There are inevitable comparisons being drawn between Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring by the secular worldview and the Christian faith. Comparisons are not being drawn between the two movies under any other "religion" I am aware of, not the Muslim or Tao or Jewish faiths or any other faith, just the Christian faith which is under more attack than any other faith. Maybe the Christian faith is under more attack [by the adversary through the unbelievers] than any other faith because it is the "right one": the one faith that poses the greatest and maybe the only real threat to the adversary."

But that doesn't mean reading his ravings-filled movie reviews isn't entertaining!  It's a bit depressing, to think there are really such screwed up people in America.  This guy is really just the Taliban, with less power.  If he were in charge imagine the life we'd all lead?  Thank God for separation of church and state.  *he said ironically*

The usually-entertaining CAP Alerts guy is keeping up with his current movie reviews, and while bored yesterday I skimmed over a few recent ones. I started off reading his review of Hero.

Offense to God noted lots of flying and suggestion of unholy forces at work and running on water in mockery of our Lord who walked on water [Gal. 6:7]. Whom else do you know of besides Jesus and to a lesser extent, Paul who has walked on water? The listing in the Findings/Scoring section will reveal all that was noted.

I thought this was an exceptionally ignorant comment, even for the CAP Alerts guy in his little "smack in the middle of nowhere" hick town. I realize that basic public schooling leaves children woefully-uneducated about the world, other cultures, and especially about their myths, but it just amazes me that anyone would be so ignorant as to think The Bible was the first religious text to include a character who walked on water. That talent is one of the standard god powers in numerous ancient cultures, and like most of the stories in the Bible, it's quite easy to find older myths form other cultures that were the inspiration for the Biblical version of events. Hell, Zoroastrianism basically gave early Judaism the concepts of monotheism, dualism, a savior, and more. What's a minor levitation miracle compared to that?

On a more general level, lots of ancient religions had gods who could walk on water. It was pretty much a default power for Chinese gods, and it shows up in numerous other religions as well, most of which originated thousands of years before Christianity. And if you think about it, why wouldn't walking on water be a common power? Isn't the whole point in having a god to give Him powers normal people don't possess?

Imagine you live thousands of years ago, (Which means no modern miracle skills, like the ability to hack any website, code bug-free C++, keep a cell phone call from cutting out in a tunnel, etc.) and you're creating your god's legends. He needs some miraculous superhero type powers. What'll you give him?

• Immortality is a must.
• Flight never hurts. (Walking on water is sort of a step down from this, so we'll group it in as a subset. As a bonus, it seems somewhat more believable to the new converts.)
• The ability to heal others. (Raising the dead is a step up.)
• Invulnerability.
• Tremendous strength.
• The ability to control the weather.
• The ability to transform things into other things or create things from nothing. (Water to wine, wine to urine, etc.)

That's just seven, or so, but you can throw in more specialized talents if you want a more unique god. Give Him the ability to skinwalk (transformation into animal forms), turn invisible, run super fast, see super far or in the dark, etc. Or just go for omniscience if you want to take the whole enchilada, though this isn't strongly-recommended, since what's the fun in having a god who knows everything before it happens?  How can you write any good legends about Him then?

If you look at the list of potential skills, Jesus was actually a pretty unimaginative character. Sure, the walking on water is cool, and sacrificing himself for the good of his people is a big winner, from a PR angle at least. But the rest of his exploits weren't all that impressive. He was a good public speaker, but not so powerful that everyone who heard him followed him. He wasn't physically strong or a war leader. He couldn't fly, or turn invisible, or make it rain. He could heal and raise the dead, though he did so sparingly, and he could transform things, but only minor stuff. Water to wine, for instance. Jesus didn't crank out any philosopher's stone riches, or turn his enemies into swine or anything really cool like that, unfortunately.

But even if I grant that the CAP Alerts guy didn't have much of a liberal arts education, he's on the internet. He's got access to Google. I did a quick search for people who could walk on water in myth, and after I refined my search string (to remove non-relevant results) I got hundreds of useful hits. Here are just a few from the first page of results, for pre-Christian gods (and others) who could walk on water. All results I found within 5 minutes of looking.

An Inuit (eskimo) God:

TOOTEGA
Old woman deity that was able to walk on water.

Greek "mythology":

Orion - Orion was a mighty hunter, who was given the ability to walk on water, by his father Poseidon.

Another Greek myth:

Zeus’ heart too was moved. He gave Tros in exchange for his son a pair of white prancing mares, deathless and able to walk on water, the very same that carried the immortals.

Chinese Unicorns:

The Unicorn, called by the Chinese Ch'i-lin, is a symbol of longevity, grandeur, contentment, illustrious offspring and wise administration. It is the incarnate essence of the Five Elements, the noblest of animals, and the emblem of perfect good. The Ch'i-lin combines good will, gentleness and benevolence, and for this reason is considered the King of Beasts. It can walk on water or land, and is careful to not kill insects or grass. It never drinks muddy water, and is always solitary in China, where it is thought to have a livespan of a thousand years.

