 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 MAR23045  (2003), PG-13Analysis Date: April 25, 2003 CAP Score: 34 out of 100 CAP Influence Density: 2.02 MinMax: -100 |
 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 -- I guess filmmakers do not know how to make a real PG-13 anymore. Cast/Crew Details Courtesy Internet Movie Database Production (US): Further Films, GreenStreet Productions Distribution (US): Buena Vista International, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Distributing Corporation Director(s): Fred Schepisi Producer(s): Joel Douglas Michael Douglas, Marcy Drogin, Kerry Orent, Fred Schepisi, Jesse Wigutow Written by/Screenplay: Jesse Wigutow Cinematography/Camera: Ian Baker Music: Paul Grabowsky Film Editing: Kate Williams Casting: Avy Kaufman Production Design: Patrizia von Brandenstein Art Direction: George Allison Viewed At: Loews Cineplex Citywiew, Fort Worth, Texas One of the truly great masters of the World War II era movies graces us again but this time with a larger helping of humanity and vulnerability than typical of his resume, not at all like the hotdog soldier parts of his youth. One of the truly great masters of performances of a dogface GI to a heroic pilot to a pestersome nemesis of Captain Nemo, even his debut as a harried husband opposite Barbara Stanwyk in 1946. Kirk Douglas. Even a recent stroke did not keep the dogface GI down. I found respect for this movie going into it simply because Kirk Douglas led the entourage, maintaining faithful allegiance to his history of performances relatively free of foul language and sexual immorality. But not so with the rest of them. I soon lost the respect I had going into the movie, but not for Kirk Douglas. I do not typically keep track of whom does the cussing in movies, just how many times it happens. I don't think Kirk Douglas uttered even one. He may have. I didn't log it as spoken by him if he did. But this time I kept track of who spoke the vulgarities -- at least of how many times adolescents used the three/four letter word vocabulary [Eph. 5:4] *including* God's name in vain *with* the four letter expletive [Deut. 5:11], perpetuating the sin of doing so by example [Is. 30:1]. Yes, there is shock to such display, but at what cost? Especially to those who engineered the display and the stewards who permitted it [Luke 17:2]? Is it worth it? Introducing the Gromberg family: Mitchell (Kirk Douglas), founder of a successful New York law firm; Mitchell's wife Evelyn, (Diana Douglas, who was Kirk's real-life first wife); Mitchell's son and lawyer with his dad's law firm, Alex (Michael Douglas); Alex's wife, Rebecca (Bernadette Peters); Alex's first son, 21 year old Asher (Cameron Douglas, who is Michael's son by his first marriage); Alex's second son, 11 year old Eli (Rory Culkin). And tucked away in the background is Mitchell's brother, whose name I cannot remember and IMDB does not list it, who is suffering senility and dementia. I will in no way entertain that this movie is true to the Douglas family history, but this movie contained enough assaults on morality and decency to earn it a "R-13" Mitchell is the family patriarch as portrayed in the photo on the poster above. He has become less of a limit-setter and more of one who would compromise to achieve harmony. Evelyn appears to be the "good woman behind every good man." She is the neck that turns the head [of the family] any way she chooses but in a way that gently lets the head of the family think he is the decision-maker. Too bad that when dancing with Mithcell's she placed his hands on her buttocks telling him "Hold me like you love me", equating sex with love. That they were married in the movie and even married once in real life does not excuse such display let alone with a cinematic counterfeiting of love. Love is not sex and sex is not love. Sex is a *tool* of the love reserved for a man and a woman in marriage. A beautiful tool to be sure but a tool nonetheless. A tool under their command, not commanded by it. One of the first scenes is of Eli's classmates constructing female anatomy with clay [Eph. 5:4]. Amidst the stereotyping of 11 and 12 year old boys as sexual slaves comes a Goth girl Abigail Staley (Irene Gorovaia) who, that same night, becomes Eli's first kiss ... and maybe more offscreen. Implications were strong but not enough to make a credible claim. Abigail convinces Eli to sneak out of a supervised dance party to be alone so she could smoke and try to get Eli to smoke. While out on the streets, Abigail's big bad skate-boarding ex-boyfriend tries to muscle her away from Eli. In another subplot as Alex pours over a rushed case, an acquaintance bursts in with a Hispanic woman begging for his legal help. Soon the scene moves to Alex volunteering in a local soup kitchen as another worked sexually attacks him, almost successful in raping him, causing he and she to commit adultery [Prov. 6:32]. But any who lusts after another in his/her heart is guilty of it [Matt. 5:28]. Tattooed Asher is the kind to push whatever limit is set before him until it breaks. And one did. Asher was a drug dealer and was caught, all the while denying he had any knowledge of the marijuana plants growing in his locked closet. Earlier, Asher was noted to be stripping a girl to her underwear as she stripped him to his bare backside [1Cor. 7:2]. But all is not lost to lust. Asher decided to tell the girl "No." There is much more. Some good. A lot not good. Please read the listing in the Findings/Scoring section before you decide whether this film is fit for your family.
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. ***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) Impudence/Hate (I) Sex/Homosexuality (S) Drugs/Alcohol (D): Offense to God (O) Murder/Suicide (M) |
 NO service charges!!! Donations to the CAP Ministry are Tax Deductible!!! |
 |
 |
 |
 Christian Media News |
 |
 A Singles Christian Network |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 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. |
