Which is absolutely the most graphic thing I’ve read all
day. Holy shit.
I can’t help but think the guy who wrote it got some
enjoyment out of it. I mean, who writes about “the body twitching with each new
thrust” unless they have some level of passion for violence??? Seriously, can
you read that ridiculous description without thinking the person who wrote it
has some kind of interest in violence?
Also, I love how he specifies the knife is 14 inches long.
That just really adds to the experience.
Secondly, the idea that any 9-to-13-year-old kid, no matter how cultured, would say their favorite movie is Godspell. I mean... are you trying to make me spit out my drink???
And thirdly (and most importantly): one kid apparently named as their favorite movie, and I quote from the parent: "...that new one with good ole' Eddie, Big Momma's House."
I'm assuming this idiot somehow mixed Eddie Murphy up with Martin Lawrence, since there is no one even named Eddie in Big Momma's House, much less "good ole' Eddie" Murphy. Seriously, no one in the production is named Eddie. No one who even passed by the set on their way to get a coffee was named Eddie. Believe me. I checked IMDB.
And, well, I'll say this for the parent: if you're not all that cultured, I guess it would be easy enough to mix Eddie Murphy up with Martin Lawrence - I mean, both of them dress up in ridiculous drag outfits to make rapturously unfunny movies. So it might just be a simple mistake. But it's still pretty funny.
Those bads offended me very bigly
On
this page, the pastor attempts to explain his method of judging movies. It's... nigh on incomprehensible, to say the very least. Essentially, a movie that has ten
very problematic instances of sinful behavior will score the same as a movie that has a hundred
small instances of sinful behavior. Only, Pastor Carder doesn't use terms as simple as that. He calls the instances of sinful behavior "bads" for some reason.
Also in this article, Pastor Carder takes aim and fires at those who would say "Gimme a break!" at his insane level of nitpicking. (I.E., me.) Apparently, people who think his amount of extreme nitpicking is a little ridiculous are simply so desensitized by R-rated movies that they can't even see immorality anymore. Which... okay, guilty.
__________________________________________________________________
But, like, Mary Poppins could've been an angel!
Here comes the most nonsensical example of CapAlert bending over backwards to justify their ridiculous nitpicking. Pastor Carder apparently loves Mary Poppins so much that he'll catch a grenade for her, throw his hand on a blade for her, and - wait for it - perhaps even jump in front of a train for her.
You can probably throw out a pretty accurate guess as to what CapAlert thinks of franchises like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings: they're evil, and sorcery is evil, and magic is evil, and blah blah blah, no exceptions! The no exceptions part is especially important, because, as we'll see, there absolutely are exceptions - they just have to be movies that Pastor Carder personally likes. This is the best example of CapAlert's blatant hypocrisy.
"God says sorcery and wizardry are evil. There is no debate.
He does not give any conditions or situations in which these evils are not
evil."
Which is a sentiment that is repeated many dozens of times in many CapAlert articles and reviews. You'd think he'd be pretty stringent about witchcraft = bad, right? Well, WRONG, SIR.
Literally two sentences later, in the SAME ARTICLE:
"The "magic" in Mary Poppins presented
nothing evil or sinister as did The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the
Ring. Indeed, the Mary Poppins character could have been of an
angel for what she did. She was not hailed as a witch/sorcerer(ess) nor
advertised as such."
OHHHH MY GOD. You fucking MORON.
There is nothing I hate more than outright hypocrisy when combined with pompous self-righteousness and with a little dash of moronic inability to comprehend any-fucking-thing added in for good measure. Did you not just get finished saying that "there is no debate"??? Did you not JUST GET FINISHED saying that there are no situations in which these evils are not evil? You absolute fucking bonehead! Give your head a shake!
__________________________________________________________________
FISTING
Have I got your attention now? Okay, let's get started. Fisting!
I don't really have all that much to say about
this article. I agree with most of its sentiments: namely, that pornography is bad for kids. There's just one thing I'd like to point out: this quote.