So yes, lots of gods and other mythical creatures have been able to walk on water (or do far better things).

More specific to the movie Hero, the characters in that film who "walk on water" don't do anything of the kind. There is a long, flying, balletic fight scene over a pond, in which two characters swoop around in almost weightless fashion, only touching the water with the tips of their weapons, and then swooping up for several more slashing passes after that. I recall them actually having to run over the water once or twice during the scene, when they got hit or lost altitude, but it was as part of an action sequence, while fighting with swords. There's really no way it could have been less like the Jesus walking on water legend in the Bible, and to say the movie scene was inspired or based on or insulting to the Christian legend is pretty ridiculous.

Elsewhere in recent CAP reviews, I got a laugh out of his outrage over the "spooning" incident in Without A Paddle. (Scroll down to the quoted part in a box for the spooning bit.)  Bizarrely, he seems to think that spooning is some sort of deviant, exclusively-homosexual practice, and the fact that a 12 y/o boy thinks it's hilarious to see non-gay grown men spooning to stay warm in a rain storm is further evidence of the imminent Sodom & Gomorrah fate awaiting the entire US.

I'm sure homosexuals spoon, but so does everyone else, including mothers with their babies. It's about the most natural way for two humans to lie down together, and doesn't necessarily have any sexual connotations at all. Additionally, the term is utterly logical and self-evident to anyone who has ever seen a silverware drawer, and who hasn't seen a couple, of whatever gender, lying like that, even if they're fully dressed in a public park or on the beach or on TV or wherever? As for the movie, through various idiotic mechanizations the three male leads are cold at night in the rain. What are they supposed to do to keep warm? Of course it's stupid and immature humor, but that's what makes comedies work, these days (which is why I haven't paid money to see a comedy in half a decade).  The fact that any semi-intimate male-to-male contact, no matter how slapstick and non-sexual, is cause for outrage over the homosexual agenda, says far more about the myopic world view the CAP Alerts guy has than anything else.

Oh, and this bit in his Napoleon Dynamite review simply baffled me:

The only uses of the three/four letter word vocabulary I could find in the cut I saw was the conversational snippet of being angered and the use of the name of eternal fire as an expletive in a background song. But there were several uses of the euphemism of the most foul of the foul words which where treated not as the most foul of the foul words but the same as one of the three/four letter words.

I guess "the most foul of foul words" is "fuck?" So someone said "screw" or "bang" or "freak" or any of the hundreds of other words that can be used to mean "fuck" and that's as bad, to him, as saying the word itself?

June 16, 2004

While I'm on the topic of weird and wacky movie reviews, you have to check out the CAP Alerts guy's commentary on The Chronicles of Riddick. Little did I know (I certainly didn't mention it in my review.) that the entire movie was a cleverly-calculated mockery of Christianity. Down to the name of Vin Diesel's production company.

This film clearly contains mockery of the Christian faith. Even one of the production companies is called One Race Productions.

In this Dune flavored sci-fi flick, the Necromongers are a race trying to proselytize all to their "faith." They are trying to convert all who live. And kill all who won't, trying to convert all to their faith but using violence and fear to intimidate. Here is where the first mockery of the Christian faith and the Scriptures appears. Clearly, this is pointing to the violent black spots of the Inquisition and the Crusades in the history of Christianity.

As is true of most opinion pieces, this one says far more about the writer than the topic being discussed. Since the CAP Alerts guy spends all of his time obsessing about and feeling defensive because of his Christianity, he sees the depiction of the conquering Necromonger army as anti-Christian. The Necromongers use a form of brain washing to "convert" people to their cause. It's obviously a sort of mind control/brain washing, with the machine stabbing two points into the sides of the neck in the process. Why not the brain/skull? Good question. In any event, the neck stabbing leaves a scar, and the CAP Alerts guy sagely concludes that the scars on the sides of all of the Necromonger's necks are obviously a reference to the "mark of the beast."  So if they didn't have a scar would that be a sign of their divine power to heal?  You can turn anything into anything if you try hard enough.

Mr. CAP Alerts goes on to conclude that the depiction of a destroying army of brainwashed monsters is an unfair reference to the Christian Crusades of the Middle Ages.  He then digresses and starts quoting some laughable figures about how Christians have been persecuted and murdered through time, and even today.

In the twentieth century, Communists persecuted Christians horribly. During the height of Communism, an average of 330,000 Christians were killed every year (Foxe's Book of Martyrs, op. cit., p. 326). Although there are still a few Communist countries, like Cuba and China, where Christians are persecuted and tortured, it is Muslim countries that are responsible for killing the most Christians today. Between 155,000 and 159,000 Christians are currently being killed throughout the world each year - simply for being Christian. Just do a web search on "Christians killed" and you will get a perspective of the issue.

