Has anyone else seen this nut case? he makes me laugh.
www.capalert.com
Remind me never to sit in front of these folks at the movies… :rolleyes:
To quote Styx (ironically):
“T-t-t-t-t-to much time on my hands…”
Crap. TOO
I have no problem with a web site designed to let parents know what the content of a movie is, so that parents can decide for themselves whether it’s appropriate. And it’s FINE with me if Christian critics (professional or self-appointed) want to set up web sites like this. But it’s disappointing when the critics in question are so ill-informed.
Example: though J.R.R. Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” is not an explicitly Christian morality tale like say, his colleague C.S. Lewis’ Narnia stories, LOTR definitely reflects Tolkien’s Christian beliefs, and Frodo is very much a Christ-figure. And yet, predictably, capalert seems to dismiss all this, simply because LOTR is couched in mysticism, mythology and symbolism… all of which makes fundamentalists nervous.
Just for the record :
On a related note…
http://somethingawful.com/archives/news-archive-22-2-2002.htm
On a random search through the reviews, you find that old chestnut “A Dog of Flanders” gets a cautionary yellow light and that one of the objections is to a shot of Ruben’s Decent from the Cross, a tremendous and well known religious painting, because Jesus, in the painting, is nude save for a modesty saving piece of gauze. The reviewer concedes that it is unlikely that Our Savior was crucified in evening cloths, but thinks that a naked Jesus is more than a little impious. God preserve me from true believers. Poor old Peter Paul Rubens, all those Jesus paintings, all that time ingratiating himself with the Spanish in Amsterdam, all that time cozying up to the Pope, only to be dissed as unsuitable for Christian children. We are in real trouble if these people ever focus on the Renaissance paintings of a bare breasted Virgin nursing the Christ Child.
Yeah, CAP Alert reviews show up on Fark all the time. If nothing else, go read the guy’s review of South Park.
Spider-Man got a black mark in the “impudence/hate” column for…facial piercing??
As I’ve mentioned before, I was raised Lutheran, and one of my memories from confirmation class was watching some boring movie about the life of Jesus. During the Crucifixion scene, our pastor mentioned to us that Jesus was probably crucified naked, as the Romans liked to do it that way for the added element of humiliation. Luckily, I was too young to make that “Why do all the good Christian girls love Jesus? Because he’s hung like this! [assuming crucifixion pose]” jokes…
In the Scorpion King review, under the Impudence/Hate category, it has “display of catching arrows coming directly at body trunk.”
Those impudent youngsters, trying to stop those arrows that are being shot at them! How dare they! Them and their damn music…
A good friend of mine uses CAP reviews as a barometer of what movies to see. If the very looney CAP guy hates it, it’s certain to be right up my friend’s alley.
OK, having said that…
Just gave the site a brief glance, and from what I can tell, they remove scenes from the context of the film, and criticize individual scenes.
Now, if they want to tell parente, “Um, this movie depicts a violent rape/murder/whatever scene, you might want to wait until the kiddies have gone to bed before you pop it in the VCR”, that is valid. But to claim a film is pornographic/anti-family/anti-Christian because it has a particular scene in it…
Maybe the disturbing scene was * intended * to be disturbing, to get across the point that a particular character, or, hell, society (or at least the version of it that said character is a product of) is evil!
[juvenile Peeping Tom] "I saw the neighbor lady’s boobs!] [/juvenile Peeping Tom]
[JPT’s parents] "Oh my god, the neighbor lady showed her boobs to my son!!![/JPT’s parents]
[Neighbor lady] “Hey, what was your son doing on a ladder looking into my window while I was undressing for bed?” [/Neighbor lady]
Sorry, bad analogy, but it does sort of half-assed make the point that things should be considered in context, not in isolation.
These people are not just narrow-minded, they are shallow minded. They see only the surface of a movie, the particular scenes, whether the villian is actually nasty or not, and make their judgements based on that. They don’t ask, “What is the producer/director/screenwriter/actor trying to say by including this in the film?”
BTW, speaking as a Nice Catholic Girl, I found The Last Temptation of Christ to be very faith-affirming. It really drives home the point that when Christ was crucified, He didn’t just die, he gave up his life, gave up getting married, having children and grandchildren, and all the other stuff that comes with a life. Most of the Christian critics (my own catechist among them) couldn’t see past the fact that Jesus is portrayed as (OMG) having sex!!! (BTW, He was portrayed as being married, on His wedding night in the infamous scene)
I love that it says Blade II is “Offensive to God” because the film portrays vampirism as being caused by a virus! He also calls the movie “narcotic” entertainment. Shouldn’t that be “necrotic”? But what really gets me is that apparently I must have been napping or something with this bit of cinematic wonder appeared on the screen:
I saw the movie and I missed Natalie Portman’s ass??? :mad:
Is this a Catholic site?
Oy vey.
From the site:
[quote]
After more than 500 movies I suspect I can say with credibility that any of the imagery of evil you have seen before now does not match the evil in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring.
[quote]
They should’ve put that on the poster.
Offense to God (O)(2):
thousands of demonic beings of various sort, some extremely graphic
many uses and portrayals of wizardry/sorcery
many threats by unholy things
multiple battles with sorcery using sorcery, some very, very graphic
many attacks by evil beings, some (especially one) very, very hideous
portrayal that being stabbed by an evil being’s sword will make the victim evil
many instances of demonic faces/eyes
unholy control of the elements to fight evil
claims of immortality
ability to choose unholy mortality or immortality
many mystic voices
sorcery to open mountain wall
light by sorcery
Am I the only one that thinks this makes LOTR sound really good?
Click on the link to the movie “Joshua” and you’ll see this under the Sex category:
…ghosting of female anatomy through clothing
What?
I think my favourite is for Spider Man:
[quote]
Offense to God:[ul][li]nine uses of God’s name in vain without the four letter expletive []promotion of evolution - “new species completed” with DNA sequencing pictorials[]talk of evolution[/ul]"…Yes, there is presentation and discussion of evolution in this film. Indeed, some pictorial display of DNA sequences being completed to form a new species is shown. But it’s a movie. It is not proof."[/li][/quote]
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.