[DKeithA]

Movie Reviews

I'm sure some of you have seen this site before, but every time I check it out, I laugh out loud.

Fanatical Christian Movie Reviews - Now that's entertainment!

P.S. I'm a Christian, but not in any way the same type of Christian that maintains this site.

[Ozmodiar]

christ. what service are these people providing for the betterment of mankind? isn't that the Christian condition? to solve problems? these people are just causing them.

[ironknee]

jesus h christ

[DKeithA]

Isn't this warped?

I mean, fanatical doesn't even being to describe this.

I can't fathom the individual who sits through a movie and counts, then documents, that there were "20 uses of the most foul of the foul words."

[nealconner]

No my little Christian soldier, I cannot morally permit you to watch 101 Dalmations because:

While many people indeed seem to value their dogs more than humans, we cannot permit elevatation of the dog to human status. God clearly gave us dominion over the beasts of the earth. If we were to elevate the dog to human status, we would indeed be lowering the human to the dog level. Thus, I cannot justify derating the movie based on plotting to kill dogs. It would be different if the dogs were actually killed in the movie. But please realize that while God has given us dominion over the beasts of the earth, i.e., they are here for our use, the arey NOT here for us to abuse!

Other examples of unacceptable behavior included:

portrayal of a child having the desire to annihilate as a normal and acceptable desire
rule by fear and intimidation
gross examination of a dog to determine its gender
masked violence (hearing the sounds after display of activities which logically end in violence)
abduction and imprisonment to control and to gain unlawful entry
firey endangerment of humans
display of electric shock to private regions

[MacGorilla]

That is a very disturbing web site.

[Jutaro]

Here's a snippet:

"Maybe the Christian faith is under more attack [by the adversary through the unbelievers] than any other faith because it is the "right one": the one faith that poses the greatest and maybe the only real threat to the adversary."


niiiiiiice

[DKeithA]

Oops.

[Hinson]

You people are pathetic! NO, not the people who made the web site, but the people commenting above! I'd never seen this site before, but the knee-jerk assessments of it in this forum are just pathetic.

Look, this web page is for people who fully believe in Christianity, and who thus LIKE the idea of a movie that portrays Christian values. Now I can't imagine (for example) sitting through many movies and counting curse words, but as a Christian, overuse of such language should and does bother me. The people who made this site take the time to do all the counting and reviewing to help point out to fellow Christians what seems "good" and "bad" about various movies according to pure Christian values as they see it.

Second, some of you people seem so closed minded and blinded by your dislike of Christianity that you can't even reason properly when a Christian viewpoint is presented to you! A perfect example is the 101 Dalmatians_reference above. They gave the movie an overall score of 87! That's one of the highest scores they give to any of the movies I saw there! Like all the movies they review, they point out just about every thing in the movie that a Christian might logically find any objection to, but overall they gave it a high mark because of many positive points. They don't claim to be any sort of final authority, and they seem to try to take a balanced approach (from a Christian perspective). Seems reasonable to me.

Finally, if your beef with this site is that it seems to be a lot of overkill (noting, again, the counting, the rigorous scoring, etc,), then that's another point all together. There methods are certainly very meticulous, but they obviously have a passion for doing this sort of stuff. They provide a lot of info to show how they judged things from a Christian perspective. I wouldn't do all that, but different people deal with things in different ways.

Well, I just thought there were some points there to be made.


-Jay

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Hinson:
There methods are certainly very meticulous, but they obviously have a passion for doing this sort of stuff.

No kidding! From the review of American Beauty:

Sex/Homosexuality (S):
� teen in underwear
� adult masturbation in shower with nudity and talk about it
� homosexual presence
� Internet nudity
� adult in underwear
� teen sexually teasing married man
� sensual dance by teen for a married man
� self-touching to entice a married man
� peodphilial desires - adult to teen
� attempts to gain sex with a teen by a married man (throughout)
� sexual innuendo, comments, insults, and references to human sexual anatomy
� man in bed with a woman
� masked nudity, full upper female nudity, full male rear nudity, and nudity with only rose petals hiding private parts
� teen girl strip tease dance to arouse married man
� vulgar sex conversations between teen girls
� teen girl in towel only
� admission of and pride in immoral (teen) sexual relationships and use of sex to manipulate
� adult male masturbation (from rear)
� discussion of masturbation after the fact
� sexual intercourse with motions and sounds and major skin exposure in adultery
� aftermath of sexual intercourse - man and woman in bed partially covered
� teen girl stripping in front of bedroom window for taping by teen boy neighbor
� teen girl in a teen boy's bedroom, her in underwear in his bed and him nude standing
� homosexual kiss
� inappropriate touch - married man with teen girl
� married man necking with a teen girl
� teen girl using upper nudity to seduce a married man
� teen boy and girl in bed together
� teen girl in bathtub with water covered with rose petals and married man reaching under the petals