So there are almost 160k Christians being killed every year, simply for their religion? You'd think that would make the news a bit more often.

His review continues making no sense, before it takes a substantial detour into discussing why people shouldn't have a "fear of god" unless, of course, they should have a fear of god. It's pretty convoluted. Here's the beginning and ending paragraphs of his mini-sermon.

The "politics" of the Necromongers themselves are mockery of Christianity by relying upon popular misconception of "fear of God" to frighten non-believers into submission. And many who don't understand the idea of the "fear of God", usually the young, misuse and belittle "fear of God" in bravado to defy His Authority. I am going to take this as an opportunity to do a little preaching and throw in a sermon to explain "fear of God."

...

So fear God, yes. Be afraid of Him, no. Not unless you should be.

It might go without saying, but I didn't see anything at all in the movie, on any level, that related to this. The Necromongers had no religion or higher beliefs, other than that they could someday reach the "Underverse" which sounded something like a promised land; not that the CAP Alerts guy mentions that, when he could have made (sort of) a point about it. The Lord High Marshall had been to the Underverse and had come back "half alive and half something else." However, like most other cool things in the movie, this concept was barely addressed. He did a cool "rip the soul out of a guy" trick early on, and tried it later on Riddick, but other than that his only special power was moving super fast in bursts, like the charge attack of a Paladin. You'd think that being half-dead from the Underverse would bring a few more interesting changes, but apparently not.

Riddick had some good elements, and it reminded me a bit of Underworld. That movie wasn't any good either, but it had some nice design and some potentially interesting characters; it just didn't have a story that was 1/10th as good as it could have been, given the various elements of the movie. Underworld was closer to living up to its potential, mostly since it didn't have anything as silly as Riddick outrunning the sunrise for 29.6k across an impossibly rugged planet surface, but both movies could have been far, far better in the hands of more talented writers, editors, and directors.

As for CAP Alerts guy, I think his conclusions are laughable; Riddick isn't The Matrix, with obvious Christian parallels. It's cheesy scifi, one of hundreds of movies/books/TV shows where an invading army comes to brainwash and conquer. Only someone with a perpetual case of Jesus on the brain would choose to take it as a big Christian metaphor.

Incidentally, according to Malaya, Vin Diesel's production company is called "One Race Productions" because everyone always asks Vin, who is clearly an interesting mixture of races, what race he is. His answer became "one race," hence the name of his company. And I'm sure he'd be quite surprised to find out that it's some sort of Christian-taunting thing.

February 6, 2004

The first review I read was of Calendar Girls, a light-hearted movie about 50 y/o+ English ladies who decided to do a nude calendar to earn some money for their local hospital.  (You can see the RT collected reviews page here, for a more rational reaction.  It earned 77% positive.) It's sort of a female The Full Monty, and by the PG-13 rating I'm assuming there's not any actual nudity.  Probably even less than Janet displayed during the Superbowl halftime show.

In the top portion of the poster art is a woman who, behind the calendar, is nude. I have done what I can to reduce the allusions and implications of nudity such as how much of the model's breasts were revealed in the original without compromising the creativity and talents of the photographer. But she, in the upper portion of the poster, is a nameless, faceless nobody, forcing the observer to focus all attention on the fact that she is nude. That she is shown again in the lower portion center full-faced, identifiable in the upper portion only by the hat she wears in both portions, does not detract from the "statement" made by the upper portion regarding the "true value" of the woman. The photography is high quality and clever regarding its compatibility with the theme of the show, but the statement it makes is immoral. As are all the other dozens of like images, some much more brazen, in Calendar Girls.

Of coure there's no way to tell if she's nude or not, and I rather suspect she's got a strapless bra or swimsuit (or full length gown, for all we can tell) on in the photo.  But that's beside the point. I just enjoyed his rambling diatribe about how it's bad that she's nude, or faceless, or not faceless, or something.  It's just so "crazy guy with a beard on a box in Central Park" that I love it.  From a safe distance, at least. He really comes to life in his Bullet Points of Evil section though, when he gets to the "Sexual Immorality" section:

• Sexual Immorality (S)
  • porn mag nudity, repeatedly
  • sex comments, repeatedly
  • calendar model nudity
  • long sex talk by teens
  • picture nudity
  • teens with porn mag
  • brief upper female nudity, repeatedly
  • adult in underwear, repeatedly
  • nudity hidden only by convenience objects, repeatedly, frequently, of individuals and of group
  • nude drawing
  • side female nudity, repeatedly
  • side.rear nudity
  • revealing swim wear

I was wondering why he was so obsessed with this innocent movie, compared to all of the actual R-rated movies that have real nudity and violence and rape and murder and such, until I realized that it's exactly because this one is "innocent" and that most people wouldn't bat an eye at it.  It's the sort of movie you'd take your grandmother to see, if she were even the slightest bit young at heart, and both have a good time at, and that's what bothers the CAP Alerts guy.  The fact the he knows most people won't be bothered by it, and he feels that it's his mission to educate and warn us all about the perils of this sort of insidious evil.

