CAP Alert review of Sin City

[gobear]

@mobo85

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.

I get what you’re saying, but I still maintain that even his goal of reviewing for moral content is meaningless if he can’t discern the context in which the images are presented. Compare Capalert to screenit.com, a movie review site that also provides a guide to the visual content of films, but in a much more useful and intelligent manner.

[Larry_Borgia]

Maybe it’s just me, but reading the review I got the wierd feeling that the writer secretly liked the movie, though of course he can’t admit that, not even to himself.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Liberal

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.

Sorry to do this to you, Lib, but I have to make some minor corrections. The first three items are relatively trivial.

Galatians 2:1 should be 3:1

You spelled [symbol]mwroV[/symbol] with an omicron instead of an omega. That actually changes the meaning of the word (even though they both transliterate to moros in English) since [symbol]moroV[/symbol] with an omicron means “fate,” “destiny” or even “death” in Greek. [symbol]mwroV[/symbol] with an omega means “foolish,” “stupid,” “inane,” It’s where we get the English word “moron” and it carries a similar tone of imprecation in Greek.

You also should have spelled [symbol]anohtoV[/symbol] with an eta instead of an epsilon but that’s of less consequence since it doesn’t change the meaning of the word and it still transliterates the same.

Now, regarding [symbol]anohtoV[/symbol], it’s been my experience that Strongs can be a little selective in its translations and a rendering of “impious” or “Godless” is not really accurate. The roots of the word, a-noetos literally mean “without understanding,” “without thought,” “without sense.” Anoetos definitely carries a connotation akin to “foolish” or “silly” or even “ridiculous.” I’m not sure where Strong gets a definition of “impious,” but a look at my Oxford Greek Lexicon (which is massive) gives a catelogue of definitions such as “unknowing”, “without understanding”, “not in the province of thought”, “unheard of”, “foolish”, “silly” and “senseless,” but I don’t see a definition of “impious” or “Godless.” I suppose “not understanding” could be interpreted as “faithless” but I think even that would be a stretch.

I have learned not trust Strongs for this reason. They massage the definitions to serve a theological agenda.

[Muad_Dib]

He did make the line “Cauterizing any vein of escape”. I really like that.

[Muad_Dib]

Diogenes, how did you come to learn so much about theology? I have read you expounding on such matters before and have always been impressed.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Muad'Dib

Diogenes, how did you come to learn so much about theology? I have read you expounding on such matters before and have always been impressed.

Technically, I don’t so much know theology as I know Biblical criticism. I’ve given my meager academic credentials several times on this board - I have a BA in Religious Studies with a Minor in Classical Languages - but I’ve probably done more study and research since I graduated than I did in college. I guess you could say I’m a lay scholar but I think of myself as being more akin to a Bible crit “hobbyist.” I’ve also tried to push myself to keep studying Greek and Latin. I enjoy them. I would also like to pursue Hebrew sometime before I die but I haven’t gotten around to it yet.

[Electronic_Chaos]

@Larry Borgia

Maybe it’s just me, but reading the review I got the wierd feeling that the writer secretly liked the movie, though of course he can’t admit that, not even to himself.

I actually pondered that question over in IMHO

[Liberal]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Sorry to do this to you, Lib, but I have to make some minor corrections. The first three items are relatively trivial.

Galatians 2:1 should be 3:1

You spelled [symbol]mwroV[/symbol] with an omicron instead of an omega. That actually changes the meaning of the word (even though they both transliterate to moros in English) since [symbol]moroV[/symbol] with an omicron means “fate,” “destiny” or even “death” in Greek. [symbol]mwroV[/symbol] with an omega means “foolish,” “stupid,” “inane,” It’s where we get the English word “moron” and it carries a similar tone of imprecation in Greek.

You also should have spelled [symbol]anohtoV[/symbol] with an eta instead of an epsilon but that’s of less consequence since it doesn’t change the meaning of the word and it still transliterates the same.

Now, regarding [symbol]anohtoV[/symbol], it’s been my experience that Strongs can be a little selective in its translations and a rendering of “impious” or “Godless” is not really accurate. The roots of the word, a-noetos literally mean “without understanding,” “without thought,” “without sense.” Anoetos definitely carries a connotation akin to “foolish” or “silly” or even “ridiculous.” I’m not sure where Strong gets a definition of “impious,” but a look at my Oxford Greek Lexicon (which is massive) gives a catelogue of definitions such as “unknowing”, “without understanding”, “not in the province of thought”, “unheard of”, “foolish”, “silly” and “senseless,” but I don’t see a definition of “impious” or “Godless.” I suppose “not understanding” could be interpreted as “faithless” but I think even that would be a stretch.