I mean, compared to this review, the movie itself is downright dull!

[Jutaro]

Wouldn't a true christian purposely avoid movies they know are inappropriate? If so, how can they review anything.

HYPOCRISY I SAY!

[Ozmodiar]

warning people to not see a movie because it contains a homosexual is not good for any community, Christian or not.

I'm also a Christian, and after having viewed several pages on this site, I'm ashamed that the kind of bigotry this thing advocates is associated with my faith.

moral majority indeed.

[Nonsuch]

This calls to mind Roger Ebert's first rule of movies: "A movie is not about what it is about; it is about how it is about it." That's a bit much to get your brain around, but it's an essential corrective to folks who insist on judging movies based solely on an ideological laundry list.

[wataru]

Oh man that site is too much.

Here's an excerpt from their review of Spiderman:

Offense to God (O)(2):
* nine uses of God's name in vain without the four letter expletive
* promotion of evolution - "new species completed" with DNA sequencing pictorials
* talk of evolution

I don't even know where to begin...

[chris_h]

Originally posted by Hinson:
You people are pathetic! NO, not the people who made the web site, but the people commenting above! I'd never seen this site before, but the knee-jerk assessments of it in this forum are just pathetic.

what.

---

well, the site is pretty silly...
I wouldn't care, except that they badmouth American Beauty, which makes it personal.

I could put up a whole website about how pink hippos are our supreme rulers, and go to movies and detail how many phrases are used that dont glorify pink hippos, and make charts and graphs and figures... and that would be my right... but I would not be surprised to see my site made fun of.

no difference.

[nealconner]

Originally posted by Hinson:
You people are pathetic! NO, not the people who made the web site, but the people commenting above! I'd never seen this site before, but the knee-jerk assessments of it in this forum are just pathetic.

Look, this web page is for people who fully believe in Christianity, and who thus LIKE the idea of a movie that portrays Christian values. Now I can't imagine (for example) sitting through many movies and counting curse words, but as a Christian, overuse of such language should and does bother me. The people who made this site take the time to do all the counting and reviewing to help point out to fellow Christians what seems "good" and "bad" about various movies according to pure Christian values as they see it.

Second, some of you people seem so closed minded and blinded by your dislike of Christianity that you can't even reason properly when a Christian viewpoint is presented to you! A perfect example is the 101 Dalmatians_reference above. They gave the movie an overall score of 87! That's one of the highest scores they give to any of the movies I saw there! Like all the movies they review, they point out just about every thing in the movie that a Christian might logically find any objection to, but overall they gave it a high mark because of many positive points. They don't claim to be any sort of final authority, and they seem to try to take a balanced approach (from a Christian perspective). Seems reasonable to me.

Finally, if your beef with this site is that it seems to be a lot of overkill (noting, again, the counting, the rigorous scoring, etc,), then that's another point all together. There methods are certainly very meticulous, but they obviously have a passion for doing this sort of stuff. They provide a lot of info to show how they judged things from a Christian perspective. I wouldn't do all that, but different people deal with things in different ways.

Well, I just thought there were some points there to be made.


-Jay

Oh sh!t, I'm an atheist, so you'd better not be reading anything I say, much less the movies I watch, should it instill any doubt or sinfulness into your pure, innocent mind.

In the review for The Birdcage:

"It may be illegal in Canada and other countries to speak out against homosexuality, but not in America."

Not only is this guy a bigot against, well, pretty much anything that is not "Christian-like", but also against most of the world.

[g. olson]

My favorite was from the Sixth Sense:

Adult Underwear


Better not shop at Target. They've got those darned things hanging all over the place.