Now I haven't seen the movie, but I know what's allowed in a PG-13 movie in the US, and there's no way they can show more than a brief moment of butt, or side view nudity (no breasts or front of body) and at most a quick glimpse of breasts, in a non-sexual setting. So obviously there's nothing like porn mag nudity, unless it's just a reaction shot of actors viewing such nudity. And there's no real nudity shown in the calendar models, or drawings, or whatever.

Can you imagine growing up with someone as insane as this regulating your entertainment choices?  Is there any way you wouldn't turn out to be a porn addict, or self-loathing homosexual, or flasher, or Peeping Tom, or rapist, or serial killer, or something equally pleasant?  And if you had a parent anything like this guy, you have my sincere condolences. 

That one was unsettling, but I thought his review of The Butterfly Effect was absolutely his best work since the original LotR/Harry Potter reviews, in which he detailed Satan's plot to take over the Christian world through the corrupting influence of movies that showed magic, which as well all know is Satanic in origin, being used for good, all to lead children into experimentation with Ouija boards, and the like. I'm not joking about this, I assure you.  Check out the CAP Alerts entry on my Links page for more details and links.

His Butterfly Effect review isn't a big deal, and it's hard to object to anything he says, since all of the normal critics I've read objected to the offensive subject matter (child porn and abuse) and the exploitive fashion it was portrayed in as well. It's the CAP Alerts guy's pre-movie discussion that made my head spin.

When standing in line for admission to The Butterfly Effect, I was graced by a never before seen sight for the Driftwood Theater - bonafide punks with the sides of the head shaved, spiked hair, the black spiked and studded dog collar, spiked and studded black wrist bands, etc. Complete with a bunch of steel poking through them. They tried to get in to see this movie but the girl did not have an ID with her. She was obviously out of her element, looking as though she donned "punk" temporarily, pretending to be punk for the evening to easily get back to real life tomorrow morning. At least I was able to gain further confirmation of my previous observations of "punk." One observation in particular, in addition to noting again the signature attitude of "It ain't good enough, no matter what 'it' is", was that they certainly had a way with word. No, not a way with "words", just 'word.' At least these three favored the one word. While looking for an opportunity to open a dialogue with them, I was hoping they would initiate conversation -- I would have even welcomed a confrontation -- so I could maybe slide into a little witnessing or at least tell them of Jesus' love for us as we are (we don't have to be "clean" to invite Jesus into our hearts). But apparently the folks found reason to not open any dialogue with me and quickly started walking away after the window clerk said "No ID, no ticket." They left too quickly for me to open any conversation with them without being obvious I guess Jesus was not ready for them to have such an experience ... through me anyway ... not yet. Besides, I think I had an hundred pounds over the biggest of them, which is likely related to another attribute of "punk" I have observed -- a propensity to prefer interacting only with easily intimidated people.

First of all, he lives in the middle of Buttfuck, Texas, so I guess it really is unusual for him to see any kids dressed up in punk fashion.  And we can perhaps excuse his "Well goll-y lookit them thar weirdos!" reaction to something that normal, more-worldly people would glance at, chuckle about the delusions and phases of youth, and then forget about a minute later, glad that we're not teenagers anymore.

But the stuff about wanting a confrontation, and apparently thinking about getting into a fight with them (re: the "I'm 100 pounds heavier and they'd be too pussy to fight someone larger than them." mention) for no reason other than how unusually they were dressed, is creepy.  What's to say they weren't all deeply religious, Christian even? I'd bet, given the hicksville part of the country they live in, that their parents raised them Christian.  Does the CAP Alerts guy really think that anyone who dresses a little punk, even the girl he describes who was clearly in a weekend amusement costume, must be a real anarchist communist atheist, or what?

I guess he does, and perhaps that's not so unusual for small-minded people, but it's just so odd to me to think that way; judging someone so completely by their appearance.  Almost everyone, especially teenagers, is desperately trying to be something they are not; usually something more interesting than their boring ass self.  Hence black rap guys styling themselves as criminals and outlaws with outlandish clothing to match, and regular black guys going the wankster route to try and ape them and seem cool to their equally bland friends, and then white teens going the wigger route and copying the black fashions and styles and trends, and so on.

Would I be happy if my kid were so clueless and such a fashion victim that they got a bunch of piercings and wore silly clothing just to be different?  No, I'd be upset, and wonder how I'd failed to give them enough self esteem and self confidence to just be themselves, without trying to define themselves as opposed to society. But I'd also remember that most teens feel very outcast and outside much of the time, and that that sort of costumed reaction was probably not a real big deal.  And then I'd ground them for a month.

