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.

KANGAROO JACK (PG) -- What WAS the MPAA thinking!?


Production: Castle Rock Entertainment, Jerry Bruckheimer Films, Warner Bros.
Distribution: Warner Bros.
Director(s): David McNally
Producer(s): Jerry Bruckheimer, KristieAnne Groelinger, Andrew Mason, Chad Oman, Pat Sandston, Mike Stenson, Barry H. Waldman
Written by/Screenplay: Story: Steve Bing & Barry O'Brien. Screenplay: Steve Bing. Scott Rosenberg
Cinematography/Camera: Peter Menzies Jr.
Music: Paul Linford, Trevor Rabin
Film Editing: William Goldenberg, John Murray
Casting: Ronna Kress
Production Design: George Liddle
Art Direction: Guy Dyas, Brian Edmonds, Richard Hobbs

Great day in the morning!! What was the MPAA thinking in giving Kangaroo Jack a PG rating!? A man grabbing and holding a woman's breasts with a comment "They felt so real!" [1 Cor. 7:1-2] Talk of his testicles falling off! [Eph. 5:4] Drunkenness! Guzzling beer! A drinking contest! [Eph. 5:18] Gunfire to kill, repeatedly! A huge knife at a man's throat, repeatedly! [Ps. 11:5] Nine uses of the three/four letter word vocabulary! [Col. 3:8] Nineteen uses of God's name in vain though none were with the four letter expletive. [Deut. 5:11] Kangaroo Jack is no more a PG than I am the Man in the Moon! It is simply more theft of childhood from children. All because the MPAA think they know what is acceptable for your kids. [Jude 4]

This is a long report so please be patient and open minded. Kangaroo Jack is the perfect subject for two features of the CAP analysis model.

One features of the CAP analysis model is its ability to detect the use of "thousands" of lesser issues of questionable morality and ethics to get the same "effect" as the use of fewer but more bold issues. Consider. Some movies present programming with a greater number of examples of assault on morality and decency of lesser severity to achieve the same "effect" as others which present fewer issues but of greater severity of assault. For example, Movie A presents 100 examples of "lesser" issues of assault on morality and decency, each worth 10 "bads." Movie B presents 10 examples of greater assault on morality and decency, each worth 100 "bads." The impact or influence on the observer is the same -- 1000 bads. Such a subtle technique may be invisible to the conscious mind but it is not invisible to the developing character. Nor is it invisible to the CAP analysis model.

The second feature of the CAP analysis model that makes this movie the perfect subject for it is the incorporation of time in the influence equation to provide the CAP Influence Density (ID) figure. Consider Movie X presents 10 examples of corruptive programming and does so in 45 minutes. Movie Y also presents 10 examples of corruptive programming but does so in one hour. Movie X has a higher density of corruptive programming and thus presents a higher risk of planting aberrant behavior templates thus a higher Influence Density figure.

Kangaroo Jack is an example of both Movie A and Movie X. It presents a plethora of examples of assaults on morality but of the "lesser" kind (plus a few of the more bold kind) AND it throws them at the viewer in a shorter duration than many movies (only 84 minutes, timed minutes). Kangaroo Jack is a perfect example of having become so drugged by vulgar extremes that what once was morally unacceptable has become morally invisible, a perfect example of a childhood "AX(e)" movie.

The story opens in the childhood days of Louis Fucci (Anthony Anderson) saving young Charlie Carbone (Jerry O'Connell) from drowning, thus setting up opportunity for Louis to extort just about any servitude out of Charlie.

Time marches forward and Louis becomes a hustler in small time criminal operations. Charlie becomes the stepson of gangster Salvatore Maggio (Christopher Walken) who "tolerated" Charlie all his maturing life. [Matt. 18:10] Louis gets mixed up in delivering some stolen TV sets to a warehouse that turned out to be part of Charlie's dad's criminal operations. Louis begs and pressures Charlie into helping him make the delivery. Botching the delivery and lending the police to the warehouse, Charlie's dad is not happy with the boys and gives them a chance to redeem themselves by making a clandestine delivery to Mr. Smith (whose name is not shown in the IMDb.com listing) in Australia. Little do the boys know that the envelope they are carrying contains $50,000 as payment to Mr. Smith to kill them [Hab. 2:9].