"Would the presenters of the despicable Massachusetts sex
workshop, in which adolescent students were taught about vulgar homosexual
sexual acts such as "fisting," have considered putting on such a
display only a few years ago? What has changed in our society that they thought
they could get away with it today?"
I have a few questions about this little gem.
1. What the hell is this Massachusetts adolescent sex workshop Pastor Carder speaks of??
2. Why is he uncomfortable with even saying the words "hell" or "damn" in a non-Christian context, but he's perfectly fine with openly discussing fisting? Hell, I'M not even okay with openly discussing fisting!
3. Is Pastor Carder seriously under the impression that fisting is entirely a homosexual concept? Because boy, do I have news for you.
__________________________________________________________________
Even now, the evil seed of independence germinates within you
So,
this little write-up features a list of the terrible things that bad movies can do to kids. Listed among these horrors are:
-Self-esteem
-Excessive tolerance
-"Suggestion by implication" (????)
-"Situational, emotive, and behavioral ethics" (??????)
-Too much independence
First of all, self-esteem, independence and "excessive tolerance" are not bad things - not in any respect and not by any stretch of the imagination. Second of all, I have no idea what the hell is meant by "suggestion by implication" or "situational, emotive, and behavioral ethics." No further explanation is provided, either. I mean... wouldn't anyone WANT their kids to be in possession of situational, emotive and behavioral ethics?!
__________________________________________________________________
And you wonder why the well ran dry.
So, apparently for a while
CapAlert was doing commissions. Specifically, they mention a high volume of requests for movie reviews, but they wouldn't do it for free, since “…due to financial restraints we must ask for support. This
free service is not free of expenses.”
Which is all well and good, right? So what were they asking for a single movie review? $10? $20, perhaps? Maybe even as high as $25? That's over-the-top, but I can see CapAlert doing that.
No, they were not asking for as high as $25. They wanted TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS PER MOVIE. To put a SINGLE FUCKING MOVIE through their stupid CAP Analysis system, they were asking for 250 smackaroos. I mean... Christ almighty. That is absolutely bonkers.
I wonder exactly how successful their commissions were? I'm thinking the answer is
not whatsoever. Any parent with any amount of brains in their skulls would quickly figure out that for fucking $250, you could rent the movie and watch it yourself a billion times over.
Although, by CapAlert's reasoning, $250 for a movie review is actually a
conservative estimate. According to
this, the total cost for one movie analysis is $350, which apparently includes "life / health / medical / dental insurance, other living expenses and lesser office supplies but not equipment, vehicle and its insurance, hardware/software, phone, development, etc." Which is just...fucking...ridiculous. For a variety of reasons.
A) Is he implying he doesn't have a job other than CapAlert?? What the hell kind of life plan is that? Especially since he has over 40 children to raise???
B) There is so much unnecessary shit going on here. Frankly, your damn health insurance, office supplies and vehicle insurance should not be listed as part of the expenses at all. The only relevant expenses are the cost of watching the movie, the cost of driving to see the movie, and the cost of time spent "analyzing" the movie. Period. That's ALL that's freaking relevant here, Pastor Carder. That's
it.
C) The whole "CAP scoring system" is just beyond ridiculous. Basically, the pastor watches the movie, writes down all its instances of evil, then puts them through this huge "CAP analysis computer model" which takes "0.5 hour" (sic) to sort them out and deliver a score. Before that, Pastor Carder sorts all the movie's evils into "80 prescribed investigation standards built on Jesus's word" and from there, into the W.I.S.D.O.M. acronym thingy. Which is just all bullshit.
First of all, you can pretty much get rid of the "80 prescribed investigation standards," which are irrelevant time-consumers from where I'm sitting, and just use W.I.S.D.O.M, which is basically the exact same thing except not as complex.
