I was looking at www.capalert.com (a fanatical "parents beware" review site that's always good for a laugh), and I found this article that I thought you guys would get a kick out of.
______________
Ex-Porn Film Screenwriter Roger Ebert Pans Christian Movie Review Site
Tuesday, January 29 @ 17:09:51 EST
Washington, DC - In a recent newspaper column Q&A, film reviewer Roger Ebert responded to a question from a filmgoer who was deeply offended by movie reviews produced by the Child Care Action Project (CAP), a Texas-based ministry headed by Thomas A. Carder. The filmgoer said that CAP is "the most insulting movie site on the Web. Their lust for demeaning a film solely on its content (violence, sex, profanity) is annoying." Ebert agreed. He noted that "At www.capalert.com, few films seem innocent" and recommended another movie review site that offers "sane advice" about movies. Ebert apparently considers it "insane" for a Christian movie review site to consider profanity, explicit sex, and anti-Biblical messages in its analysis of films.
CAP provides what may be the most thorough analysis of films available on the Internet. Carder carefully analyzes each film to give parents a detailed overview of objectionable content. Parents can then make up their own minds about what films their children may see. Carder's site can help parents pinpoint films that may seem innocent on the surface, but that contain messages or images that violate the Christian beliefs of those parents.
It is not surprising that Roger Ebert would be immune from concerns over explicit sex, violence, anti-Christian messages, or profanity in movies. Ebert was a screenwriter in the 1970s for Russ Meyer, one of the pioneers of mainstream pornographic films.
Ebert wrote the screenplay for Meyer's "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls," a sexually explicit film that ends with a bloody Charles Manson-like massacre. He also penned "Vixens," "Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens," and "Up." Writing under a pseudonym for "Up," Ebert created a pornographic film that featured a violent double rape scene that was apparently too disturbing even for Meyer's hard-core followers.
Given Ebert's love of pornography and violence, it would seem far more appropriate for concerned parents to consult the Child Care Action Project for movie reviews, than to depend upon Ebert for allegedly "sane" reviews of today's films. Ebert has obviously been desensitized to the point where he cannot clearly distinguish between right and wrong or good and evil. It is disheartening to think that so many filmgoers depend upon his advice for what they will see. Fortunately, CAP and Ted Baehr's www.movieguide.org web site offer other movie review options for parents.
_____________________
I doubt these people have actually seen any of Russ Meyer's films; BVD is hardly porn, and the end massacre is only "Manson-like" in the sense that people are killed. I love how they decide that Ebert "cannot clearly distinguish between right and wrong or good and evil" simply because he disagrees with their style. Oh, and I didn't know Ebert wrote other movies for Meyer; Learn something new every day!
I always think it's funny whenever anyone digs up Ebert's screenwriting work. I think it's only been in recent years when he's been willing to talk about his work for Meyer.
I think those fanatical sites are a hoot...they're as bad as teenage boys who only watch movies for the "dirty" parts!
What is sad is that these people truly BELIEVE this to be true and that they are on the side of the truly Right. Just as long as they do not block MY right to watch morally repugnant anti-Christian pornosmutsex and/or violence laden crapfests then it's alright with me.
A while back there was a movie called "A Walk in the Park" or "A Walk to Remember" about some sweet Christian girl and some bad boy falling in love with each other (as opposed to themselves). Ted Baehr said "It might have too much romantic content" but that it was still "special". I think in his context romantic content refers not to the love story stuff, but the 'follow your heart' ideology instead of following the Word of God.
Besides, Jesus will be showing up real soon and kicking the sinners off the marble to make way for the meek or something. Enjoy it while you got it.
Actually, Ebert has always been rather open about his writing of BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS. Usually he'd joke about it. How many people can claim they wrote a Russ Meyers' movie and won a Pulitzer Prize?
And Christian Conservatives wonder why they are so reviled? The moment any criticism comes their way they make it personal. Of course Roger Ebert didn't like their site because he's an evil, wicked man! And they wonder why Ebert and so many others think they're insane.
I read some reviews there and I didn't see one movie that they thought was good. Even some of the pg-13/pg movies about christianity and stuff they gave wrong I think.those "biblical thriller" type movies. hehe.
I myself am a Christian, but these people are insane! I really don't think any of us will wallow in the pits of damnation for watching a film with swearing in it. Everyone swears, the violence and sex on screen isn't real and have you ever seen a film produced by one of these fundamentalist groups in-house? God wouldn't even like them.