[Hinson]

Originally posted by Jutaro:
Wouldn't a true christian purposely avoid movies they know are inappropriate? If so, how can they review anything.

HYPOCRISY I SAY!

I have to say, it is odd to imagine them viewing all these movies just to review them as Christians. Like I said, its not something I could imagine myself doing. I don't know what methods they use (e.g., do they rent videos and fast forward through "naughty" parts?), but I don't think they're just claiming Christian motivations as an excuse to watch all these movies. So, I don't know about hypocrisy, but it may still be a bad way of dealing with the topic from a Christian standpoint.

-Jay

[Hinson]

Originally posted by Ozmodiar:
warning people to not see a movie because it contains a homosexual is not good for any community, Christian or not.

I'm also a Christian, and after having viewed several pages on this site, I'm ashamed that the kind of bigotry this thing advocates is associated with my faith.

moral majority indeed.

First, I think people here are generally inappropriately portraying the intentions of the minute details given in these reviews. They are pointing out just about every possible detail that a Christian might want to know about a movie, even if the movie gets a high mark overall. As for warnings about homosexuality, the fact is that in Christianity, its extremely hard to discount Biblical teaching that homosexual sex goes against the desires of God. Christians have a legitimate reason to want to know if a movie they might go see (and thus support) will suggest otherwise or portray homosexuality in a positive light.

I haven't read many of their reviews, but is there really one where they specifically argue that Christians should see a movie JUST because it has a homosexual person in it, or are they arguing about how homosexuality is portrayed in the movie in general?

(MAN, can this get off topic quickly--I can just imagine all the non-Christians out there getting ready to respond to all my posts... oh well!)


-Jay

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by Hinson:


First, I think people here are generally inappropriately portraying the intentions of the minute details given in these reviews. They are pointing out just about every possible detail that a Christian might want to know about a movie, even if the movie gets a high mark overall. As for warnings about homosexuality, the fact is that in Christianity, its extremely hard to discount Biblical teaching that homosexual sex goes against the desires of God. Christians have a legitimate reason to want to know if a movie they might go see (and thus support) will suggest otherwise or portray homosexuality in a positive light.

I haven't read many of their reviews, but is there really one where they specifically argue that Christians should see a movie JUST because it has a homosexual person in it, or are they arguing about how homosexuality is portrayed in the movie in general?

(MAN, can this get off topic quickly--I can just imagine all the non-Christians out there getting ready to respond to all my posts... oh well!)


-Jay

I am not Christian and I promise not to repsond to all your posts

[Hinson]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
This calls to mind Roger Ebert's first rule of movies: "A movie is not about what it is about; it is about how it is about it." That's a bit much to get your brain around, but it's an essential corrective to folks who insist on judging movies based solely on an ideological laundry list.

The problem with this "rule" is that it's frankly too simplistic. A movie should justly be judged not only by how it portrays itself or its subject but also on what it's trying to say about the subject. Secular reviewers might like to ignore the second part or push it to the side for convenience, but when a particular topic portrayal goes strictly against your own moral viewpoint, it's obvious that it must matter.

As an example, imagine someone put together an incredibly written, beautifully portrayed movie about one person's experience in WWII. Let's say that this person had a very complex life, and the movie was masterful in depicting its intricacies. BUT, what if the genuine theme of the movie was that Hitler was totally misunderstood, that his ideals were perfect and sound, and that the Jewish people really should be eliminated from the face of the earth? What if it clearly advocated that view without shame, as if specifically written to bolster, for example, white supremacy movements?

While the way it portrays its view might be very captivating and cinematically enticing, would you ever want to be caught dead supporting such a movie with your entertainment dollar?

NOW, for those of you who have no inkling of an idea of how to use this type of analogy, I'm NOT trying to equate sexual themes or overuse of cursing with the portrayal of Hitler as a saint. I picked that theme because its one we can ALL agree on, and it proves that IF you find the subject of a movie or a scene in a movie to be too morally inappropriate, then regardless of "how" the movie (or scene) is about that subject, you still find it unacceptable.

The difference, then, is what each of us finds to be morally inappropriate and how much weight we are willing to put put on upholding and supporting our moral beliefs.

