Click on CAPCon Alert
image for explanation
A service to our youth through you,
their parents and grandparents, in His name by His Word
I Spy (2002), PG-13
Analysis Date: November 1, 2002
CAP Score: 41
CAP Influence Density: 2.47
|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.|
I SPY (PG-13) -- ...no antics are without a ton of crude language.
Production: C-2 Pictures, Columbia Pictures Corporation
Distribution: Columbia Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment
Director(s): Betty Thomas
Producer(s): Warren Carr, David R. Ginsburg, Mario Kassar, Kornél Sipos, Betty Thomas, Marc Toberoff, Jenno Topping, Andrew G. Vajna
Written by/Screenplay: Screenplay: Marianne Wibberley, Cormac Wibberley, David Ronn, Jay Scherick. Story: Marianne Wibberley, Cormac Wibberley
Cinematography/Camera: Oliver Wood
Music: Richard Gibbs
Film Editing: Matt Friedman, Peter Teschner
Casting: Susan Taylor Brouse, Lynne Carrow, Kathy Driscoll, Francine Maisler
Production Design: Marcia Hinds
Art Direction: Doug Byggdin, Bo Johnson
This is no Robert Culp and Bill Cosby, him-n-me buddies show as was the TV version of *I Spy*. No TV network of the *I Spy* era would ever have accepted this 2002 version of *I Spy*. In fact, then a TV station/network would have lost its FCC license because of the content of this film. But TV networks had scruples then. Now they have money. And want more of it. But then, where does that place the blame for raunch on TV? Their rationale -- give the public what they want. TV networks are competing with the cable and dish stations for advertising dollars. Advertisers only place ads where the money may be found. Advertising opportunity, i.e., money, is found where people's entertainment diet focuses. Advertisers for raunch entertainment get the bucks. The equation is quite simple. The raunch on TV *and* the movies is our fault. They make it. We buy it. They make more. We buy more. They keep making more and the more they make is more and more vile. And we keep buying the more and more. And more. [Ps. 12:8]
Special Agent, Alexander Scott (Owen Wilson) has been recently upgraded and is teamed up with the legendary Carlos (Gary Cole) to thwart the dastardly deeds of Arnold Gundars (Malcolm McDowell) to sell a stolen invisible stealth jet with a nuclear warhead (which also serves as a flotation device) to the highest bidder. Being "agent second class" in comparison to Carlos, Scott is given the leavings of the neat spy toys such as a spy cam twenty times larger than Carlos' spy cam while Carlos gets special explosive pagers and other high-class tools and weapons.
For whatever reason, it is determined that Carlos would be inappropriate for the mission in Budapest. A civilian must be appropriated. Enters Kelly Robinson (Eddie Murphy), undisputed boxing champion of the world with 57-0 to his credit. He even has "57" made into necktie jewelry and never speaks his own name with out saying "Kelly Robinson." The purpose of using Robinson as a team member is for bout number 58 with the best boxer of Budapest. Robinson's notoriety as the world's boxing champ should facilitate spy things.
And, yes, there's a girl. Fellow agent, Rachel (Famke Janssen). Scott has had a thing for her for a long time and has not had the "courage" to break the ice. But maybe it is she who does not have the courage to break the ice. Along comes Robinson who coaches Scott in the "fine art" of not only breaking the ice but in sexually conquering her. Though several cinematic minutes are spent on showing how that might be done, Rachel is saved by an urgent issue that needs both she and Scott.
Many antics flutter across the screen. Some humorous. Some ingenious. Some touching as the "group encounter" as Robinson and Scott, trapped in the sewers of Budapest, vent their innermost feelings when seemingly constant bickering becomes sharing of hearts. But no antics are without a ton of crude language. One-hundred ten uses of the three/four letter word vocabulary pelt the earpans of every viewer the 91 minutes of this movie [Prov. 22:11, Cor. 8:7, Titus 2:6-8]. Forty-two examples of a wide variety of forms of sexual immorality flood the eyes of whomever chooses to sit through the show [Hebr. 13:4]. There is no nudity but there is stripping for sex, adults in underwear and using women as toys. Violence includes, among other things, automatic gunfire to kill, gunfire deaths, firearm threats and a knifing [Jonah 3:8]. Lots of lies [Rev. 22:14-15.]. The listing in the Findings/Scoring section itemize all I was able to capture.
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):
Offense to God (O)(2):
NO service charges!!!
Donations to the CAP Ministry are Tax Deductible!!!
Christian Media News
|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.|