I learned one particularly interesting fact: apparently calling somebody a “fool” is offensive to God. This is backed up with a reference to Matthew 5:22:
“But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.”
Well, we’ve devoted such effort to trashing CAP Alerts already that there isn’t much more to add. I do feel the need to snarkily point out that under the “fool” rule, Paul is in a lot of trouble. See Galatians, Chapter 3, verse 1.
–assault with sledge hammer, graphic (as opposed to a tastefully presented assault with sledge hammer)
–man kissing severed head (since, you know, it was a man’s head)
–biting gore
–thong nudity, repeatedly
–squeezing head murder
Really, why would any god-fearing person in their right mind think that Sin City is anything other than a violent, sexualized dystopia that is inappropriate for children? Gee, thanks for the hot information. I thought it was going to be about holy talking vegetables.
After looking that up, I’m guessing God has a special “Anyone Who Denies The Crucificion Occured Really Is A Fool” clause in His contract.
This isn’t the first time Carver has pointed out the Matt 5:22 thing. He’s been doing it for a while now.
One more funny thing I must point out: he’s becoming a conspiracy theorist now. Not only has he commented on his belief that there is more than one version of a film out in theaters (each with different content, some more obscene than others), he has also come up with this ridiculous conspiracy theory regarding Danny DaVito’s production company in his review of Be Cool:
Other than the fact that both the film and the production company are named for the same state, I don’t think there’s any connection between the two. But since I live in New Jersey, I love the idea of some great “NJ is a hotbed of sinful cinema” (sinema?) conspiracy theory. Why else would our local legendary character be known as the Jersey Devil? Hey, if there was some way to have the hockey team involved, that would be even more interesting!
Well actually, the TV commercials are fairly mis-leading in that they merely portray the more stylistic parts of the movie, sans the excessive violence, sexuality, etc.
Not everyone keeps up to date with comics, let alone even realize that the film is based on one.
I’m almost disappointed in the summary write-up; they’re usually more entertaining when the going gets grim & gritty.
Can anyone guess what is meant by “translucent nudity”? The mental image I get is of nude ghosts, and somehow I don’t think that’s what the writer intended. Then again, I still can’t figure out how “The Pacifier” is more morally objectionable than Constantine to these people.
I agree if they were expecting a soft-balling disney romp, they’d be sadly mistaken, but the previews certainly don’t display the movie as it actually is.
Apart from his nutty form of religious fanaticism, Tom Carder just isn’t intelligent or perceptive; his movie criticisms only list supposed moral offenses and completely ignore the intended audience and context for each film. He doesn’t seem to understand that material that would be unsuitable for a 4-year-old might be OK for a teen to watch. He’s also not a film buff and lacks a background of cinematic knowedge that might better inform his reviews. For instance, in his review of the Jonathan Demme remake of The Manchurian Candidate, Carder writes,
If he had bothered to rent the original, he would have known that, yes, the incest theme is in the 1962 version and was even more pronounced in the Richard Condon novel on which the movies were based. Someone who aspires to be a film critic A. ought to do research instead of indulging in ignorant speculation and B. ought already to have a love for and deep knowledge of film. Mind, even if Carder had seen more films, he’s so dimwitted that he wouldn’t understand them.
I also don’t get why he needs donations to review films. Lots of people finance their hobbies with day jobs, and watching two movies a week, writing the reviews, and posting them to his site shouldn’t be so onerous that he can’t also work. Moreover, his plea that lack of funds prevents him from reviewing some films is nonsense. He claims that he can’t review Sideways because of inadequate donations–dude, you can rent it at Blockbuster for $3.75!
Matthew 5:22 and Galatians 2:1 use two different words: [symbol]moros[/symbol] and [symbol]anoetos[/symbol] respectively.
The Matthew term is better translated as “impious”, or “godless” (Strongs 3474). The Galatians term is indeed “foolish” or “unwise” (Strongs 453).
The point of Matthew 5:22 is that making intellectual judgments ([symbol]raka[/symbol]) is ill advised, but making moral judgments ([symbol]moros[/symbol]) is categorgically prohibited.
Who on God’s green earth is crazy enough to think that, a movie called Sin City and has seen the previews and the R rating, this is something for children?!?!?!
Protecting what little ones?!?!!?
Beyond foolish.
He has stated a number of times that he is not a film critic in the literal sense of the word. His homepage features the phrase “On to the ‘reviews!’” with “reviews” in quotation marks. And in the site FAQ, he states:
His goal is not to review films for their artistic content, but for their moral content from a Christian standpoint. I’m not saying he does a good job of it, though.