Ebert chose to review movies as a profession, and in the Hitler example above, he might indeed be obligated to judge the movie based on its cinematic points, ignoring its viewpoint and message. However, we are not movie critics, we are moviegoers. This site (whether we agree with its methods or not) is for Christian moviegoers. It's appropriate for it to focus NOT on simply how well a film did in portraying itself cinematically, emotionally, etc, but also on a film's moral aspects.

So, this isn't an argument about how to properly critique a movie, but rather it is an argument over how we each believe we should live our lives, supporting our personal morality as we see fit in our personal habits and through our consumer activities.


-Jay

[putamare]

That's not funny, this is funny.

[Hinson]

Originally posted by nealconner:


Oh sh!t, I'm an atheist, so you'd better not be reading anything I say, much less the movies I watch, should it instill any doubt or sinfulness into your pure, innocent mind.

Ah, you found a way to interpret what was said for your own anti-Christian viewpoint. How simplistic, closed-minded, and ignorant for you!

Look, seriously, Biblical teaching clearly instructs Christians to be in the world but not of it. We're not supposed ignore the world around us or be ignorant of it, but we're not supposed to let it transform us either. Nothing in my post suggested anything else. It's not about steering clear of doubt, its about acknowledging that the rest of the world generally will not be acting Godly according to Christian principles, that we don't want to be immersed in such a world, that we should set ourselves apart by our attitude and actions towards such a world, and that if we get too wrapped in the world's trappings we can either falter ourselves (we're no where near perfect) or cause other to stumble.

This is basic Christian teaching. If you're not a Christian right now, then the teaching simply doesn't have any meaning for you.


-Jay

[Hinson]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:


I am not Christian and I promise not to repsond to all your posts

That's good to know. We certainly don't want a lot of needless posts filling up a message board!


-Jay

[putamare]

What's truly disturbing about the site:

Tax exemption applies in accordance with Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service Tax Codes.

[Hinson]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:


I am not Christian and I promise not to repsond to all your posts

That's good to know. We certainly don't want a lot of needless posts filling up a message board!


-Jay

[phantomdragonz]

Originally posted by Hinson:
How simplistic, closed-minded, and ignorant for you!
-Jay

ha, funny I was about to say the same thing... but about you....

funny aint it...

P.D.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Hinson:


The problem with this "rule" is that it's frankly too simplistic. A movie should justly be judged not only by how it portrays itself or its subject but also on what it's trying to say about the subject. Secular reviewers might like to ignore the second part or push it to the side for convenience, but when a particular topic portrayal goes strictly against your own moral viewpoint, it's obvious that it must matter . . .

[snip]

. . . IF you find the subject of a movie or a scene in a movie to be too morally inappropriate, then regardless of "how" the movie (or scene) is about that subject, you still find it unacceptable.

The difference, then, is what each of us finds to be morally inappropriate and how much weight we are willing to put put on upholding and supporting our moral beliefs.

Ebert chose to review movies as a profession, and in the Hitler example above, he might indeed be obligated to judge the movie based on its cinematic points, ignoring its viewpoint and message. However, we are not movie critics, we are moviegoers. This site (whether we agree with its methods or not) is for Christian moviegoers. It's appropriate for it to focus NOT on simply how well a film did in portraying itself cinematically, emotionally, etc, but also on a film's moral aspects.

So, this isn't an argument about how to properly critique a movie, but rather it is an argument over how we each believe we should live our lives, supporting our personal morality as we see fit in our personal habits and through our consumer activities.

Hinson, I think this is all well said. Roger Ebert is a professional film critic, so naturally he's going to emphasize form over content, i.e. how well does it say what it's trying to say?

I also agree with you that most individual filmgoers operate on different standards. I tend to be a formalist like Ebert, but most people are predominately concerned with subject matter. As Hollywood proves time and time again, most people would rather see a badly-made movie about a car chase or a love story than a well-made movie about a more arcane subject.

And while I may not share their tastes, Christians of whatever sort have the right to decide whether a film suits them or not, for whatever reason they choose, be it Adult Underwear or profanity or whatever. And they certainly have the right to put up a website for that purpose.