More from his review:

I also wondered why punks would be interested in The Butterfly Effect. Maybe it was Thumper (Ethan Suplee) in the show who was punk. Actually he seemed to be a mix of punk and goth, maybe more goth than punk if the two are separable. And in the intro was a comment of the chaos theory about a single butterfly wing being able cause a typhoon somewhere. The connection I guess is the idea of chaos as it relates to anarchy, an apparent aim of the punk lifestyle of no rules and no laws.

This is just sad.  Like they're sitting around at home, in their Satanic cave or crack house or sewer or wherever these hardcore punks from Granbury, Texas live, and plotting their movie attendance that carefully.  How about they were trying to go to the Butterfly Effect since it was the only remotely teen-skewing movie opening that weekend, and they feel utterly bored with the flat land and rednecks and strip malls that make up the Midwest suburban hell they live in, and watching Mtv for a glimpse of something more interesting than the same conservative boredom you've been stuck in your whole life gets old after 15 years?

The oddest thing about the review is that he quotes a very long email at the end of it, from a self-professed Christian Punk, who talks all about what punks and goths are, how the looks came about and grew popular, etc. It's far more interesting than anything in the guy's actual review, IMHO.

December 23, 2003

The ever-amusing CAP Alerts guy has gotten his review of RotK up as well, but unfortunately it's pretty dry.  He admires the artistry of the films, while decrying the violence and working in his usual rap about anything with magic.

Though The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is a magnificent work of art it is "hardcore" PG-13, fortunately not because of the hardcore language and sexual immorality typical of PG-13s, but unfortunately because of intense and graphic violence [Prov. 3:31-32] and issues of occult - witchcraft, sorcery, wizardry (Offense to God). [Deut. 18:10 - 12; 2Chr. 33:6; Rev. 22:14-15]

This is followed in the review by a long paragraph about how basically everything is a form of trickery promulgated by Satan to deceive us into accepting Satan and rejecting god, and how any style of adapting the bible to fit modern days and morals and realities is evil. I assume this guy reads Greek and Aramic so he can go back and read the original dead sea scrolls, since otherwise he's reading adaptions of the bible that were done when it was translated into various other languages centuries after it was originally written.  I also assume he cuts and pastes that spiel into every review of any movie with sorcery in it.  I couldn't get through it all, but click to the review if you want to try your luck at enduring his ramblings. 

This line from later in the review did crack me up though.

Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) continue their journey to Mordor and ultimately to Mount Doom to throw Precious into the inferno of Mount Doom from which the ring was made. "Precious" is a name given to the focal ring which conjures in the wearer lust for evil and makes the wearer invisible.

Um, it's not actually named "Precious," sir.  "Precious" is an adjective they use to describe the ring, much as the Bible is your own precious.  The only movie I've ever seen with anything actually named "Precious" was Buffalo Bill's yappy Bichon Friese in Silence of the Lambs.  And the dog was not shiny and golden and worn over a finger. Though it did like chicken...

December 11, 2003

To tide you over, I suggest that crazy CAP Alerts guy's review, which while not his finest work, does have some funny stuff in the bullet points of evil section:

Impudence/Hate (I)

• four uses of the three/four letter word vocabulary (though used literally in accordance with proper definitions, they were used more as an excuse to add them)
• adolescent deceit
• buying favor
• lie to protect identity
• bird defecation on shoulder

Ahh yes, "adolescent deceit." It's truly a sin before the eyes of Baby Jesus when a movie doesn't get an "R" rating with that sort of foulness in it.  Not to mention a joke about a parrot shitting on someone's shoulder.  That's certainly enough to turn a child to heroin abuse then and there.

And speaking of that crazy CAP Alerts guy, here's most of a mail from Donnie about him.

Anyway, I was reading your blog yesterday and saw the link where you said that the CAP Alert guy was not going to review "Bad Santa", so I clicked the link to take a look and see if it mentioned why. It mentions why only in very vague terms, not playing close enough, not enough time, not enough donations, not enough whatever.. As it is never specified which could be the cause of it, I figure the guy just decided that the parents would be smart enough to figure out that a movie called "Bad Santa" would not be a good children's movie ('cause seriously, in his eyes, there is never even a Santa. At birth the baby Jesus only got gold and frankensomething.).

When I did link through to the CAP Alert site, though, I did see a review that I wanted to look at. That was his review of "The Matrix: Revolutions". I read through that entire review, and then looked at their "W.I.S.D.O.M." meter to see how it shook down. I was actually amazed at how well it scored, yet at the same time, a bit disappointed at how they (he) tried to make it sound like a direct rip-off of the bible. "Good vs. Evil" , yes and so it has been since the beginning of time but, Neo is Jesus? The Architect is Satan? The Oracle is God? Mr. Smith is the Anti-Christ? I mean, come on man, it is all fictional (like the bible and baby Jesus for that matter.), so what is the problem?

