 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 MAR25041  (2005), PG-13 [R-13*] (1hr 47min) With Comparative to the 1974 Version 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. Nearly 1000 analyses for parents, grandparents, pastors, youth leaders and more. |
"http://www.capalert.com/ now_playing.htm" Target="_Blank"  Click it to try it! |
  You DO NOT have to have a PayPal account. OR by US Mail (preferred - no service charges). The CAP is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit Christian ministry (75-2607488). Your 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 |
(This section may be and sometimes is somewhat subjective.)
 Cast/Crew Details Courtesy Internet Movie Database Production (US): Happy Madison Productions, Paramount Pictures, Columbia Pictures Corporation, MTV Films, Callahan Filmworks Distribution (US): Paramount Pictures, Columbia TriStar, Sony Pictures Entertainment Director(s): Peter Segal Producer(s): Barry Bernardi, Allen Covert, Michael Ewing, David Gale, Jack Giarraputo, Tim Herlihy, Albert S. Ruddy, Van Toffler Story: Albert S. Ruddy Screenplay: Sheldon Turner (2005), Tracy Keenan Wynn (1974) Cinematography/Camera: Dean Semler Music: Teddy Castellucci Film Editing: Jeff Gourson Casting: Darlene Hansen, John Papsidera Production Design: Perry Andelin Blake Art Direction: Alan Au, Domenic Silvestri Viewed at: Driftwood Theater 6 The Longest Yard is more technological pay dirt for the CAP analysis model. As I typed that I realiuzed pay dirt may indeed be appropriate. The Longest Yard is a R-13 cussfest with 133 uses of some form of foul language in 107 minutes. [Col. 3:8, Deut. 5:11] Most films rated R do not present that much potty mouth. All of it excused, of course, by the notion that such language is typical of prison life. Maybe it is but that does not excuse it in and as entertainment for preteens and new teens let alone adults. It is a sadist's dream. I suspect the portrayed intense brutality on the inmates by prison guards actually happens sometimes. I know this only because Hollywood told me so. Does its reported existence excuse it in and as entertainment? The Longest Yard is also a heavy promotion of the practice of homosexuality, in a misleading, positive, humorous light of course, keeping the harsh and brutal truth about the practice of homosexuality from us in the name of humor. The practice of homosexuality is evidently also part of prison life, again only because Hollywood says so. But does the existence of homosexuality in prison excuse the presentation of it in and as entertainment? [1 Cor. 6:9-10] Does perpetuating these behaviors by emboldening the viewer with them and desensitizing youth to them through uncounted demonstrations of them in and as entertainment excuse their existence in real life let alone in and as entertainment? By His Word, God thinks not. [1 Cor. 15:33, Phil. 4:8] If you who are so inclined to spew "homophobe" want to hear about love strong enough to tell you the truth, read on. But if you want me to hate you by bellowing violations of His Word by accepting the practice of homosexuality and embracing it; by agreeing with you that such behavior is natural, innate, healthy and safe, I won't. To do so would be a real hate crime. I will embrace the doer but I will not embrace the deed. Those of you who repeatedly strut your stuff against this Christian ministry (and quite probably many others) by belching "Homophobe!" and other words of bigotry, intolerance and hate, know this. The one who chooses to practice homosexuality is as precious to Jesus as I and anyone else who breathes I am as much a sinner as everyone else and I am precious to Jesus. And so are you. Just as you are. By the way, Fred Phelps is wrong. God does NOT hate "fags." God hates the deed but loves the doer. And in and by His love for us all, so do I. Just as a good father will still love his son even after the most severe disobedience. At least I have the guts to tell you the Truth. God's Truth, not mine. God loves us ALL. Each and every one who ever has or ever will draw a breath. It is some of our chosen behaviors He hates. By His Word. Not mine. And, yes, the practice of homosexuality is a choice. Every single non-autonomic movement of the human body is a choice. No exceptions. No debate. The Longest Yard earned a final score of 28 out of 100. R-rated movies in the comparative baseline database earned final scores of 54 and below out of 100. The bottom-scoring film in the comparative baseline database, The Specialist, was rated R and earned a final score of 25 out of 10. The final score of 28 out of 10 for The Longest Yard plants it squarely into the R scoring range. Regarding individual investigation area scores, this film earned a score of ZERO out of 100 in Impudence/Hate (I), in Sexual Immorality (S) and in Drugs/Alcohol (D). It earned a R-equivalent non-zero score in each of Wanton Violence/Crime (W) and Offense to God (O). PG-13s are getting raunchier and raunchier year after year. We told you this back in 2000. Harvard University echoed us in 2004. R-rated movies in the comparative baseline database earned influence density scores from 0.86 to 2.04 (the higher the figure the more dense the assaults on morality). Even the Influence Density of 2.86 for this film confirms its R-equivalence since the bottom-scoring film in the comparative baseline database, The Specialist, earned the influence density of 