http://www.capalert.com/capreports/
This is just class,these are some of the best film reviews i've ever seen ;D
Printable View
http://www.capalert.com/capreports/
This is just class,these are some of the best film reviews i've ever seen ;D
ha! in Amreagedon Bruce Willis was only pretending to be a hero... really he took the cowards way out when he should of just faced up to the fact that he could of stopped the meotorite by dismantaling it a stone at a time... ::**
they gave wallace and grommit -51 and films like jay and bob -100 so Wallace and Grommit was half as Vulgar as Jay and bob (its like about 1% as bad if that :P)
they need to rethink the way they rate... morons
hahah... yeah
trainspotting: 6.7
Wallace and gromit: -51
if you have to take you kids to either of these films... make it train spotting... ::**
Yeh,but look at what was in Wallace and Grommet!! :o
gunfire to kill, repeatedly
slapstick violence, repeatedly
reckless gunfire
irresponsible handling of a firearm
reckless driving to pursue
fighting to settle differences
drawing of a beheaded man with blood spurting out of the neck
threat with firearm
Impudence/Hate (I)
none noted (issues of hatred expressed by violence were incorporated into Wanton Violence/Crime)
Sexual Immorality (S)
sexual innuendo, repeatedly
rear male nudity
male character with a flowery purse
male character wearing only a box with "May contain nuts" printed on it.
Drugs/Alcohol (D):
beer ad on building wall
Offense to God (O)
mockery of the clergy
shape-shifting
;D
All trainspotting has is frequent hardcore drug use and selling, under age 'explicit' (to these people) sex, constant bad language etc etc etc :D
Anyone remember that show gumby? Imagine what they would give that. A plastecine guy and his donkey ;D
They even thought there was too much sexual connotation in 'How The Grinch Stole Christmas'. ::**
Issues.
Under the CAP Analysis Model the content of The Passion of the Christ earned scores equivalent to scores earned by G rated movies in Sexual Immorality and Drugs/Alcohol in the comparative baseline database of movies, to the scores earned by PG movies in Offense to God (witchcraft, Satanism, occult, etc) and Murder/Suicide and to the scores earned by PG-13 movies in Impudence/Hate. But in Wanton Violence/Crime, this movie could not have been more "R." The Passion of the Christ earned a lower Wanton Violence/Crime score than American History X. If I removed the investigation area scoring display limiters that display as zero any less-than-zero scores, the score in Wanton Violence/Crime would be -442. This reveals another great feature of the CAP analysis model. It identifies the areas of concentration of invasive programming and is clearly displayed in the CAP thermometers. The heaviest concentration of invasive programming in The Passion of the Christ is obviously in Wanton Violence/Crime.
Though this movie is a faithful depiction of the unimaginable terrors our Lord suffered for our sakes, it is a movie. It is entertainment. Violent entertainment. Thus the reason for the zero score in the Wanton Violence/Crime investigation area. It was not Jesus in the film. It was Jim Caviezel in the full-body moulage,. That it is truthful to the actual events does not excuse exposing your kids to it unless you, mom/dad, say so. There is where the brutal objectivity of the CAP analysis model (the Findings/Scoring section) becomes most valuable. If a scene is violent, the CAP model notes it as such whether "justified" by actual events or not. (See the "BEFORE You Read On..." link above.)
HERE IS THE BEFORE YOU READ ON LINK
So many folks seem to argue that we "miss the point" or that we "simply do not understand the message" of movies since we reveal almost only the negative content of films. Well, we don't "miss the point", we ignore it. While we are certainly capable of capturing moving messages and warm plots, they are not incorporated into the scoring and are only sometimes pointed out in the Summary/Commentary section. That is part of the beauty of the CAP analysis model (the Findings/Scoring section). It is insulated from the subjectivity of our opinions and is 100% driven by His Word. Besides, if we were to reveal all the "good messages" of a film (which many present) as well as the ignominy, we would spoil the whole film.
While the Summary/Commentary section of these reports is precisely that -- a summary in commentary format which can be and sometimes is subjective -- the actual CAP Analysis Model (the Findings/Scoring section) makes no scoring allowances for trumped-up "messages" to excuse, to manufacture justification for, or to camouflage ignominious content, aberrant behavior or imagery with "redeeming" programming. Disguising sinful behavior in a theme/plot does not excuse the sinful behavior of either the one who is drawing pleasure or example of behavior or thought from the sinful display or of the actors/actresses demonstrating the sinful behavior or the writers of it. We make no attempt to quantify the "artistic" or "entertainment" value of a movie. Whether a movie has any positive value or "entertainment" value (which many do) is up to mom/dad. The CAP analysis model is the only known set of tools available to parents and grandparents which give them the control they need, bypassing the opinion-based assessment of movies by others and defeating the wishes of those who would say anything to convince their parents otherwise. The model is completely objective to His Word. Our investigation standards are founded in the teachings and expectations of Jesus Christ and are inherently as Rock-solid as His Word, never changing with modern morality. If a sinful behavior is portrayed, it is called sinful whether Hollywood tries to make it otherwise. That the sinful behavior is "justified" by some manufactured conditions does not soften nor erase the price of sin. Whether there is application of fantasy "justification" or "redemption" is up to mom/dad. And if you disagree with what we claim as sinful, talk to the One who wrote the Rules. That is where we got our investigation standards.
The bottom line: We tell parents, grandparents and pastors about the content of films which the MPAA, advertisers, promoters, previews and trailers, etc. won't tell or can't tell so they might be in a better position to make an informed moral decision whether a film is fit or not for their family. We tell you what is there, you decide
----------------
Regarding Jim Caviezel, he spent so much time in full-body make-up that his skin blistered. Jim also spent much of his time in a loin cloth in the Italian winter, sometimes unable to speak due to the cold. Jim was obviously so absorbed into the part that he was able to overcome a lung infection, numerous cuts and bruises and a shoulder dislocation to finish the picture. Interesting to say the least, while working on Golgotha, Jim was struck by lightning -- then got up and walked away. Obviously his part in the film was a labor of love for Jim. And it may be obvious to some that God intended for this film to be finished, the leading actor's miseries notwithstanding.
http://www.otoons.com/politics/images/pope_polak.jpg
I WANT TO MEET... JIM CAPHEEZAL
http://netmar.com/~maat/archive/sep4_pope_ttl.jpg
THE MAN, HE, WHO PLAY... JESUS
http://www.zorblog.com/archives/images/pope.jpg
DO NOT CRY THAT HE DRESSED UP LIKE JESUS
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0264a.jpg
IT IS OK, BECAUSE HE HAD SKIN BLISTERS
http://www.dur.ac.uk/t.l.hawksley/pope.jpeg
HE DID THE SUFFERING OF THE CHRIST