Once I had enough of that crap, I saw that they had their review of the "G" rated movie "Brother Bear" there as well. I figured I would take a look at a movie that he would think would be okay for children.

He (they) did not rip this one apart nearly as much as the others, but still people take their children to see this movie to entertain them for an hour or two (the story is good, the animation is good, it is very wholesome). The CAP Alert guy is saying that they use the phrase "The Spirits" to often. Like "The Spirits tell me that I need to do it." The movie loses points for that in the Cap Alert guys eyes.

This is a CARTOON, and trying to teach children about sharing, caring, loving, respect for elders and more. This cartoon is doing it without ever killing anyone, except there is a 'suicide' to save the son late in the movie.

When I think back over all the books I have ever read, and I try to think of which one had the most murder, death, debauchery and sin, the one book that comes to mind is the BIBLE.

Thank the random fluctuations of time and space that I don't have any children. If I ever had children they would not be allowed to read that crap.

As I replied to Donnie, I assume the CAP Alerts guy has a FAQ somewhere that explains why it's bad for a movie to have violence, depictions of war, slavery, adultery, murder, sex, etc, when the Bible is simply full of that sort of thing, and Mr. CAP Alerts is supposedly living his life based on that Bible. I guess he'd say that his site is just there to inform, and to give parents a guide to movies, but you'll note how he often (usually) condemns an entire movie if there's more than just a little bit of violence or foulness in it.

So that rule doesn't apply to the Bible because...?

And I'm sure he recommends parents not allow their children to read the Bible, since it's full of the sorts of things he says they should avoid in movies.  Right?  Or does he have a site page with a review of the Bible, and perhaps notes on which sections are the most sexual or violent, so that parents can avoid reading those aloud to their children?

It's also interesting that while his conception of God apparently couldn't relate the tales in the Bible without using violence and other bad stuff to make His point, modern movie directors are expected to do so, and damned when they don't.

And yes, picking out hypocrisies in the behavior and attitudes of the faithful is rather like shooting fish in a kitchen sink, but like ventilating the aforementioned ichthyos in the sink, it's still sorta fun.

November 28, 2003

CAP Alerts: I used to love this site for the comedic value of the uber-Christian PoV of the reviews, but as I look there now I realize I haven't visited it in months.  I'm not sure why; there wasn't any conscious decision to stop reading it, and I can still fondly remember some of the old reviews.  The South Park review is one of the funniest things I've ever read in my life, and is about the best promotion for it possible.  I can't see anyone reading that and not wanting to see the movie.  While not an amusing review (too much of the "tut tut" type commentary), I still think of the bullet-listed "cohabitation" and laugh every time I see any mention of The Bourne Identity.

But for whatever reason, I never seem to check that site anymore.  I'm taking a look now, and whaddya know, I'm getting a bit of that old magic back.  His Haunted Mansion review is pretty good, and I laughed out loud at a few remarks.  All humor in the CAP reviews is entirely unintentional on the part of the author, of course:

Though clearly fantasy, the film is filled with necromancy and divination -- communicating with the dead and seeking their guidance instead of the Lord's. Saul, son of Kish, paid dearly for that [1 Samuel 28:3-20]. And if you find communicating with the dead as innocuous or as a fine jest, seek for yourself what God has to say about it. Try a search on any good search engine for (+"communicate with the dead" +Bible) using all characters between but not including the parentheses.

Do you believe in ghosts? That is a question Ramsley asks of Jim a number of times and by Ramsley asking that question in the movie it will be asked in the minds of your kids if they watch Haunted Mansion. And the question that is formed in their mind may not be asked of you by them. Did your kids ask you if ghosts were real when they heard the cowardly Lion of The Wizard of Oz repeatedly say "I DO relieve in spooks, I do, I do, I do" while trembling in fear? Well? Do you believe in ghosts? I do. One ghost anyway. The Holy Ghost. Yes, spirits do exist in the ethereal and unholy realms. But if we have been covered by the Blood of the Lamb, we have nothing to worry about. Can unholy ghosts become a physical manifestation? I have no idea and have witnessed no evidence of it.

I suppose that for me, the novelty of this guy's worldview has worn off.  After you read a couple of dozen reviews they all begin to sound the same, and it takes an especially outrageous comment to break through my boredom to reach my funnybone.  Here's a typically wandering excerpt from his Brother Bear review that had me yawning until the end, when I cracked up.