Second of all, apparently it takes Pastor Carder
half an hour to an hour to create the little thermometer thingy he uses and to look up the movie actors' names on IMDB. Which...holy shit! An hour to do that? Are you stopping for 50 coffee breaks along the way??
Literally the only believable thing he says in the whole "article" is that the HTML coding takes a few hours to do. Which is fair. But altogether, the idea that it takes 7.5 to 12 hours to review a movie is just utterly bonkers.
Here are some suggestions for Pastor Carder. Get rid of the "80 prescribed investigation standards." Get rid of the stupid computer thingy. Simply write down every instance of evil and sort them into W.I.S.D.O.M. Hell, the movie doesn't even need a score! Just write down what's up, and parents can make their own decisions! Basically, and I can't believe I'm saying this, CapAlert should follow
PluggedIn's model. They're another Christian review website - not
quite as batshit insane as CapAlert, and definitely far more professional - and they don't have computer-calculated scores at all. They simply write down the instances of bad content, give the movie an arbitrary score based on their own logic, and call it a day. And I'll bet it doesn't take them anywhere
near twelve hours to complete their reviews. There are so many dozens of ways CapAlert could make their business more sustainable, cheaper, and simpler. And I still don't believe it takes any goddamn $350 to do their stupid analysis thingy.
__________________________________________________________________
The Quest for Fire saga
This whole story is just immeasurably interesting, if you can navigate your way through it chronologically. Here's a quick summary: apparently, some idiot art teacher was showing the movie
Quest for Fire to her first-grade art classes so they could learn about cave art or something. If you've ever seen
Quest for Fire,
you know why this is a bad idea.
Anyway, one of the first-graders' parents heard about this and went apeshit. A long saga of fighting tooth and nail to get the art teacher fired ensued. Now, I'm on the fence about this story - on one hand, I do think it was a monumentally poor decision on the teacher's part to show goddamn
Quest for Fire to a classful of six-year-olds. On the other hand, I also think a stern warning would suffice as punishment for her "crime." The parent in this case didn't think so, and fought a very long and very hard battle to have the teacher lose her job. CapAlert got involved at some point down the line, and even did
a special analysis of the movie at the parents' request. (I wonder if they paid the $250 fee???)
I do think it was reasonable for the parents to be bothered by this, but I also think they crossed a line by comparing the situation to Columbine (????) and advocating for a woman to lose her job over a bad judgement call. No matter what I think, the story is still pretty interesting. Give it a read if you want.
__________________________________________________________________
Sexual wishes in background song
And finally, I'm going to compile a list of some of the most ridiculous "offenses" I've found in CapAlert reviews. Ready? Here we go. Reminder: everything here has been directly copy-pasted from CapAlert, and therefore might make no sense whatsoever. That's not my fault, it's theirs. I don't know what a "rabblery" is, either.
Wanton violence/crime
Explosive startle
Assault to face
Human frenzy
Running stop sign
Impudence/hate
Massive tattoos, repeatedly
Rabblery
Punk dress
Traffic rudeness, repeatedly
Spying
Theft = fun
Sexual immorality
Sexual wishes in background song
Implied oral sex using a banana
Talk of female private matters
Crude maneuver with posterior
Crotch hit
Gaping face, licking kissing
Teen pair in a crotch straddle
Adult gluteous fissure exposed
Drugs/alcohol
illegal drug consumption, repeatedly
drug intoxication, repeatedly"
(
Above are four examples which appeared, one after the other, in the same review, and which ALL MEAN THE SAME GODDAMN THING)
Posterior waggle and other posterior action
Offense to God
"Dogs are people, too"
Female pastor
Divorce proceedings
Reference to "booger sugar"
Murder/suicide
none noted (attempts at murder and suicide and deaths due to
war or police action are not incorporated into this investigation area but are
incorporated into Wanton Violence/Crime)
(Note: I only include the above because, for some bizarre reason, it was only included in the review for Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked. Was there a huge amount of war and police action in Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked???)
...I think you get the picture.