I think the problem most people (myself included) have is:

(1) Isn't there something rather warped about detailing the "offensive" scenes to such a degree? Wouldn't a simple "Too many offensive scenes to mention" suffice? I mean, if my mother asked me about "American Beauty", I wouldn't recommend it to her (not because she's a Christian, but because I know she's just not used to such things), but in doing so I wouldn't have to give her such microscopic details about the sexual content.

(2) What exactly does "Adult Underwear", for instance, have to do with Christianity? I've always been baffled as to how so many arcane moral strictures ("Thou shalt not depict Adults in their Underwear"?) became attached to a religion. If a person finds it distasteful, fine, but what exactly does it have to do with religion?

In any event, while it's true that Christians have the right to judge movies by their own code, there's something a bit scary - and funny - about the ways these guys go about it.

[nredman]

theonion.com is funny...here is a funny article

http://www.theonion.com/onion3321/windows98.html

[Hinson]

Originally posted by zigzag:


<snip>
I think the problem most people (myself included) have is:

(1) Isn't there something rather warped about detailing the "offensive" scenes to such a degree? Wouldn't a simple "Too many offensive scenes to mention" suffice? I mean, if my mother asked me about "American Beauty", I wouldn't recommend it to her (not because she's a Christian, but because I know she's just not used to such things), but in doing so I wouldn't have to give her such microscopic details about the sexual content.

(2) What exactly does "Adult Underwear", for instance, have to do with Christianity? I've always been baffled as to how so many arcane moral strictures ("Thou shalt not depict Adults in their Underwear"?) became attached to a religion. If a person finds it distasteful, fine, but what exactly does it have to do with religion?

In any event, while it's true that Christians have the right to judge movies by their own code, there's something a bit scary - and funny - about the ways these guys go about it.

A thoughtful post with some well-made points.

To attempt to answer your questions. On (1), I admit that the level to which they detail points seems oddly extreme, and I understand the criticism on that level. It can still be useful to a Christian viewer, but I can't imagine being the person who actually does it.

As for (2), I'd say that the basic problem, from a Christian standpoint, is not simply the idea of portraying someone in their underwear, but rather in how that portrayal is used (e.g., is it meant to be sexual in nature such that it would be inappropriate from a Christian point of view) and how accepting society is of an inappropriate use of such imagery. I imagine you can make a good movie without having to portray people in skimpy dress, but such depictions are usually done, I'd say, to invoke a sensual response and are specifically designed to bringing to mind desires and actions that, for Christians, are sexually immoral.

Now, I'm not in the head of the guys who made this website, so I don't know if they object to just the sight of underwear, but I've tried to give a Christian perspective on what might be the basic problem they are trying to get across in any case.

Well, that's just this Christians view.


-Jay

[Pikeman]

Ladies and gentlemen, meet the same kind of people who burned copies of Mark Twain's novels because they were 'corrupting the minds of our children'. Meet the same kind of people who dragged or hung dozens of black men to death because they were different. Meet the same kind of people who went to church every day in the early 1940's, then went to work at their concentration camps and shot a thousand Jews a day to make the world 'clean'. Meet the same kind of people who censor reality in the name of God simply because they are afriad of what the truth could prove, an offense that is not as overtly grotesque, but just as deplorable.

Meet the most dangerous people on Earth.

-pike-

[Face Ache]

WWJD?

[Pikeman]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
WWJD?

Vomit, then smote.

[Hinson]

Originally posted by Pikeman:
Ladies and gentlemen, meet the same kind of people who burned copies of Mark Twain's novels because they were 'corrupting the minds of our children'. Meet the same kind of people who dragged or hung dozens of black men to death because they were different. Meet the same kind of people who went to church every day in the early 1940's, then went to work at their concentration camps and shot a thousand Jews a day to make the world 'clean'. Meet the same kind of people who censor reality in the name of God simply because they are afriad of what the truth could prove, an offense that is not as overtly grotesque, but just as deplorable.

Meet the most dangerous people on Earth.

-pike-

Forgive me for saying so, but you�re being idiotic!

Can you not fathom the idea of disagreeing with something, openly criticizing it, and not wanting to personally support it while, at the same time, NOT wanting to legally ban it, burn it, or kill it? If I read someone pointing out what they believe are bad things about Christianity, should I conclude that they are the type of people who want to burn all churches and make America into a anti-religious, communist-like nation? Would such a rash conclusion based on barely relatable concepts be rational thinking, or would that be me showing that my mental capacity to reason is quickly outweighed by my prejudice mind-set?