Comments such as Don't upset the spirits" and "The great spirits have revealed to me..." pepper the script. Such is a most difficult dilemma to consider: that spirits have an influence over our lives. Indeed, each child has a guardian angel which beholds the very face of God [Matt. 18:10]. Could not the spirits of the ancient beliefs not have been their concept of the angels which watch over us? The contradiction comes as the beliefs expressed in this movie have animal spirits watching over us. Take great care, mom/dad if you decide to expose your children to this concept that dangerously borders on, if not is, worship of the planet and life on it (Gaiaism?) instead of worship of the Creator of the planet and all life on it [John 14:6]. Granted, this sort of belief was (and, to some, is) a system of faith and doctrine but that a population or culture adopts a system of faith does not make it acceptable to God [Col. 2:8].

Disney was nearly as magnificent in their animation and artistry as in other Disney works of art. Their portrayal of the elderly as wise and respected was delightful, conjuring hope in myself to be treated with the respect due wisdom that comes only with age when I become old.

God he is such a douche bag. So pompous, like if someone doesn't respect him when he's old it's entirely their fault for being a bad person, and in no way might reflect upon the fact that Mr. CAP Alerts was an idiot when he was young, and nothing has changed now that he's old.

Some of his writing depresses me as well, I suppose since I'm always bothered by a person who is so willfully ignorant.  I can't watch those Jackass type shows, where some stupid kids set themselves on fire or fall down stairs since it's depressing.  This guy is basically engaging in a life long Jackassian act of self destruction, but with philosophy and belief, rather than physical pratfalls.

May 17, 2003

The CAP Alerts guy has his Matrix 2 review up, but it's a disappointing read.  He seems to be mostly unaware of the whole Bible influenced aspects of the movies, and it's like he's just now realizing that "Neo" is a Christ-figure.  This surprises me, I figured he'd be obsessing over it.  He does have one funny remark, but not until the very end of the review:

By the way, Marilyn Manson has a word or two of vulgarity in this movie and the hate-sounding techno style is there, too.

"Hate-sounding techno"... ?  I wasn't aware that techno music sounded like hate.  And not that accuracy is his strong suit, but no, there isn't any Marilyn Manson heard in the movie.  I was disappointed, since the closing credits lead off with an old Rage Against the Machine song, just like Matrix 1 did, and I expected that the MM song would be heard next, just like in the Matrix 1 credits.  But no. There is a Rob Zombie song in the credits and on the soundtrack, and I assume that's what the CAP Alerts guy was talking about.  Close enough for his purposes; another probably Satanic evil rocker guy, anyway.

May 8, 2003

The CAP Alerts guy has added his review of The Real Cancun, but it's not his best work.  Basically it sounds like there was just too much debauchery and sex for him to really get worked up singling anything out.  I did like his chicken and egg question though:

As if we are supposed to believe that is the way it really is in Cancun during Spring break. If it really is that way, I wonder if it is that way because of movies like The Real Cancun which is clearly the dregs of the "Spring Break" movies.

Huh? What part of "reality movie" doesn't he grasp? And doesn't this guy have Mtv?

Some of the bullet points on the side bar are amusing, though nothing classic ("Cohabitation" in The Bourne Identity review is probably my favorite ever.)

• many tattoos
• song of arrogance against authority
• using human urine as a topical treatment for jelly fish sting

And when he talks about the dirty parts, he almost makes it sound watchable, despite himself:

Sex/Homosexuality (S)

• camera angle for force viewer on private part, repeatedly
• wet t-shirt contest
• female nudity, upper, repeatedly
• thong nudity, repeatedly
• excessive cleavage exposure, repeatedly
• vulgar motions to emulate intercourse
• lesbian kiss, repeatedly
• vulgar dance
• rub dancing, some emulating intercourse
• lesbian dance, repeatedly

You know the nudity would be one quick look after another, and not anything real erotic or lingering, so it's not like you'd have to worry about Pee Wee sitting behind you with a hole in the bottom of his tub of popcorn.  Though perhaps once it's on DVD with slow motion and freeze frame options, not to mention deleted scenes too hot for the theatres, it might take on a greater use for single guy viewing...

April 29, 2003

Yesterday I talked about movie trailers and upcoming movies for a bit, but forgot to mention one thing I found really funny.

As you can see on my Links Page, my nomination for the most entertaining movie reviews site on the internet is CAP Alerts.   "CAP" stands for "ChildCare Action Project".  No, "childcare" isn't a word, but I guess CCAP didn't have such a good ring to it. Anyway, there are hundreds and hundreds of movie reviews, sorted alphabetically, all written by a brilliantly delusional uber-Christian. As my links page discusses, he is out of his mind.  Perhaps his most classic in-review rant ever was the one that tied the first Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings movies in with some sort of sinister Satanic plot to attack and weaken Christianity in America, by presenting magic in a positive light.

No, really.

A reader who took great offense to the "holier than anyone" attitude and engaged in some flaming at the guy mailed me his exchange, and it's been enshrined on the Feb 2002 mailbag (scroll down to the 12th).  Read it at your own risk.

