Movies that offend Christians.

Pure

Fiel a Verdad
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Posts
15,135
So as not to hijack seacats 'nudity' thread, this one is devoted to what conservative Christians find objectionable in movies. in Seacats' thread i posted a list of films condemned by the Legion of Decency (Catholic).

Here is a main site of protestant, evangelical Xtian movie reviews. As examples, I picked The Passion of the Christ and Miss Congeniality. In sum, though the reviewer cautions about exposing kid to the violence of POC, he had many concerns about the subtle corruptions of MC, so that the latter ends with a much lower rating.

i invite others to peruse the reviews and review them!

the overall score is an average for the six areas: violence, impudence, sexual immorality [anything outside of monogamy], drugs, offense to God, murder/suicide. it can be seen that, while violence is looked at, it's outweighed by the sexual and 'moral' categories.


major site for Xtian reviews

www.capalert.com {childcare action project, which has been running for several years}

list of over 1100 movies reviewed.
http://www.capalert.com/capreports/index.htm

review of ‘Passion of Xt’ {overall score, 69 of 100, 100 being the best}

http://www.capalert.com/capreports/passionofthechrist.htm

Under the CAP Analysis Model the content of The Passion of the Christ earned scores equivalent to scores earned by G rated movies in Sexual Immorality and Drugs/Alcohol in the comparative baseline database of movies, to the scores earned by PG movies in Offense to God (witchcraft, Satanism, occult, etc) and Murder/Suicide and to the scores earned by PG-13 movies in Impudence/Hate. But in Wanton Violence/Crime, this movie could not have been more "R." The Passion of the Christ earned a lower Wanton Violence/Crime score than American History X. If I removed the investigation area scoring display limiters that display as zero any less-than-zero scores, the score in Wanton Violence/Crime would be -442. This reveals another great feature of the CAP analysis model. It identifies the areas of concentration of invasive programming and is clearly displayed in the CAP thermometers. The heaviest concentration of invasive programming in The Passion of the Christ is obviously in Wanton Violence/Crime.

Though this movie is a faithful depiction of the unimaginable terrors our Lord suffered for our sakes, it is a movie. It is entertainment. Violent entertainment. Thus the reason for the zero score in the Wanton Violence/Crime investigation area. It was not Jesus in the film. It was Jim Caviezel in the full-body moulage,. That it is truthful to the actual events does not excuse exposing your kids to it unless you, mom/dad, say so. There is where the brutal objectivity of the CAP analysis model (the Findings/Scoring section) becomes most valuable. If a scene is violent, the CAP model notes it as such whether "justified" by actual events or not. (See the "BEFORE You Read On..." link above.)


------

harsh review of ‘miss congeniality’ {overall score 41 of 100}

http://www.capalert.com/capreports/misscongeniality.htm

There are very few bold issues of immorality and other matters which are likely unacceptable to the righteous parent and grandparent, but like an ethical desensitizing trap there is enough "micro" ignominies to seem harmless individually but enough in quantity to make the total magnitude of influence equivalent to an R-rated movie circa 1995. God told us about Satan going out to the four corners of the world to deceive us so we would fight amongst ourselves [Rev. 20:8]. Maybe this slow and progressive decay of morality through entertainment and R-13) is indeed part of Satan's campaign?
 
This is curious, though probably not too surprising:

"Dogma" rated a six.

"The Birdcage" didn't even get a rating.
I could not justify spending the time and effort necessary to do a complete analysis of The Birdcage. After 25 minutes of the show I had one and a half recording logs of homosexual suggestions and activities. There were other examples of unacceptable material, but none so thick as homosexuality. I apologize if you were expecting to see a complete review of The Birdcage, but there are some things I can stand, and some things I cannot stand -- this movie was "cannot." It was glorification of homosexualtiy, pure and simple.

"Rocky Horror Picture Show" rated a 69, without the irony of that score noted. :cool:
 
Huckleman2000 said:
"Rocky Horror Picture Show" rated a 69, without the irony of that score noted. :cool:

That's just fucking classic... :D

Ring around the virgins, ring around the virgins...
 
Perhaps it would be easier to start from the set of movies that don't offend them?

I'm wondering why Gibson didn't make a movie about the Sermon On The Mount? That was a more important moment in Jesus' life.

Oh yeah, I forgot. It was also boring.
 
