If you are a copyright owner and believe that your copyrighted works have been used in a way that constitutes copyright infringement, here is our DMCA Notice.

« Sweden vs. The Rest of the World (MP3s) | Main | Fill Your iPod with Raw Sewage »

October 15, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c29169e200d8346725cb69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Christian/Family Values-Oriented Movie Review Database Restores My Faith In Snobbish Film Criticism:

» Evaluating smut, by the numbers. from Boing Boing
Violet Blue writes, WFMU's Beware of the Blog has a post up titled "Christian/Family Values-Oriented Movie Review Database Restores My Faith In Snobbish Film Criticism," which links to this "mathematical" biblical rating system of mainstream films -- w... [Read More]

Comments

Sensei Rebel

Well have to agree with the Clockwork Orange review. It's the worst film I've ever seen.

Anonymous

check out their review of South Park: Bigger Longer Uncut

Alkivar

Check out the reviews on American Psycho, Freddy vs. Jason, Scary Movie, and Sin City. The movies to hit the rock bottom score of 0. The review of Sin City is awesome.

Kurtis Popp

They walked out 94 min. into Mulholland Drive (wonder what scene that was...)

R

The Review of SLC Punk is almost poetic:

It was punk in every sense of punk. Anarchy was the goal. Want of disregard for any rule of any kind in any way.

...

The most foul word was used in just about every verbal sentence or paragraph of dialogue or monologue. There was partial nudity, cartoon nudity, satanic hand gestures, flippin' the bird at parents and yelling ....... at them.

And they only stayed for the first 37 minutes!

Chris L

Check out the review of Jackass. He lasted 8 minutes!

Fatherflot

All I can say is watch out Anthony Lane:

"Rushmore" (G) -- was a school, a stupid school. This was a dumb show, an unimportant show, an easily forgotten show. I don't know if I need to say any more, but I will.

Though not necessarily a violent movie in the vein of most R-rated movies, there were a lot of bully tactics, vengeful actions, threats, and airgun/dart shooting of a kid. The heart of this movie was in lies, arrogance, manipulations of fair authority because of personal failures, and foul language. In one case, a teen took pleasure in insulting a bed-ridden patient of a stroke. In another case, the teen took delight in attempting to murder his adult friend-turned-rival by disabling the brakes of his car. Though not likely in real life, the central teen obtained dynamite.

The central teen tricked himself into a female teacher's bed then the teacher kissed him, but that was as far as it went as if that were not too far. Items of sexual arrogance, innuendo, suggestion, accusation, and talk dragged the Sex/Homosexuality score to well within the R scoring range of 1995/6 movies. Oh, yeah! There was lots of teen drinking.

I suppose there is a lot more I could and should tell you about "Rushmore" in this summary/commentary but there were so many of the same type stuff that to tell you of any is essentially to tell you of all. The above items are the only stand out" I can remember. I normally do not make a suggestion of whether to watch a show but I will suggest that you do not bother with "Rushmore." It was ....... nothing, just nothing. It was so forgetable that I must ask you to trust the numbers and listing more than this summary/commentary. The numbers do not depend on my memory.

nh_dave

I haven't seen Fight Club in awhile, but are there any even references to drugs in that film? I don't think so. Sex yes, drugs? Don't think so.

They must have mixed up the sex/homosexuality (their grouping not mine) and drugs, cause the whole movie is hilariously and overtly gay.

There used to be a site called crosswalk or something that had something similar and it was always equally enjoyable. I can't imagine being the poor christian reviewer who would have to sit through these films. Would be like me trying to sit through passion of the christ or whatever it was...

-Dave

FTM

We aren't all such prudes... I can't wait to see Jackass 2.

Kapitano

I reckon they should review Deep Throat. And list every single reference to homosexuality in it.

Jellodyne

I wonder how the Holy Bible would rate on their scale? If memory serves, it contains scenes of Wanton violence, Impudence/hate, drugs/alcohol (water to wine anyone?), sex/homosexuality, offense to god, huge, vast volumes of Murder/violent acts including violent acts towards Jesus (!!!) culminating in extended torture/murder... That book is just full of filth, and nobody should read it. Ever.

krup

i thought we weren't supposed to talk about Fight Club...

sylvester

^lol , jellodyne! Let's not forget that the bible also mentions an *ahem* "burning bush",lol...gee, I wonder what kind of bush that could be ???