These are people expounding on their own views of morality and how they apply to movies in today�s society (though we may disagree with their specific methods). They are advocating their view of morality on a PERSONAL level. They are not even hinting at a call for government intervention. They are not calling for the masses to take physical action against the movie industry or anything of the sort. Equating their views to the actions you list above is intellectually insulting. From your statement, it wouldn�t be hard to imagine that you would be more likely to want to ban their free speech than they would be to want to ban yours.

I guarantee you that these people understand that in reality, many unchristian actions take place, but the question is whether the film industry portrays them as morally acceptable or not? There�s a difference between supporting a particular moral stance and forcing that stance on others through government action or the tyranny of the majority.

There will always be people who try to force a particular morality on others (and they generally end up with most of the attention), but there will also always be people who hold very strongly to particular moral views and who advocate them strongly, but who do NOT want to force them on others. Allowing the first, in its purest form, is unacceptable in a society based on personal freedom; allowing the second is quite essential in a society based on personal freedom. Learn to tell the difference!


-Jay

[chris_h]

Originally posted by Hinson:


Forgive me for saying so, but you�re being idiotic!

Can you not fathom the idea of disagreeing with something, openly criticizing it, and not wanting to personally support it while, at the same time, NOT wanting to legally ban it, burn it, or kill it?

Forgive me for saying so, but you�re being idiotic!

CAP, as well as other fanatics, think that the entertainment industry is out to corrupt their crotch-fruit, and should be stopped. Closely following is the idea "an R rating doesn't matter, kids will still see it"
The idea of actually being a goddamn parent often doesn't enter into the equation.

Pikeman is quite correct, if not a bit extreme (assumably for the purpose of making a point).

People like this are the reason we get things like drug laws, hanging/burning, laws against gay sex (which many states still have, btw), and so forth.

They are a skidmark on the underwear of humanity.

"Hi, i'm Christianity and I make sense!"

--

p.s. I have nothing against xtians per se... just people who feel they have any right to tell me what to do. at all.

If I want to smoke a bowl in my living room while having gay sex up the butt and chanting out of the Satanic Verses, that's my right. Hmmm... I think I just planned out my evening...

Anyway, i'm getting way off topic, so i'll shutup.

[OreoCookie]

Check this out -- it's not even meant to be funny, but it is.

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

Wanna hear something: one headline says "Church Member Expelled After Voting Democrat". A bit harsh, eeh?!

There's more to come. "May God Damn You To Hell if You Call Us Either Fanatics or Fundamentalists" is another one.

[MacGorilla]

I like this one:

"The Lord sending bears to maul young children to death is nothing new to True Christians who have memorized their Bible! Saved folks know that the Lord Jesus is liable to send ravenous bears to kill children at the drop of a hat, as was the case when He sent two bears to rip apart 42 children who were rude enough to mock a bald man. Glory! "

[zigzag]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Check this out -- it's not even meant to be funny, but it is.

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

Wanna hear something: one headline says "Church Member Expelled After Voting Democrat". A bit harsh, eeh?!

There's more to come. "May God Damn You To Hell if You Call Us Either Fanatics or Fundamentalists" is another one.

It is meant to be funny. It's satire.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by zigzag:


It is meant to be funny. It's satire.

Found it out after I skimmed through. My brain is not working -- got my finals on Thursday

No matter what, it is funny.

[MacGorilla]

Says right here:

If you send an e-mail submission to this site, you are certifying that you are 18 years or older and you are granting The Landover Baptist Parody Website a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sublicensable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display your submission (in whole or part including your personal e-mail address) and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed."
To send e-mail to Landover Baptist Click Here

This parody is copyright 2000 Americhrist Ltd. All rights reserved."_

[OreoCookie]

Shame on me, I know.

[Hinson]

Originally posted by chris_h:


Forgive me for saying so, but you�re being idiotic!

CAP, as well as other fanatics, think that the entertainment industry is out to corrupt their crotch-fruit, and should be stopped. Closely following is the idea "an R rating doesn't matter, kids will still see it" The idea of actually being a goddamn parent often doesn't enter into the equation.

