featuring a married couple be ok? I mean as long as they run afoul of the other categories?
Anyway is is me or have they failed to review 'life of brian' would it score better or worse than dogma?
This message has been edited by ohnhai, 23 February 2005 23:06 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 02-23-2005 3:57 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 6 of 18 (187884)
02-23-2005 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Chiroptera
02-23-2005 3:57 PM


"...the actor and actress were not."
That suggests that the reviewer might be a little unclear on the whole concept of movies. Or theater. And the site isn't satire? Are we sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 02-23-2005 3:57 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by ohnhai, posted 02-23-2005 6:29 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5162 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 7 of 18 (187886)
02-23-2005 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Coragyps
02-23-2005 6:20 PM


nope I think they are serious. along with the Christian right group who produce edited 'safe versions' of movies for good god fearing folks. ( don’t know of a linky to these guys)
they are really objecting to actors portraying sexual acts on the basis that they are not them selves married (to each other)
Can't remember which film it was now but one review included a sex scene in impudence/hate because an act of sex was portrayed "without mounting ecstasy" !!!
This message has been edited by ohnhai, 23 February 2005 23:30 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Coragyps, posted 02-23-2005 6:20 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Rand Al'Thor
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 18 (188011)
02-24-2005 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by pink sasquatch
02-23-2005 2:35 PM


Wow, they said "stopping bullets with the mind" (From the Matrix)was a offence to God, lol.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-23-2005 2:35 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by coffee_addict, posted 02-24-2005 2:14 AM Rand Al'Thor has not replied
 Message 10 by custard, posted 02-24-2005 3:04 AM Rand Al'Thor has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 9 of 18 (188013)
02-24-2005 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Rand Al'Thor
02-24-2005 2:03 AM


Oh come now, we all know that only god is capable of stopping speeding bullets

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 02-24-2005 2:03 AM Rand Al'Thor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Phat, posted 02-24-2005 4:15 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 18 (188018)
02-24-2005 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Rand Al'Thor
02-24-2005 2:03 AM


bullet time = heresy
Apparently I missed the 'thou shalt not stop leaden projectiles with thine own mind' commandment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 02-24-2005 2:03 AM Rand Al'Thor has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 11 of 18 (188025)
02-24-2005 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by coffee_addict
02-24-2005 2:14 AM


Thou shalt NOT NOT NOT!
LOL...I find it funny, also! Christians are their own worst enemy
and Gods poorest advertising! (sigh) I wonder if some fundies use the rating system and then justify watching off color movies on the grounds that they now know when to turn their heads or mute the sound!
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-24-2005 02:17 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by coffee_addict, posted 02-24-2005 2:14 AM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-24-2005 10:37 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 15 by Brian, posted 02-24-2005 4:47 PM Phat has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 12 of 18 (188095)
02-24-2005 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Phat
02-24-2005 4:15 AM


CAP project review: The Bible
Would anyone be interested in subjecting the Bible to the scrutiny of CAP's "WISDOM" rating system?
It seems to me it contains an endless supply of Wanton Violence/Crime/Sex/Homosexuality/Nudity/Impudence/Hate/Offense to God...
But can it beat their assessment of the South Park movie?
I think it would be hilarious to submit to the CAP project and/or post on-line a complete, well-referenced CAP-style assessment of the Bible - complete with the implication that children and good Christian families must be protected and sheltered from such filth...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Phat, posted 02-24-2005 4:15 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Cthulhu, posted 02-24-2005 1:34 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 5852 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 13 of 18 (188150)
02-24-2005 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by pink sasquatch
02-24-2005 10:37 AM


Re: CAP project review: The Bible
But can it beat their assessment of the South Park movie?
Maybe. They missed plenty of stuff from the South Park movie. Like Jesus marching off to war.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-24-2005 10:37 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 14 of 18 (188199)
02-24-2005 4:31 PM


Dawn of the Dead 2004
quote:
She and her husband, after taking a shower together with nothing left to the imagination, are interrupted in bed by their 12 or so year old daughter with most of her lower face missing and blood covering the front of her nightie.
First of all, the movie didn't show anything in the shower scene. Get over it! Everybody has a back, and that's all we're shown.
That girl wasn't their daughter. She was their neighbor.
quote:
Ana is chased by other walking dead and wrecks her car into a tree.
No, she wasn't. If you're going to review this movie, at least get it right!
quote:
The amount of gore and killing has probably not be equaled in any film I have eve seen.
Apparently, this guy has never seen the movie "Dead-Alive". It was ranked as the most blood-filled movie at the time and hasn't been challenged by any movie after it.
quote:
[Ps. 141:4] "The conclusion of the public health community, based on over 30 years of research, is that viewing entertainment violence can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values and behavior, particularly in children." says the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry in a Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence on Children, Congressional Public Health Summit . "Its effects are measurable and long-lasting [ten years or more]."
Psalm 141:4 Incline not my heart to any evil thing, to practice wicked works with men that work iniquity: and let me not eat of their dainties.
How the hell did this guy make a connection between paslm 141:4 and the movie?
quote:
"Children who see a lot of violence are more likely to view violence as an effective way of settling conflicts. Children exposed to violence are more likely to assume the acts of violence are acceptable behavior."
There's a reason why the movie was rated R.

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 15 of 18 (188202)
02-24-2005 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Phat
02-24-2005 4:15 AM


Re: Thou shalt NOT NOT NOT!
I wonder if some fundies use the rating system and then justify watching off color movies on the grounds that they now know when to turn their heads or mute the sound!
On that point, we had a thing on Channel 4 over here for a while which involved a small red triangle appearing in the upper right hand corner of the tv screen just before something 'dodgey' was about to happen in a movie. It was great because you could read a book until the triangle appeared then watch what was happening!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Phat, posted 02-24-2005 4:15 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Coragyps, posted 02-24-2005 5:52 PM Brian has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024