 RED does not mean "stop." GREEN does not mean "go." Click on the CAPCon Alert image for explanation |
A ministry of the ChildCare Action Project: Christian Analysis of American Culture (CAP Ministry) A 501(c)(3) Nonprofit Christian Ministry. www.capalert.com/ Entertainment Media Analysis Report A service to His little ones through you in His name by His Word MAR28019  (2008), PG-13 [Hard R-13*] (2hr 17min) The #1 Christian entertainment media analysis service on the Internet. We give you OBJECTIVE tools NO ONE ELSE CAN to help YOU make an informed decision for yourself whether a film is fit for your family. Over 1200 analyses for parents, grandparents, pastors, youth leaders and more. |
  (a PayPal account is NOT required) OR (preferred) by Check or Money Order. The CAP is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit Christian ministry. Donations to us are TAX-DEDUCTIBLE |
on what Hollywood feeds your kids. SUBSCRIBE (or unsubscribe) to our FREE text-only email version of these reports and our COMING SOON notices. |
  Christian Long Distance |
(While the Scriptural references are certainly not subjective, my commentary may be and sometimes is somewhat subjective.)
 Cast/Crew Details Courtesy Internet Movie Database Production (US): Paramount Pictures, Apatow Productions Distribution (US): Paramount Pictures Director(s): Steven Brill Producer(s): Judd Apatow, Susan Arnold, Kristofor Brown, Donna Roth, Richard Vane, Desiree Van Til Screenplay: Kristofor Brown, Seth Rogen Story: John Hughes, Kristofor Brown, Seth Rogen Cinematography/Camera: Fred Murphy Music: Christophe Beck Film Editing: Brady Heck, Thomas J. Nordberg Casting: Juel Bestrop Production Design: Jackson De Govia Art Direction: Scott Meehan Viewed on Paramount Pictures Home Entertainment DVD Dr. Illbit, er, Alamo Taylor, er, Bob (not "Robert", just Bob) Taylor, a.k.a. Drillbit Taylor (Owen Wilson) is a homeless, dishonorably discharged Army private living off the scraps of others until one day he answers an ad to be a bodyguard for three fresh high school Freshman. Wade (Nate Hartley), Ryan a.k.a. T-Dog (Troy Gentile) and Emmet (David Dorfman) are three social misfits who are tormented often by an emancipated minor, Terry Filkins (Alex Frost) and his cohort in terror (Andrew Caldwell). Taylor's intent is to milk Wade, Ryan and Emmet -- the "rich kids" -- for all they're worth just to get travel money to go to far North Canada. A story with a good thing or two to say is in there but it, like almost anything Hollywood generates for teens, is shrouded in, saturated by and obliterated with profanity and sexual crudity. But this time Hollywood stirs up the profanity and sexual crudity with bully violence, rather graphic bully violence at that. For the character Ryan, young Gentile utters profanity more than three times as many as any adult in the film. And it sure looked as though Gentile enjoyed it. I guess that is "normal." It is, after all, a film rated acceptable (and likely engineered) for the young teen. Well!? That is the way kids talk in public school, right? Well!? From where do you think they get it? Mom/dad? Don't count on it. From other kids at school? Sure. But from where do you think the other kids at school get it? Now that Ryan is in high school he sleeps nude, his mother discovers. To Ryan at least being in high school justifies sleeping nude ... according to Hollywood anyway. (And I wonder why the writers even bring it up.) I guess some might find it acceptable that a child sleeps nude, especially if the child sleeps alone. That is up to mom/dad. But how many early teens who sleep without any clothes on do you suppose put something on if they go to the family bathroom in the middle of the night? I guess if no one else will ever go to the family bathroom in the middle of the night sleeping nude might be okay. But then, when is such nudity [outside of a monogamous heterosexual marriage] acceptable to God who admonishes us more than 40 times through the Old Testament and New that nakedness -- the display of nudity -- is unacceptable? For bathing? Alone? Certainly. Medical examination? Certainly. But certainly never for entertainment. God even warned priests to not built an altar with steps lest the wind expose his nakedness to the people below [Exod. 20:26]. Once Taylor establishes himself as the boy's body guard he proceeds to dupe, confuse and bewilder the boys into believing him to be an expert at defense maneuvers and offense tactics. The boys hire him to protect them from Filkins and his henchman. The film is filled with bully tactics, some of which are quite brutal. And, as mentioned above, Ryan uses some form of profanity in almost each of his sentences. More discussion of the content found by each of the six CAP investigation areas is provided below. But in each case, one should look to the listings of findings in the Findings/Scoring section for a complete accounting of the content. Wanton Violence/Crime (W) - Zero out of 100 Filkins, an 18 year old high school upperclassman emancipated youth (his parents are in China and he is alone in their upper class home), does much harm and torment repeatedly to the three boys including fist hits that would likely kill a child in real life. Filkins also tries to hit them with his car. I suspect having been and EMT medic for 12 years I have a smidgen of credibility in saying that a real version of some of the displayed hits would likely kill a real child. Real life fights simply do not happen the way Hollywood portrays them. Though many of these bully acts were criminal, the film is rife with acts of Taylor and his homeless associates to deceive the boys for money and to steal from the boys' parents. When Filkins is physically defeated by Taylor, Filkins also attempts to murder Wade by sword in a classic cowardly attempt to retaliate the failure of a wrongdoing. [Prov. 16:29, Prov. 4:14] Impudence/Hate (I) - Zero out of 100 Seventy-one times someone utters profanity in this 137-minute film. That makes it a very poor example for the impressionable age target of 13 years. To have child actors use such speech screams of violating Luke 17:2 on the part of the filmmakers and writers [Rom. 5:19, Matt. 