Click on CAPCon Alert
image for explanation
A service to His little ones (which includes at-home teens) through you, their parents and grandparents, in His name by His Word
Analysis Date: April 15, 2003
CAP Score: 40 out of 100
CAP Influence Density: 1.87
Give your visitors clear access to ALL CAP movie analyses. Put the link above on your web page. FREE! Click it to test it and to see what you will get!
NO service charges.
All donations are tax deductible.
|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.|
(2003), PG-13 ...just because a movie does not contain *** does not make it suitable for adolescents.
Cast/Crew Details Courtesy Internet Movie Database
Production (US): Flypaper Press, Lion Rock, Mosaic Media Group, Signpost Films
Distribution (US): Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Distributing Corporation
Director(s): Paul Hunter
Producer(s): Terence Chang, Gotham Chopra, Caroline Macaulay, Brent O'Connor, Charles Roven, Douglas Segal, Kelley Smith-Wait, John Woo, Michael Yanover
Written by/Screenplay: Ethan Reiff, Cyrus Voris (written by)
Cinematography/Camera: Stefan Czapsky
Music: Eric Serra
Film Editing: Robert K. Lambert
Casting: Diane Kerbel, Mindy Marin
Production Design: Deborah Evans
Art Direction: Arvinder Grewal
Viewed At: Driftwood Theater 6, Granbury, Texas
At the obscure and distant Temple of Sublime Truth an ancient scroll is protected by a monk for all eternity from anyone reading it. The words on the scroll have the power to harness opposing forces or reciprocating forces, depending on the one who reads the words. Any one who reads the words is given the power to rule the world, with either brutality and evil or compassion and kindness. The order of monks feel man is not ready to have that kind of power. Only a special monk is charged with protecting it from being read. It does seem strange that man wrote what men may not read. The obvious question is how did the one who wrote it not read it? No matter. It's a movie. But then, an influence does not have to be real to influence [Col. 2:8].
A monk who appeared to be in his early forties had been guarding the scroll for 60 years and was ready to pass the job on to another. The first monk with no name trained and challenged the most undisciplined youth he had ever laid eyes on to take over guarding the scroll. The now trained second monk (Yun-Fat Chow) who had forgotten his name was equal to the first monk with no name in martial arts and mystic matters. The second monk with no name was bestowed by the first monk with no name with the power and authority to take over the immense responsibility of protecting mankind from the dangerous scroll ... for 60 years. In a elaborate ceremony, the first monk with no name transferred all the powers of the universe to the second monk with no name. Now the first monk with no name can take a long-awaited vacation in spite of the fact that he is suddenly very old. The transference took a lot out of him, dontcha know.
But evil Nazi, Strucker (Karel Roden), wise to the secret of the scroll, had other plans for the first monk with no name. And for the second monk with no name. And all other monks in the temple. The only one who survived Strucker's murderous mayhem was the second monk with no name. Even though the second monk with no name was shot point-blank and fell off the edge of a high cliff, he survived and carried on the tradition with an awesome burden. For 60 more years.
Now ready to pass the baton to another, the second monk with no name emulated the first monk with no name by recruiting the most undisciplined youth he had ever laid eyes on to take over guarding the scroll. The future protector of the universe was Kar (Seann William Scott), street thief and pickpocket whose only talents in martial arts came from watching old Kung Fu movies at the Golden Palace theater. Kar seemed to fit -- loosely -- the prophecies for the new guardian of the scroll: that he fight a family among cranes.
Kar had lifted booty from people in the turf of British accented MISTER FUNKTASTIC (Marcus J. Pirae), a robbing street hood with a band of merry men ... and a Maid Marian named Jade (Jamie King). Funktastic did not like anyone invading his terror-tory. You couldn't mistake Funktastic. "MISTER FUNKTASTIC" was tattooed across his chest. Funktastic was not happy that Kar was taking his "property." So Funktastic and company drag Kar into their liar below the streets and 'explained' in no uncertain terms to Kar that he was not welcome. It was here Kar met the Russian Princess gone street babe, Jade. Though wealthy and prestigious, the wicked but vulnerable rebellious young Jade felt "The street is one place I can earn my own respect."
With Kar as the heir apparent for the scroll protection throne, the second monk with no name reveals Strucker has been after him for the scroll for 60 years, ever since World War II when Strucker killed everyone at the temple and tried to kill the second monk with no name. Strucker is now rich and with many aides to fight his battles. One of them was his granddaughter, Nina (Victoria Smurfit).
Now, with the characters and background established, the plot takes form and substance. But I'll not spoil any more of it for you in case you decide, after reading the listing of findings in the Finings/Scoring section of this report, that this movie is fit for your family. But I will summarize briefly the three and one half pages of logs of findings (typically two to two and one half pages) for you. The itemized findings are presented in the Findings/Scoring section of this report.
This movie is the perfect example of using hundreds of assaults on decency and morality, each with "lesser" assault, to get the same effect as, for example, an R-rated movie which uses fewer but more bold assaults. While the plot and story were indeed good and the performances supportive of the light-hearted humor and action, Bulletproof Monk is a perfect example also of the warnings in Ps. 12:8, 1 Cor. 15:33 and Jude 4 (see below) regarding needing more extremes each year to get the same cinematic "high." And such entertainment will continue as long as "enough people continue to defend it, embrace it, pay for it, enjoy it, want it."
The greatest point losses in this "R-13"
Please read the listing in the Findings/Scoring section before you decide whether to let your adolescents (which includes at-home teens) view this film. But before you read the Findings/Scoring section, I ask that you please take the time to read 2Pet. 2:1 - 14 offered below. Paul wrote it as one of two letters "as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking."
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.
***Selected Scriptures of Armour against the influence of the entertainment industry***
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)
Offense to God (O)
NO service charges!!!
Donations to the CAP Ministry are Tax Deductible!!!
Christian Media News
|NOTE: 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, for manufacture of justification for, or camouflaging of ignominious content or 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 practitioners demonstrating the sinful behavior. We make no attempt to quantify the "artistic" or "entertainment" value of a movie -- whether a movie has any positive value or "entertainment" value 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 deceit 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. 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.|
|"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 more than eight 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.|