Pikeman is quite correct, if not a bit extreme (assumably for the purpose of making a point).

People like this are the reason we get things like drug laws, hanging/burning, laws against gay sex (which many states still have, btw), and so forth.

They are a skidmark on the underwear of humanity.

"Hi, i'm Christianity and I make sense!"

--

p.s. I have nothing against xtians per se... just people who feel they have any right to tell me what to do. at all.

If I want to smoke a bowl in my living room while having gay sex up the butt and chanting out of the Satanic Verses, that's my right. Hmmm... I think I just planned out my evening...

Anyway, i'm getting way off topic, so i'll shutup.

The problem with this "analysis" is that NO WHERE are these people trying to tell you want to do! (At least that�s true of what I saw of their site.) They are expressing THEIR opinion as it deals with morality and Movies. They are speaking to other Christians in the hopes that the info they provide is useful. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but if you don't like it, don't read it!

You're actually arguing that people who believe that its honorable and moral to not have sex outside of marriage, not view sexually explicit material, refrain from using or supporting the use of vulgar language, not support violence, etc. are somehow the "skidmarks on the underwear of humanity" (nice to see you use such a crude turn of phrase, by the way�NO, I�m not trying to sensor you! I�m just putting you down for your base use of language ). No matter how much detail they go into on their site, they aren�t nearly as twisted as you sound!

Again, NO ONE IS TRYING TO TELL YOU HOW TO LIVE YOUR LIFE. These people try to have high moral standards. If you disagree with them, then GET OVER IT! They aren�t calling for a referendum to ban films they don�t like! They are giving their opinions based on their morality. I�m sure they hope other Christians will agree with them and use the info provided to influence what movies they see, but that�s the only form of �pressure� these people can be accused of, from what I read.

Personally, I think it�s likely that you simply dislike their morals because they suggest that your lifestyle might be immoral. Guess what� they have the right to believe that, and they might even be right in the end. As long as they aren�t trying to use government to push their morality on you, calling for riots to force it on you, or otherwise bringing undue pressure on you to do what they think is right, then your arguments are baseless. Having a web site that suggest certain lifestyles are not moral is NOT a form of undue pressure on you! You just don�t like what they have to say.

FINALLY, to keep this sane, I�ll admit that there are a FEW areas where Christian values (rather than American values involving personal freedom) push too far into US legislation. As I side note, I�m a Bible-believing Christian who finds no instruction in the Bible for me to push my morality on others. I DO find instruction to respect the early authorities over me (in as much as I can do so without harming my personal relationship with God). I find that in this country, the ultimate authority over us is the ideals on which we claimed the right to exist as a nation (involving individual liberty equally possessed by all, though we�ve never perfectly lived up to those ideals). That�s the ONE morality we have the right to push on others (when needed to justly protect all rights). That�s where my politics come from. For example, I don�t generally agree with laws against gay sex behind closed doors, though that�s something I believe to be an immoral act.

I�ll note, though, that last I heard, the majority of Americas are still against legalizing currently illegal drugs. It�s not some fringe movement, and it�s ridiculous to associate that with hangings/burnings. It�s possible to argue that, at least for harder drugs, keeping them illegal IS best for protecting personal freedom. That�s way off topic though, but I just want to point out that that particular example is far from extreme and holds little in common with other examples listed here and by Pike.

Now I�ll shut up too.


-Jay

[Pikeman]

Originally posted by Hinson:
but if you don't like it, don't read it!

By that logic, the same could be said of these reviewers. If they didn't like the movies they were reviewing, perhaps they simply should have not reviewed them.

My examples were extreme for a reason. That reason being that people who are so close to the light that they are blinded by it are very, very dangerous individuals. Perhaps this group of people won't take their delusion any further. And perhaps they will. Yes, it's their opinion. That opinion happens to be ****ed. I'm sorry I had to point that out. The fact that I'm biased doesn't mean that I'm wrong.

[sambeau]

Originally posted by Hinson:
A perfect example is the 101 Dalmatians_reference above. They gave the movie an overall score of 87! That's one of the highest scores they give to any of the movies I saw there!
-Jay

Exactly - these people are warped and should be fed to the lions..