I think that their scale is BACKWARDS! When a movie contains violence or drugs, etc , the bar should go UP, not down... silly silly people.

Listener Paul

They liked The Apostle, except for the fact that the preacher commits murder with a baseball bat. Umm, would there have been a movie without that?

skip

In a similar vein, check out the stormfront movie reviews forum some time if you're ever curious about what neo nazis think about Lassie ("I could see them being uptight if the family moving in were black, lord knows I would do whatever in my power to make them as uncomfortable as possible,") Grizzly Man ("Kind of reminds me of Antis and liberals. They believe that people like Tookie Williams and other non white criminals are their friends and won't hurt them,") or They Live ("I heard they have been secretly phasing out this movie, because it actually is very close to how things really are. If you replace the aliens with jews it could be a WN movie.")

With over 600 movies reviewed, they're bound to say something mind numbingly stupid about one of your favorite films!
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=101

Jesus

Oh, Man...Kill Bill's review is freakin' hilarious.

man, the most foul of foul words indeed.

har...

Ward


" With it's highly detailed reviews of hundreds of titles,"

"it's" equals "it is".

Thank you

Jeff Cuscutis

One of the best ones on that site is the one for the South Park movie.

ec brown

From "Austin Powers: The Spy Who --- Me"

"The nudity was so bold and the masking so weak that as Powers spread his legs apart in one scene, the stretch of the tendons in his crotch was visible. In scenes of full nudity his genitalia were ghosted fleshtone; defocused. In other scenes of nudity, convenient objects were used to hide his genitalia -- and ONLY his genitalia. Convenient objects used included furniture, a clock, and textblocks of the names of actors/actresses. In one instance a baby's head was used to hide Powers' genitalia -- and yes, the baby was facing Powers, in the same way DiCaprio's head in *Titanic* was used to hide Winslett's genitalia, but the baby's head was much smaller in perspective than DiCaprio's, thus, less was hidden. Though the baby was an animated baby (like the *Dancing Baby*), what pedophilial signal do you suppose was sent by this scene?"

More paragraphs detailing Meyers' lower regions follow.

The review of the Exorcist was pretty easygoing in comparison.

anon

white supremacist movie reviews:

http://www.whitenationalism.com/cwar/movlst.htm

maoist movie reviews:

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/movies/

martin luther at the movies:

http://lutheratthemovies.blogspot.com/

tillwe

Their numerical model is the other way round: 100 means "no offenses to Christians", 0 means "hide your eyes". So watch "101 dalmatians" (scores 87), and not "American Psycho" (scores 0). That is, if you believe in this ;-)

anon2

Just as funny as his review of "unchristian" movies is his review of "family" movies. The 1951 Disney classic is rebuked for having "Christmas without Jesus" and but notes that there is no sexual content. He totally missed how Lady and Tramp spent a night together and then have puppies at Christmas.

bob

I've been reading the CAP movie reviews for years. They are hilarious. My favorites are the PG films, where they find the most innocuous things to flip out about.
For the film "Iron Giant," under the "Sex/Homosexuality" heading we have:
suggestive eye movement [!?], a child on a commode with side nudity [remember, this is a cartoon!]
and under "Wanton Violence/Crime" we have:
child climbing on to roof to fix antenna, child wandering into the woods late at night by himself, a cartoon of nuclear holocaust in an elementary school, playing in a junkyard [how any of these is a crime or violent is beyond me].
Each one of those references being equal to, say, a rape or murder in a live action film, according to their "objective, consistent" ratings system.
Other PG films commit such sins as showing "adults in underwear" (oversized comical boxer shorts), and "gamming," which I assume is the showing of a (woman's) leg. They often can't even bring themselves to write the word "genitalia," instead using the term "gender specific anatomy." Being "naked under covers" is apparently a bad thing. "Naked under clothes" is not mentioned.
They justify punk music as being hateful because of the manner in which the lyrics are sung. The Fight Club description is interesting, since the starting music is, in fact, neither punk nor has it any lyrics. Clearly they didn't like it, though, and that was a good enough reason for them to label it "Impudence/Hate."

jm

The most interesting thing about the Fight Club review is that there is no "Murder/Suicide" noted. The cops killed Bob, so it wasn't murder.

Cibbuano

That is precious... sometimes, crazed Christians make you appreciate art so much more...

The comments to this entry are closed.