2.04. This PG-13 film earned 2.86, a full 40% more dense than the R-rated The Specialist. The above comparative scoring under the same analysis model using the same methodology, the same investigation standards and the same computer application and even by the same investigator sort of tells you all about the slipping standards of the MPAA and the taking advantage of the slippage by the entertainment industry, doesn't it. I can't wait until some generous individual or individuals provide(s) us with full funding (see our Frequently Asked Questions #4) so that we could afford to compile the massive data we have accumulated since the last time the data was compiled in 2002. As revealed in our R-13 finding which was first published in 2000, in 2002 more than 60% of PG-13 films were R-13. With PG-13 films like The Longest Yard, I shudder to think what percentage of PG-13 films of 2005 are R-13. When we get enough funding, we'll let you know. In no uncertain and inarguable terms. Maybe I will rent a copy of the 31-year old 1974 version of this film where Burt Reynolds played Paul Crewe (Adam Sandler in the 2005 version); Eddie Albert played Warden Hazen (James Cromwell in the 2005 version); Michael Conrad played Nate Scarborough (Burt Reynolds in the 2005); James Hampton played Caretaker (Chris Rock in 2005). Just to do a comparison. The 1974 version was rated R. A comparison would indeed be interesting. It would certainly reveal what Hollywood thinks of our entertainment preferences. Paul Crewe (Adam Sandler), a quarterback and MVP for the NFL, threw a game and was kicked off the league. In a drunken stupor, Crewe wrecked his girlfriend's car and a few police cars in the process and was sentenced to three years at Allenville Penitentiary. There, Warden Hazen (James Cromwell) enlisted ... err ... coerced Crewe to build a football team using the inmates to play against the guards. Such implied camaraderie would be a boon to Hazen's political aspirations to be governor according to his chubby, Kentucky Colonel-looking office guest. There is a l-o-t of discussion about, insults against, suggestions of and even demonstrations of the stereotype of the practitioner of homosexuality in this 107-minute film. The entire cheer squad, all males, for the inmate Mean Machine team were portrayed as homosexual practitioners, transvestism and all. Plus a flash of jock strap nudity of one of them. Oh, yeah. There is also full male nudity with just a jock strap and full male shower room nudity with a small panel hiding the genitals. [**] A vile and vulgar film targeted at and MPAA-approved for first-year teens? No doubt. The listing in the Findings/Scoring section will reveal all that was found in this R for your 13 year olds. UPDATE: June 1, 2005. I pushed aside the other analyses in line to make room for completing the comparative of the 1974 and the 2005 versions of The Longest Yard. The results are shown below:  The 1974 and the 2005 versions of The Longest Yard are two peas out of the same pod. The Longest Yard, PG-13 (2005) is indeed a perfect example of fulfillment of Ps. 12:8. And our kids are the victims hurt most. The 1974 R-rated version earned a final score of 29 out of 100. The 2005 PG-13-rated version earned a final score of 28. The 2005 PG-13 version is only one point out of 100 more severe than the R-rated version, but "PG-13" means less severe, and a lot less severe than 1%. While one point across 100 may seem trite, it is not trite when it represents the total scoring difference between the 2005 PG-13 version and the 1974 R version. In addition, comparison of the influence density figures is even more significant. The 2005 PG-13 version earned an influence density figure of 2.86, significantly more severe than the 1974 R-rated version figure of 2.05 (the lower the influence density figure the less dense the assaults on morality and decency). That means the 2005 version was a full 139% more dense in immoral behaviors and imagery than the 1974 R-rated version. The PG-13-rated 2005 version spewed 133 forms of foul language, 122% more than the 1974 R-rated version which spewed 109. The 1974 R-rated version presented less sexually immoral material than the 2005 PG-13 version. The 1974 R-rated version emboldened the viewer with less presentation of drugs and/or alcohol than the 2005 PG-13 version. And, yes, there was homosexuality presented in the 1974 R version but at least the actors did not display jock strap nudity in the R version as they did in the PG-13 version. We have become so drugged by the narcotics of extremes in and as entertainment that what once was morally unacceptable has become morally invisible. After ten years of study and nearly 1000 film analyses I would like to think it would be to your advantage to take our findings seriously. Our kids are the feeding grounds for the progressively ravenous immorality monster which gets hungrier for younger and younger kids every year. Our R-13 finding and this analysis prove it. 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. |
 |
(The heart of the CAP Analysis Model)  Wanton Violence/Crime (W) Impudence/Hate (I) Sexual Immorality (S) Drugs/Alcohol (D): Offense to God (O) Murder/Suicide (M) |
 |
 Christian Educators Association International |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
| 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. |
| 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. |