Violence:
Secret Window 36
Ultraviolet 36
Collateral 37

Sex:
Eyes Wide Shut 43
Love Actually 48
The Sweetest Thing 41
 
As a very liberal Christian, I've found virtually any facet of reality, especially entertainment, tends to offend conservative Christians.
 
note to rg,

well, POC did not offend the reviewer, though he found it heady.

i did look for highly ranked movies. Stuart Little, a fave of my daughter got about a 90, iirc. several of the Disney movies scored very high.

one thing that struck me as a quasi xtian is the focus on minutiae. the reviewer counts the number of times the Lord's name is taken in vain {and notes the accompanying swear words), and comes up with a kind of 'density' figure of so many ill uses per hour.

elsewhere in the review of Miss Congeniality, is a note that although there is no nudity, there is a shot of a mannequin which has some 'detail.' on other movies, besides looking for nudity, the reviewer notes wet T shirts. this reminds me a bit of the Puritans and Orthodox rabbis who seek to erect 'fences' around the serious prohibitions: for example, if it's wrong to drink liquor on the Sabbath, it would be wrong to *buy* liquor on the Sabbath, intending to drink it the day after. for that exposes one to the temptation of drinking it on the Sabbath.
---


Note to Joe: I saw 'ultraviolet' and it was awfully violent, though my daughter kind of liked it.

you do note the irony, however, that 'eyes wide shut' ends up about the same as 'miss congeniality,' because of the latter's moral corruption.

ADDED: Looking further at 'Eyes Wide Shut', the oddity is that its score is so high: Analysis shows it's because of the absence of 'wanton violence' and 'murder,' though iirc, murder is threatened or hinted at. The film gets 100s in these categories. Otherwise its average would be closer to 20. The reviewer is oddly blind, since under 'offenses to God' he gives it a medium rating because God's name is hardly ever taken in vain. BUT though the reviewer sees Satan in Miss Congeniality, he's oddly blind to this as a central theme of the Eyes Wide Shut movie.
 
Last edited:
Pure said:
this reminds me a bit of the Puritans and Orthodox rabbis who seek to erect 'fences' around the serious prohibitions: for example, if it's wrong to drink liquor on the Sabbath, it would be wrong to *buy* liquor on the Sabbath, intending to drink it the day after. for that exposes one to the temptation of drinking it on the Sabbath.

In the case of The Darkness V. the State of South Dakota, I'd like to present Exhibit A.
 
The_Darkness said:
In the case of The Darkness V. the State of South Dakota, I'd like to present Exhibit A.

Yup, I lived in CT with blue laws - no sales after 8 pm or on Sundays, and I believe you had to go to a state store for even wine or beer. No carry-outs from bars. I recall many a mad dash at about 7:45. ;)
 
here's an interesting example. the film, 'about a boy,' is rather touching, i thought, and cleverly worked out. interesting characters.

the reviewer notes the positive side of the film, but ends by giving it a 37, and PG 13 rating. he notes the lord's name was used 22 times in vain, 8 times by a child. under 'impudence,' he notes one incident of a child yelling at his mother (who you will remember is somewhat unbalanced and tries to kill herself).

Many things happen to fortify the bonding between Will and Marcus. One of the more memorable was when Marcus performed in a talent show singing "Killing Me Softly" which he and his mother sang often. But such a song was not wise for Marcus' social standing since he was the brunt of all the tormenting. But yet Marcus stood strong and performed the song because of his love for his mother, Fiona. After pelting and jabs began, Will stepped in and accompanied Marcus on guitar. Touching it was.

But... Yes there seems to always be a "but." The number of times the three/four letter word vocabulary by an adolescent nearly outnumbers the times it is used by adults [2Tim. 2:16, Col. 3:8]. How's that for an example for your kids? The number of language issues were so many that this movie earned a zero in Impudence/Hate. The issues of violence included the attempted suicide by drug overdose, adolescent tormenting and adolescent threats to kill.

Sex/Homosexuality was rampant with "lite" sexual issues. No nudity but lots of sex talk, comments, anatomical references and "locker room" sexual advice to a child [Gal. 5:19, Eph. 5:4]. There were also drug-related, alcohol and smoking issues. Topping the list of ignominy was the lying and encouragements to lie [Rev. 21:8, Luke 17:2]. The listing in the Findings/Scoring section will reveal all that was noted.
 
Last edited:
Pure said:
...
the reviewer notes the positive side of the film, but ends by giving it a 39, and PG 13 rating. he notes the lord's name was used 22 times in vain, 8 times by a child....

Yes, the reviewer(s?) seem to have glommed onto this quantification idea like a McKinsey consultant with a newly-minted MBA. I suppose they think it preserves the objectivity of their reviews, but is there a more useless application of objectivity than reviewing movies? :confused:

The cop-out for not reviewing The Bird Cage (quoted previously) is a prime example - the reviewer was too busy counting the instances of homosexual references in a drag-show ( :confused: ) to understand the parallelism being set up between Nathan Lane's diva-ish behavior and Gene Hackman's, as well as in both of the parents' relationships. True, the movie attempts to make the point that gay couples and straight couples (and gay parents and straight parents) are more alike than different, but that isn't just revealed by counting the number of times gay people are shown as 'normal'.

