Click on CAPCon Alert
image for explanation
A service to parents and grandparents
Rugrats in Paris: The Movie (2000), (G)
CAP Score: 84
CAP Influence Density: 0.29
Now by MC, Amex, Visa and more!
Your donations are TAX DEDUCTIBLE!
The foul language eliminator
Removes profanity from
movies and TV shows
Switch to LifeLine
long distance service
The Family Friendly
A Christ Centered
Community Web Site
From the best-seller book series.
NOW ONLY Just in time for Christmas!
Christian Media News
Your One Stop
For Everything Christian
Free Email Ministry
Christian Banner eXchange
For FREE text-only versions of our media analysis reports as they are calculated, open this email then click "send." If your browser does not handle this URL format properly, send us a request to add you.
SUMMARY / COMMENTARY:
*RUGRATS IN PARIS: THE MOVIE* (G) -- "I want a mom who'll take my hand and make me feel like a holiday."
I have said several times that it is not the job of this ministry to decide for you whether a movie is fit for you and your family -- that is YOUR decision to make. We just give you the truth about a movie using the teachings and expectations of Jesus as our investigation standards so YOU can decide for yourselves whether a movie is or is not fit. And we give you some comparative numeric tools to help you make an informed decision. This report on something as seemingly innocuous as a G-rated Rugrats movie may put your trust in this service to the test. Please be patient with me while I thump on the Bible.
Let me get this part over with -- there was nudity in this cartoon for kids. A trio of restauranteurs dressed as Sumo wrestlers display themselves with lengthy camera-forced attention on the revealing aspects of their traditional garb. Of the screen time showing the Sumo characters, much more time was spent on their posterior or their raised legs from a lower-than-eye-level viewing angle than was spent on their faces. They even do a dance, flapping their flab in the breeze. Though display of a little more skin more often and with longer visual contact to a younger audience each year has gotten to the point of general approval does NOT free such display of its accountability to God's Word. Just because that style of "un"dress is a cultural feature of an entire population does not make display of nudity okay. Why would you suppose the Bible calls it "shameful nakedness?" Just because Homer Simpson(tm) gets away with it does not excuse it. Wide acceptance of such does not equal God's approval of it. If everyone who has ever drawn and will ever draw a breath committed theft, stealing would still be a sin. And to the adversaries of this ministry, we will not discuss a three-inch strap up the backside qualifying as "clothing."
I know I sound brutal on nudity in and as entertainment but consider Hab. 2:15 "Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbors, pouring it from the wineskin till they are drunk, so that he can gaze on their naked bodies." Has the entertainment industry's relentless barrage of nudity and tease of it in and as entertainment, pouring it from their cameras until every eye has seen it, made us, their "neighbors" so drunk (desensitized) to it that we can gaze upon it with impunity toward His Word about it? Are we now so drunk with it that we have lost all inhibition toward it? Do we no longer care that God calls gratuitous nakedness "shameful" ... repeatedly?
Now to the storyline...
Euroreptarland in Paris, a Japanese-owned amusement park, is experiencing some difficulties. The giant reptar, designed by Stu Pickles is going haywire and falling apart. Coco La Bouche, the curator of the park and next in line for company president, demands that Stu report to Euroreptarland to fix the contraption. By what may have been miscommunications, the entire Rugrats clan gets to go with Stu to Paris. As connective programming, the Japanese company owner would prefer that the new president be a family person. Coco is single. A rather bitter and conniving single woman at that. To fill the family person requirement she plans to marry widower Charles Finster and adopt his son Chuckie -- at any cost.
Once in Paris the shenanigans start. Mixed very well into Rube Goldberg antics was Chuckie missing his mommy and wanting a new mommy, saddened by the sight of all the other kids dancing with their mommies. A sample of the tearful and very warm emotions conveyed by this part of the movie is a song sung by Chuckie which included: "I want a mom who'll take my hand and make me feel like a holiday...who'll love me whatever." What a wonderful definition of "mom." The author is to be commended.
Many clever and ingenious strings of events wrap together like a pig-in-a-blankey to present what could have been much more delightful. There was material for child and parent alike, but as usual some unnecessary programming was added for what purpose only God, the filmmakers and the writers know. Angelica was a little extra snippy in this version. A flight attendant was anything but attendant. We are treated with two dogs sniffing each other, the curvature of Bouche's' glutei maximi, and a dog urinating on the Eiffel Tower. [Isa. 2:17] The extent of trickery and the teachings to break rules [2Tim. 2:5] might cause a little bend in the continuity of your teachings of wholesomeness and ethics [Hebr. 13:9]. There are a few more ignominies as itemized in the Findings/Scoring section which combine with these to mathematically yield a score of 84: three points below the lower limit of the 17-point G scoring range; two points under the top of the 18-point PG scoring range.
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.
FINDINGS / SCORING:
NOTE: Multiple occurrences of each item described below may be likely, definitely when plural.
Wanton Violence/Crime (W):
Offense to God (O)(2):