On their way to deliver their own contract payoff, the boys hit a kangaroo and believe it is dead. Taking some "souvenir" photos, Louis puts his lucky red jacket on the kangaroo to get a photo with it. Soon, the kangaroo they affectionately name "Jackie Legs" awakens and hops away after decking Charlie. Much to their chagrin, the boys realize the envelope with the money is in Louis' jacket pocket ... on the kangaroo ... hopping away. Down to their last hopes, the boys find a wildlife preserve worker, Jessie (Estella Warren) and a bush pilot to help them catch the runaway 'roo.

Finding that the boys had botched even the delivery of their own death dollars, Charlie's dad dispatches Frankie Lombardo, one of his stooges, to finish the job. Not only are the boys trying to catch the kicking kangaroo, they are trying to stay out of reach of Mr. Smith and now they are trying to stay away from Frankie. The rest of the show is of the boys trying to stay alive and catch Jackie Legs.

Also in the rest of the show is most of the ignominy revealed at the beginning of this report. I will leave the itemization of findings to the Findings/Scoring section. And I dearly hope you'll read Findings/Scoring section with an open mind before you decide whether Kangaroo Jack is fit for your young ones. Or yourselves.

Before closing this report, I am going to take a lengthy opportunity to try to fortify your acceptance of the truly influential properties of the entertainment industry. Please be patient. And open minded.

There is drinking and drunkenness in this movie under a mask of comedy. A recent study revealed that adolescent exposure to drinking and smoking in entertainment leads to an undeniable increase in alcohol and tobacco abuse. 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% were under fourteen years old) only 16% were completely restricted from viewing R-rated movies. The report further states the prevalence of having tried smoking without parental knowledge was 35% for those with no restrictions on viewing R-rated movies, 12% for those with partial restrictions, and two percent for those with complete restrictions. The prevalence of having tried alcohol without parental knowledge was 46% for those with no restrictions, 16% for those with partial restrictions and four percent for those with complete restrictions. Rather revealing of the influences of the entertainment industry wouldn't you say? Whether the movie is rated R or not, the focus is the influence of drinking and smoking in and as entertainment.

Harvard educated child developmental expert Dr. Karen Nelson, Developmental Psychologist and Professor of Psychology agrees with me that entertainment violence can plant aberrant behavioral templates. The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry have agreed that violence in movies can and does beget aggression in youth. And God says so [1 Co. 15:33]. Professor Nelson also agrees with me also that other negative behavioral expressions such as arrogance, rebellion, hatred in entertainment can plant behavioral templates as well. Further, Dr. Nelson agrees with me that any behavioral expression can be shaped by observation of behavior in entertainment, good or bad, and that aberrant behavior or change in attitude or coping skills caused or catalyzed by the influence of entertainment may manifest as an entirely different expression than that observed. You must understand that an implanted behavioral template can and often is indelible and does not have to manifest as the same behavior by which it was planted. The manifestation may surface as something entirely different than the observed behavior which implanted it. Want more? Professional counselor Doctor Larry Gilliam and Dr. Nelson agree with me that it would be unusual for even a 16 year old to be able to fully comprehend the consequences of his/her actions or to be able to fully separate fantasy from reality: that such capabilities do not typically plateau until the early 20s. How much more proof of the influence of such presences in and as entertainment do we need? Think of the issue this way. Did you ever get misty-eyed at anything you saw/heard in the movies? Have you ever gotten mad or happy or sad or "energized" at anything you saw and heard on the big screen -- ever?

And our study has found that the corruptive influence of modern entertainment that leads our children by their noses into arrogant and irresponsible behavioral choices and expression is quite probably more a matter of portrayed attitude-the portrayal of freedom from authority, freedom from accountability and freedom from consequences, the stealing of childhood from children-than specific instances such as violence, alcohol, tobacco, sex, language, hate, apathy, etc. Indeed, we find that all these behavioral aberrations are but spinoffs or by-products of the big screen attitude of freedom from authority, freedom from accountability and freedom from consequences: a matter of arrogance against wholesome and righteous; the portrayed attitude of "I'm gonna do it in spite of, indeed because of the rules" and "It ain't good enough no matter what 'it' is" attitude; the attitude of "I'm gonna do it no matter what they do to me!" When are we going to listen to the experts? And speak up? Do something? All it takes for evil to prosper is for good people to do nothing -- or to like it.

Thank you for at least reading this report.

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.

FINDINGS / SCORING:

Wanton Violence/Crime (W):

NOTE: The 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.