Anyway, I don't read his very review since he makes me crazy, but once in a while I get in the mood and go cruise a few of the more recent films. But while viewing the debauchery of ass shots and glistening boobies that are the ubiquitous The Real Cancun movie ads, (see AICN or for examples.  Or click example 1 or example 2 to see the full size ads.) I suddenly had a craving to see the CAP guy's take on the movie, which you just know will seethe with outrage, disgust, and unintentional humor.

Unfortunately he hasn't reviewed it yet. I'll have to remember to check back in a week, since there is just no way he can fail to be entertaining while ranting about the irredeemably foul nature of it all.

However I took a look over the movies he has discussed, and clicked to Bend it Like Beckham, knowing it was a teen rebellion type story, one that was sure to get him into a lather. The movie's plot has been done 500x; some teenager (an Indian girl in this case) wants to follow her unrealistic dreams, while her sensible, conservative, uptight, straight-laced parents want her to do just what they want her to do, which would be the best thing for her. And they see her passion and learn to loosen up some during it, and in the end their dream conquers all.

Anyway, I could care about the movie or the plot, I just wanted to see his furious review.  It's not that furious, but has some amusing stuff as he goes into full lecture mode on proper child care techniques, according to his interpretation of the Bible:

It is so difficult to know when to say "No" when we all want dearly to make our kids happy, wise and strong. Just remember that God tells us that if we teach and guide our children in the proper ways, they will not venture far away from the teachings and guidance. But God also reminds us that we must not withhold proper guidance, even if it is discipline. The point of the verses as they applies to Jessie's behaviors is that the heart of youth is filled with poor judgment and lack of experiential maturity. The rod of correction is a metaphorical reference to the rod of the shepherd who never uses it to cause harm his sheep. Rather he uses it to guide them even if it takes a sharp prod to do it. Note also that the rod has a hook at the end of it to save the sheep's life -- to lift it out of a hole where the sheep would be easy prey for predators. Maybe the hook in your "No" might save your child's life someday.

I liked how the whole "spare the rod; spoil the child" thing, which has been used to justify child beatings for pretty much the past 1500 years, is used by him to be all humanitarian and understanding.  I mean it beats the alternative, so to speak, but it's a bit self-serving to just happily insert his personal interpretation of it.  Of course that's the beauty of the Bible (and pretty much all other ancient/holy works), you can find something in it to back up whatever you want to have backed up, if you just look long enough.

He's in better form with the Black Hawk Down review.  It's about what you'd expect, for a movie with horrible violence and gore.  He warns about that and quotes the most icky parts, while acting horrified that they would actually show violence in a war movie.  Why can't people just be shot and fall bloodlessly and theatrically dead, like they did in 1950's westerns and FOX News' Iraq Attack war coverage?  I mean if we thought there was horrible bloody death and maiming and agony in war, we might not support it so eagerly.

But the CAP guy finds something in Black Hawk down to rant about, and it's just inexplicable.  Totally out of left field.  Well, right field, knowing him.

There was no John Wayne or Kirk Douglas in Black Hawk Down. John Wayne and Kirk Douglas are from a time when respect for others and honor of command structure meant something. My WWII veteran dad told me of a time when duty and compliance with orders were valuable and undoubtedly led to rich and deep personal self respect and worth: of the realization that no leader can be a good leader without good followers. Now, "subordinate" personnel (in the movies anyway) appear to each be a commander on his own mission with his own interests paramount and team dynamics and willingness to serve being "necessary evils": that their mission supports or conflicts with command decisions is coincidental. Whatever happened to the courage and strength to be a follower? Whatever happened to military personnel serving as a well-tuned unit rather than a collection of individuals wearing the same insignia? Portrayal of rightful and life-saving subordination was occasionally there in Black Hawk Down in pieces and parts, but it seemed such protocol was inserted as a duty or obligation to the unavoidable viewers who honored such integrity as they served God and country in uniform. I somehow doubt that the few but present portrayals of "little boys shooting guns" attitudes in Black Hawk Down was accurate to the attitudes of the professional warriors who were actually there.

What?

Could he have less of a clue? I mean really; spoken like a person who has never been in any sort of combat situation, has no understanding of them, and knows nothing about war other than what he saw in mainstream movies as a child.

I find this so indicative of his whole outlook on life.  Reality is unimportant.  All that matters is the divine fantasy he lives with, and outward appearances. And he has zero problem speaking totally out of his ass. (Unlike myself. *cough*) I recall hearing that the events in Black Hawk Down were based closely on what really happened, after extensive interviews with the surviving soldiers.  Obviously somewhat dramatized, but all movies are.  Yet the CAP alerts guy doesn't look up any information about that, nor does he really care, since he just wants to lecture about the topic, regardless of the facts.

Okay, so we aren't so different.