Yet another instance of the mis-application of statistical techniques. :rolleyes:
 
a moral problem I wasn't even aware of.

in a review of 'beautiful minds,' a biography of Nash, the mathematician with the mental problems--a fine movie-- one sees the following:

If you do decide to watch this movie, know that it is PG-13 and has most of the markings of a PG-13. Language included multiple uses of the three/for letter word vocabulary with none of the most foul of the foul words [Eph. 5:4. Col. 3:8] plus multiple uses of God's name in vain with and without the four letter expletive [Deut. 5:11].

Several issues of violence might be of concern for parents, issues such as attempted murder by gunfire ending in drowning deaths, abduction with brutality and self-mutilation with blood [Ezek. 11:21, 1 Thess. 5:22, Matt. 7:23].

Sexual issues included sex talk, anatomical references, seeking of sexual conquest, a woman placing a man's hand on her chest

and a man and woman in bed (clothed). Maybe the man and woman in bed together were married in the movie but the actor and actress were not [James 1:21, Hebr. 13:4].

Several instances of smoking and drinking to drunkenness and drinking to celebrate earned the loss of a few points.


--
IOW, the reviewer is consider the issue of the morals of the *actors* involved, as shown by their playing certain roles.
 
Pure said:
...
IOW, the reviewer is consider the issue of the morals of the *actors* involved, as shown by their playing certain roles.

Speaking as a former sometime professional actor, I can unequivocally state that if the criteria are expanded to the morals of actors, they can pretty much write off all but a fraction of filmed entertainment.

This would explain the comparatively high scores for animated movies. :rolleyes:
 
it's to be assumed that Lava Girl leads a chaste life offscreen, and that her pristine morals were not harmed in her playing her movie roles!
 
Pure said:
and a man and woman in bed (clothed). Maybe the man and woman in bed together were married in the movie but the actor and actress were not [James 1:21, Hebr. 13:4].

--
IOW, the reviewer is consider the issue of the morals of the *actors* involved, as shown by their playing certain roles.


Wait, wait, wait.

You mean they are actually taking offense that the actors were not married? So every movie that is reviewed will have this negative result?

That is laughable.
 
S-Des said:
I'm a Christian and I love her AVs (yours too, btw). :heart: :rose:

Well, I am still a Christian. I think. I guess. I'm struggling from shattered faith so I suppose I'm in limbo.

BUT I still had incredible sex before (when I wasn't struggling). And I still enjoyed porn and erotica before.

Well, on second thought, maybe I wasn't a very good Christian.

:cool:
 
sweetsubsarahh said:
Well, I am still a Christian. I think. I guess. I'm struggling from shattered faith so I suppose I'm in limbo.

BUT I still had incredible sex before (when I wasn't struggling). And I still enjoyed porn and erotica before.

Well, on second thought, maybe I wasn't a very good Christian.

:cool:

What the hell do porn and erotica have to do with being a Christian? :confused:
 
rgraham666 said:
What the hell do porn and erotica have to do with being a Christian? :confused:

Beats me.

But apparently it is important to those who judge movies.

Morning, Rob.

:kiss:
 
morning, sarah, rg! how's the morally corrupt crowd this morn?
:devil:
 
Pure said:
morning, sarah, rg! how's the morally corrupt crowd this morn?
:devil:

Enjoying our moral corruptness, of course.

How are you today, Pure?

:D
 
Huckleman2000 said:
The cop-out for not reviewing The Bird Cage (quoted previously) is a prime example - the reviewer was too busy counting the instances of homosexual references in a drag-show ( :confused: ) to understand the parallelism being set up between Nathan Lane's diva-ish behavior and Gene Hackman's, as well as in both of the parents' relationships. True, the movie attempts to make the point that gay couples and straight couples (and gay parents and straight parents) are more alike than different, but that isn't just revealed by counting the number of times gay people are shown as 'normal'.

Yet another instance of the mis-application of statistical techniques. :rolleyes:

Agreed, which is why I'm not going to this website/magazine (whatever it was) or similar ones to decide which movie to watch. My thoughts when reading this thread: Instead of sitting back judging these people for their thoughts on these movies, I'll sit back and let them, or similar people, judge me for not agreeing, and go see another one. "Black Christmas" is looking quite appealing.

Q_C
 
Back
Top