 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 MAR23066  (2003), PG-13Analysis Date: July 3, 2003 CAP Score: 67 out of 100 CAP Influence Density: 0.60 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 processing fees if you do not want to pay them. 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 -- "Your dogs are gay!"  Cast/Crew Details Courtesy Internet Movie Database Production (US): Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Marc Platt Productions, Type A Films Distribution (US): Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Distributing Corporation Director(s): Charles Herman-Wurmfeld Producer(s): David Nicksay, Marc E. Platt, Stephen Traxler, Reese Witherspoon Written by/Screenplay: Characters: Amanda Brown. Story: Eve Ahlert, Dennis Drake, Kate Kondell. Screenplay: Kate Kondell Cinematography/Camera: Elliot Davis Music: Rolfe Kent Film Editing: Peter Teschner Production Design: Missy Stewart Art Direction: Mark Worthington Viewed At: Driftwood Theater 6 I did not expect Legally Blonde 2: Red,White and Blonde to earn a PG-13 score, but it did. Barely. I expected it to earn more of a score earned by PG movies. I guess that is evidence of the insulation of the CAP analysis model and its scoring from my personal opinions. One of the six CAP investigation areas revealed enough content to earn a score of zero. Care to guess which one? That's right. Sexual Immorality. Just like the first Legally Blonde. Harvard Law School graduate Elle Woods (Reese Witherspoon), even more obsessed with fashion and lace than in the first Legally Blonde, joins a Boston Law Firm to just get fired because of her animal activist passion. She is miffed when she finds that animals are used for cosmetic research and development. Scheduled for a large wedding to Emmett Richmond (Luke Wilson), Elle is so infatuated with her dog, Bruiser that she wants to find Bruiser's family to invite them to the wedding. Elle finds only Bruiser's mother -- in a cosmetics research facility. Bruiser's mom is one of the animals being used. Elle launches a single-minded campaign to outlaw using animals for cosmetic research purposes. And she goes to Washington to do it. Elle joins the staff of prominent senior Representative Rudd (Sally Field) in order to be able to prepare the Bruiser Bill which would outlaw animal abuse in the name of cosmetic research. Standing in her way, initially, is the Hill-smart staff of Representative Rudd. Leading the caustic opposition to Elle and all that she stands for is Chief of Staff, Grace Stoteraux (Regina King). But Elle finds an informed and quite experienced fellow, Sidney Post (Bob Newhart) in the most unlikely career, a doorman, to help her navigate the trickery and complexity of politics on the Hill. Soon, the Rudd staff warm up to Elle and apply their combined expertise to help her. Even the seemingly slithering Grace does an about face and blackmails her boss, Rudd into supporting Elle. Legally Blonde 2: Red,White and Blonde is a bubbly and bright yet air-headed farce with warm and touching force. It could be enjoyable and maybe even recommendable, but....... Sexual immorality is rampant. [1 Cor. 6:18 - 20] There is strong stereotyping of the homosexual lifestyle and acceptance of it such as transvestism, "Chip-n-Dale" dancers and promotion of it in both dialogue and dressing of dogs in black leather strap outfits. Bruiser meets a Rottweiler owned by a congressman and falls madly in love with it. The veterinarian's office said Bruiser is some dog for a little Chihuahua that it would try to mount a Rottweiler -- both dogs being male. The veterinarian office clerk's comment, after token refusals of Elle and the congressman to accept the behavior of their dogs, was "Your dogs are gay!" to which they eventually say "accepting" things such as "I am proud of..." And the two male dogs get married with Elle and Emmett. [1 Cor. 6:9-10, Rom. 1:24 - 27] Regarding "acceptance" of the practice of homosexuality, God has decreed that such practice is sinful as are so many of our behaviors. But we do not have to accept the sin (not even our own) to accept the sinner. We do not have to embrace the sin to embrace the sinner. We do not have to practice the sin to reach the sinner. Nor do we have to change ourselves, compromise our faith, or situationally redefine, counterfeit or conditionally apply God's Word to appease they who choose to practice that which flies the face of the Word of He who spent three days in Hell so you and I would not have to spend one moment there. We do not have to lower the standards set for us by making the sinner's standards our own. To do otherwise is being closed minded to His Word in favor of the world. To do otherwise is encouraging the sin which is sin on ourselves. We must love the sinner (even ourselves) enough to tell him/her the Truth. While Jesus wants us to not look down our noses at they who choose to violate His Word, He also does not want us to "look up to" them. The practitioner of homosexuality is as precious to Jesus as anyone else. Even me. God hates no one no matter what Fred Phelps says. It is some of our behaviors God hates. And all sinful behavior can be forgiven. No expect ions. No debate. The use of foul language was limited to seven uses of the three/four letter word vocabulary plus 16 uses of God's name in vain but each without the four letter expletive [Deut 5:11] The length and scope of these Summary/Commentary section is being reduced to help reduce our costs until we can find full funding. But the Findings/Scoring section is not reduced in any way. Please read the listing in the Findings/Scoring section to discover all that was noted.
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) Sexual Immorality (S) Drugs/Alcohol (D): Offense to God (O) Murder/Suicide (M) |
 NO processing fees it you do not want to pay them!!! 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. |