18:10]. But then, who's to blame when we sit back and enjoy their work. [Ps. 12:8] In addition, numerous times some teen is abrasive and offensive to their parents and other fair authority. While one of the fathers is not what I would call wise and caring, the sins of the parent do not excuse the sins of the child... and vice versa [Exod. 20:12, Eph. 6:1 - 3, Luke 18:20, Mark 7:10, Isa. 30:1, 1 Cor. 6:18 - 20] Enough content in violation of God's Word was found to make the content found by this investigation area equivalent to the same content found in many R-rated films. Sexual Immorality (S) - 17 out of 100 Aside from the full rear male nudity, the sexually oriented content of this film included such matters as a young teen sleeping nude, young teen boys watching porn, a man in a bath tub before young teen boys, graphic sex ed to young teens, sex talk to a minor by other than his parent, self-touching, a leg wrap, crude references to human anatomy and other issues of the "lesser" kind saturating the film. [Eph. 5:4, Prov. 4:24] See CAP Rule of 1000 for more information on "the lesser kind." Drugs/Alcohol (D) - 90 out of 100 While references to illegal drugs were noted the only demonstration of illegal consumption of controlled substances was a teen drinking party. It would have been fine had later monologue not spoken of alcoholic beverages. All the drinking vessels at the teen party were the standard red plastic cups with no evidence of the beverages in them being alcoholic. But n-o-o-o, the writers had to add at least some connection of the teens with drinking alcohol by saying Filkins was arrested for all the drinking. Nonetheless, all the partygoers were drinking, as if to say all teens who go to parties drink booze or that teen drinking is expected and okay. That imagery is the problem. A 2002 study by the American College of Physicians (ACP) revealed that adolescent exposure to drinking in and as entertainment undeniably leads to abuse of alcohol among underage kids. The finding entitled Relation Between Parental Restrictions on Movies and Adolescent Use of Tobacco and Alcohol reports that of 4544 youths from grades 5 through 8 of fifteen Vermont and New Hampshire middle schools (90% of the youths were under fourteen years old) only 16% were completely restricted from viewing R-rated movies. Within the ACP study population, the prevalence of having tried alcohol without parental knowledge was The researchers selected R-rated movies because they assumed R-rated movies typically present more drinking than movies of other classifications. This assumption is no longer true. The researchers were not aware of the matter of "R-13" proven by this ministry in 2000 (see R-13) with which Harvard University scientists agreed four years later (see Harvard Agrees With Us). The bottom line? The focus is that the influence of adolescent exposure to drinking (and smoking) in and as entertainment is undeniable regardless of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) classification. [Eph. 5:18] Rather revealing of the influences of the entertainment industry wouldn't you say? And emboldening children to sin with drink in and as entertainment screams of violating Luke 17:2. Our studies provide an additional parameter for the ACP study. While booze, drinking and smoking in and as entertainment indeed embolden defiance of rule and law and take their toll on wholesome decision-making skills of youth, our studies indicate the stronger influence is rather the attitude portrayed by and in association with the drinking (and smoking and any other behavioral dimension). PG-13 and R-rated films and sometimes less severely rated films are typically heavy with attitude. Our report on this, ATTITUDE: In Perspective -- Investigation Area Scoring and Trend in CAP Entertainment Industry Investigations, Special Report-001 may provide more understanding of the point by revealing that the strongest proselytizing element in modern entertainment is not sex, drugs, alcohol, or violence, etc. but is the attitude; the attitude of freedom from authority, freedom from accountability and freedom from consequences. It is indeed such attitude that emboldens youth to defy rule and law. Note also that attitude (impudence, arrogance, a proud look, "haughty eyes") is the first in the list of seven behaviors our Lord hates. [Prov. 6:16 - 19] Offense to God (O) - 12 out of 100 Here is the fourth of four of the six CAP investigation areas that found content to be equivalent to at least some R-rated films (earning an area score of 54 and below out of 100). Twenty-one times God's name was used in vain, four times with the four letter expletive and 17 times without it, one of them with the four letter expletive before a child and nine of the times without the four letter expletive bya child. God doesn't like that!. So much so He warns that He will not hold guiltless s/he who uses His name in vain [Deut. 5:11] Murder/Suicide (M) - 100 out of 100 No murders or suicides were noted. The attempted murder by Filkins, as are all attempted murders or suicides, was incorporated into Wanton Violence/Crime. SCRIPTURAL APPLICATION(S) If needed to focus or fortify, applicable text is underlined or bracketed [ ] or bold. 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. CHAPTER/VERSE ***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) - Zero out of 100 Impudence/Hate (I) - Zero out of 100 Sexual Immorality (S) - 17 out of 100 Drugs/Alcohol (D) - 90 out of 100 Offense to God (O) - 12 out of 100 Murder/Suicide (M) - 100 out of 100 |
| 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 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. |
|
Thank you for visiting us and may God bless you. Prayerfully, we will provide you with some of the most revealing commentary and investigative reporting you have ever read. In the name of Jesus: Lord, Master, Teacher, Savior, God. Tom Carder President ChildCare Action Project (CAP): Christian Analysis of American Culture 100% dependent on your tax-deductible financial support |  |
Christian Long Distance |
|
We exist only by your tax-deductible donations. PLEASE  Features PayPal! You do NOT need an account to donate. |
