 Click on CAPCon Alert image for explanation |
A service to our youth through you, their parents and grandparents, in His name by His Word MAR22086 The Adventures of Pluto Nash (2002), PG-13 Analysis Date: August 20, 2002 CAP Score: 27 CAP Influence Density: 1.84 MinMax: -59 |
 |
 | To subscribe to (or unsubscribe from) our FREE text-only versions of our Entertainment Media Analysis Reports as they are calculated, visit our Mailman. If you experience difficulty with Mailman, send us your request. Your email address will NOT be given or sold to other parties. |
THE ADVENTURES OF PLUTO NASH (PG-13) -- *Pluto Nash* is an example of Movie A. Production: Castle Rock Entertainment in association with Village Roadshow Productions and NPV Entertainment Distribution: Warner Bros. Director(s): Ron Underwood Producer(s): Bruce Berman, Cami Bourquin, Martin Bregman, Michael Scott Bregman, Frank Capra, Michael Klawitter, Louis A. Stroller Written by/Screenplay: Neil Cuthbert Cinematography/Camera: Oliver Wood Music: John Powell Film Editing: Alan Heim, Paul Hirsch Casting: Mary Colquhoun Production Design: Bill Brzeski Art Direction: Gilles Aird, Jason Weil  WOW! Talk about R-13! Many R-rated films do not get as low a CAP final score as The Adventuress of Pluto Nash. All because of rampant use of "lesser" issues of ignominy instead of the fewer but much more bold issues typical of R-rated films. You have probably read this before and will probably see it again, but the PG-13 Nash was a perfect example of the use of tons of examples of aberrant behavior of the lesser offense kind instead of using fewer but more harsh examples of aberrant behavior to get the same "effect." Consider Movie A presents 100 issues of aberrant behavior but because each is not bold or harsh it gets a PG-13 rating. Now let each of the aberrant behavior examples in Movie A be worth 10 "bads" each. However, Movie B rated R presents only 10 issues of aberrant behavior but of the bold and harsh kind, each worth 100 "bads" each. The "effect" is the same - 1000 "bads." Pluto Nash is an example of Movie A. Eddie Murphy is Pluto Nash, an ex-con owner of a night club on the moon. I guess Nash is the owner. Criminal element Morgan (Joe Pantoliano) wants the club for its value to the night club empire Morgan is building. The previous owner, Tony Francis (Jay Mohr) who has used many names was deep in debt to Morgan so Morgan tries to kill Francis by pouring battery acid down Francis' throat [Gal. 5:21]. In steps Nash, all cool and suave. Having been friends with a friend of Morgan's while in prison, Nash gains the life of Francis with a promise to rebuild Francis' rotted and collapsing club. Seven years later, Nash has a booming business and so does Francis. Now Morgan wants Nash's club. It is a tale of "If I can't have it, no one can." When Nash repeatedly refuses even Morgan's threats to sell, Morgan trashes Nash's club with explosives [Luke 3:12 - 14]. In the middle of prosperity, when Nash was on easy street, enters crooning beauty, Dina Lake (Rosario Dawson) who can't get up the price of a ride back to Earth. Begging Nash for a job, Murphy exhibits some of his diversity and coldly rejects her request to sing in his club just to get the price of a ticket back to Earth. Broken and sobbing, Dina starts to walk out. At this point one could see Murphy's genius since one could almost see Nash's heart melt. He gives Dina a job waiting tables. But it wasn't long before the tables were blown up. Nash, Dina, Nash's manservant robot, Bruno (Randy Quaid in a delightful role) all launch a campaign with the help of retired moon cop, Rowland ,(Peter Boyle) and even mom, Flura Nash (Pam Grier) to find the bad guys and get even. Even John Cleese performs as stolen car computer interface, James. I am not going to spend a lot of time on the storyline. This report is already a week late (it's August 24 now) and most of you come to hear about the truth of the content the MPAA and the advertisers won't or can't tell anyway. So let me get right to that. Fifty-one uses of the three/four letter word vocabulary. Seven uses of God's name in vain, once with the four letter expletive and six without. At least five murders by gunfire and many attempted murders by gunfire and explosion [Prov. 28:17]. Several gun battles. Much sexual "humor" such as a French maid looking robot in a very short dress whose only purpose was squeaking "Ooops" as she dropped something then turning around to bend over to pick it up. Genital "humor." [Eph. 5:4] Sex talk, comments and innuendo. More, which I will leave to the listing in the Findings/Scoring section [Isa. 32:5 - 6]. SCRIPTURAL APPLICATION(S) If needed to focus or fortify, applicable text is underlined or bracketed [ ]. If you wish to have full context available, the Blue Letter Bible is a convenient source. If you use the Blue Letter Bible, a new window will open. Close it to return here or use "Window" in your browser's menu bar to alternate between the CAP page and the Blue Letter Bible page. *******Food for Daily Thought******* As always, it is best to refer to the Findings/Scoring section -- the heart of the CAP analysis model -- for the most complete assessment possible of this movie. |
 Wanton Violence/Crime (W): Impudence/Hate (I)(1): Sex/Homosexuality (S): Drugs/Alcohol (D): Offense to God (O)(2): Murder/Suicide (M)(3): |
 NO service charges!!! Donations to the CAP Ministry are Tax Deductible!!! |
 |
 |
 |
 Christian Media News |
 A Singles Christian Network |
 |
 |
 |
|
| NOTE: The CAP Analysis Model makes no scoring allowances for trumped-up "messages" to excuse or for manufacturing of justification for aberrant behavior or imagery, or for camouflaging such ignominy 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 from the sinful display or the practitioners demonstrating the sinful behavior. This is NOT a movie review service. It is a movie analysis service to parents and grandparents to tell them the truth about movies using the Truth. |
| "There are some in the entertainment industry who maintain that 1) violent programming is harmless because no studies exist that prove a connection between violent entertainment and aggressive behavior in children, and 2) young people know that television, movies, and video games are simply fantasy. Unfortunately, they are wrong on both accounts." And "Viewing violence may lead to real life violence." I applaud these associations for fortifying 1 Cor. 15:33. Read the rest of the story. From our nearly seven years of study, I contend that other aberrant behaviors, attitudes, and expressions can be inserted in place of "violence" in that statement. Our Director - Child Psychology Support, a licensed psychologist and certified school psychologist concurs. For example, "Viewing arrogance against fair authority may lead to your kids defying you in real life." Or "Viewing sex may lead to sex in real life." Likewise and especially with impudence, hate and foul language. I further contend that any positive behavior can be inserted in place of "violence" with the same chance or likelihood of being a behavior template for the observer; of being incorporated into the behavior mechanics and/or coping skills of the observer. In choosing your entertainment, please consider carefully the "rest of the story" and our findings. |