I have learned not trust Strongs for this reason. They massage the definitions to serve a theological agenda.

Thank you. I stand corrected on all counts.

[Lord_Ashtar]

@Larry Borgia

Maybe it’s just me, but reading the review I got the wierd feeling that the writer secretly liked the movie, though of course he can’t admit that, not even to himself.

How can you not like seeing Jessica Alba dancing on stage in skimpy outfits?

[silenus]

@Lord Ashtar

How can you not like seeing Jessica Alba dancing on stage in skimpy outfits?

I can. I want to see Jessica Alba dancing on stage nekkid!!!

[Larry_Borgia]

I recall reading or hearing somewhere (The Washington Post, I think), that they wanted her to be naked but she wouldn’t do it.

[mobo85]

Another useless thought. On the homepage link to the essay entitled “R-13,” the sentence “Don’t let PG-13 fool you” appears. Apparently, “fool” is okay as a verb, but not a noun.

[mobo85]

And the title of another essay, “Ju-udge Not Lest Ye Be Ju-udged!,” reminds me of Homsar so much it isn’t even funny.

[dropzone]

@Larry Borgia

I recall reading or hearing somewhere (The Washington Post, I think), that they wanted her to be naked but she wouldn’t do it.

I think it’s so nice when an actress is able to stand up for her beliefs when she risks being laughed at for her pretentions. Though as an actress she is little more than a pretty face and a phenomenal body she is sticking with what she thinks is right.

What? She did it because she wants to be seen as a serious actress? But didn’t she see “Dark Angel?” :eek:

[Slacker]

What a bizarre site. I can understand why he’s hurting for donations - I can’t think of who exactly would find this useful. And I’m listed right there in who the site is for! (youth leaders) These reviews are supposed to be objective?

I stomached the horrid grammar for a few minutes to check out a few write ups. His dissection of The Incredibles is pretty funny…

I was reminded today by an attentive reader of something I had failed to incorporate into the analysis. Toward the end of the show, the Parr baby indeed underwent several transformations otherwise known as shape-shifts. One of the shape-shifts was to a demon/devil. It may have even been intended to picture Satan himself. Maybe that is a satirical jab at, for example, the “terrible two’s”, but portrayal of a baby physically as a devil is hardly something at which to poke fun, especially since youth appear to be the prime target of Satan’s works.

Oh noes! We saw that while my wife was pregnant. I hope we didn’t doom our baby. I looked up a few other movies I’ve enjoyed and found similar results. Perhaps I should read one of his inspections of a movie I hated. How about Jersey Girl?

Not even yet knowing how to change a diaper since grandpa had been doing it until now, Ollie made quite a mess with the talcum powder not only on Gertie but on his nice dark suit as well … moments before a key presentation to dozens of writers. That scene may sound like a chuckle-maker, especially for all the dads reading this, but Smith decided to use a real baby. A real nude baby. In several shots.

LOL! He also lists the following abominations (imagine a [sic] after each of these; save me the trouble of typing it every time):

• combativeness in the emergency room toward those not to blame
• dead at giving birth
• physical strike at doctor with the news of wife’s death
• marital argument
• detailed portrayal of childbirth
• public school invading home by having children write about their families
• lie by a child

Hee. Almost makes me like this piece of garbage a little more. Looks like I have a new site to kill time with during the slow periods at work this week.

[Lord_Ashtar]

@silenus

I can. I want to see Jessica Alba dancing on stage nekkid!!!

Touche.

[Cervaise]

@Larry Borgia

Maybe it’s just me, but reading the review I got the wierd feeling that the writer secretly liked the movie, though of course he can’t admit that, not even to himself.

The bit where he says, “most movies take one or two pages of notes to summarize, this took seven and a half pages” seemed to cry out for a followup clause, “and I had to see it six times to make sure I got everything.”

[beergeek279]

Whew!!! South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut still keeps the crown as the highest CAP ID of all time: 10.56!! I saw the movie before it came out, but this has inspired me to watch it over and over again, so likely I’ll thumb my nose and go see Sin City at some point too

[ISiddiqui]

@Selkie

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.

Well apart from the non-translucent nudity in the film, there are some shots of prostitutes with see through material over their brests.

[Selkie]

@ISiddiqui

Well apart from the non-translucent nudity in the film, there are some shots of prostitutes with see through material over their brests.

That interpretation makes sense, but I’m having trouble distinguishing between “translucent nudity” and “ghosting of the female figure.” I guess the latter is a silhouette?

I’m almost relieved that I can’t understand someone who distinguishes among multiple types of revealing clothes and nudity. Criminy. I’m firmly of the camp that someone who spends that much time counting occurrence s of nudity, sex, violence, and foul language is someone who secretly enjoys all of the above.