Here is their reviw for Idle Hands-
Wanton Violence/Crime (W):
cat licking up blood
police brutality
police corruption
cat licking a human eyeball
dead bodies with gore
body parts
burial of bodies in back yard
a hit to the face with a shovel
arrogant driving through a collection of mourning flowers
gunshot to the head
Impudence/Hate (I)(1):
7 uses of the most foul of foul words
27 uses of the three/four letter word vocabulary
arrogance toward mother
vulgar talk about mother
vulgar hand gestures
a general attitude of "It ain't good enough, not matter what 'it' is."
hateful reaction
death metal video
Sex/Homosexuality (S):
heterosexual couple in bed in nightclothes
teen underwear, and in public
inappropriate touch
vulgar self-touch
vulgar sex talk
video clip of sadomasochism
vulgar dance video with partial nudity
exposing self in underwear to entice a visitor
sexual references
unmarried couple in bed
Drugs/Alcohol (D):
smoking dope
drug dealing
drug paraphernalia
Offense to God (O)(2):
bloody evil imagery
Halloween (all hallow's eve - a satanic holiday) decorations
tattoos, repeatedly (Lev. 19:28)
pentagram symbol and unicorn horn (see
unholy presence throughout
devil song
resurrection of the dead
talking decapitated head
search for knowledge of Satan
Seems similar to the review template of this site. A heterosexual couple in bed, in nightclothes does not instantly mean hanky-panky, so that shows you the mindset of this guy. If watching this sort of "filth" is sinful, why does this guy carefully inspect these movies for the dirty parts?
I dunno, but he sure makes the movie sound better than it probably is! Maybe he works for the studios.
Yes, Ebert brought up "Beyond..." back when he and Siskel were doing the original "Sneak Previews" and did a special on "Blue Cinema."
Frankly, Siskel was the bigger pervert; he once clamored for "more sexy teenaged Latino girls in movies" (yipe, Gene, get a raincoat) during one review, yet was forever unapologetic about publicly posting the names and addresses of Betsy Palmer and Adrianne King (and calling upon all the weirdos out there to harass them out of Hollywood*) for offending him with "Friday the 13th." (He did not list similar information for the producer, director, or any male cast members--not even Paramount Pictures.)
*Which the weirdos gladly did.
As for this "Christian" review site: like the Bush administration, psuedoreligious organizations use constant fear of culture--foreign and domestic--to keep the "flock" loyal. Remember how Pat Buchanan, George Will and their ilk always talked about "the Culture War(s)?" That kinda dried up on 9/11, but the principle remains in play. "If you don't send all your money to Pat Robertson/Oral Roberts/Benny Hinn/the GOP right now, the ********s will GET YOU!" (Fill in the ethnic/sexual/political/whatever affiliation of your choice. All that matter is: they're DIFFERENT, and therefore EVIL.)
I fully agree with you both,Squishy and Vermin Boy,though the simple truth here is that both the CCAP website and Roger Ebert both suck.
Ebert had better be careful which big budget films he trashes,for he never did write what critics and studios ignorantly today consider "real" movies.
And,despite the known fact(of Ebert scripting Meyer's three final films,as well),I'll still always consider Russ Meyer to be the true brains behind "Supervixens","Up"(which contains a male/male sex scene[which is played as a comical Nazi bashing bit],and the gory chainsaw impalement of a seven foot Roddy Piper looking rapist),"Beyond the Valley of the Dolls",and Meyer's final outing,"Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens"(where Meyer appears on-screen,and fully promises that his next film will be "Jaws of Vixen",which was never made,thanks to the major studios' successful slaying of softcore flicks playing mainstream theaters...damn,I heavily miss those days!!!),for I heavily doubt it if Ebert would really have had the heavily outrageous imagination that Meyer had to pull off all of the gory violence and raunchy sex that those four films all had,and made them the cult classics that they still are today(though they're hard to find,thanks to Meyer's ultra-expensive charging for even one single copy of a VHS copy of one of those features,since he personally distribute them on his self-video label,Russ Meyer Films).
True dat, Steven. In my rant, I forgot about Ebert! One of these things is true about Roger Ebert (pick your favorite):
(a) He is partially missing a frontal lobe.
(b) He accepts bribes in exchange for positive reviews of total crapfests.
(c) All of the above.
The review site that Ebert probably recommended is;
http://www.screenit.com
Which offers detailed listings of all objectionable content in a movie without making any value judgements. They probably don't like that site because it doesn't label anything 'sinful'.
> (b) He accepts bribes in exchange for positive reviews of total crapfests.
Such as? If you're going to make the accusation, then give some examples.
My...arn't we paranoid.
....And i hate to say it, but that includes some of us.
...."Different " = "Evil"? I've seen the same attitude of some of the left. Same mindset, different words and images to express it. You can create any image you want to define your self as supetior to "Them" (Who ever them is), but it is easy to become the thing you hate.
.... Also, the cutting on the reviewers of movies at sites like these....sounds like an easy out. To assume that all such people like the ("porn. violence, sin") whatever, may be unfare. When Andrew reviews a movie, he risks pain..."Sorority Vampire Ect" Anyone?....to determin if the flick in question is worth watching agine. He does not give "Terminate with extream predujice" orders lightly! We are all biased, its just a question of what bias we hold too. Are there "Culture wars" going on? I think so...but, on how to deal with them, let alone define what they are, is not easy.
.... Who's cultural beliefs? Who's definition of accepable behavior is going to proliferate? "They" think they are right, "We" think we are. I have found from experiance that human ego will express itself, and it only a matter of method and style. We should never let our disagreements lead us to contempt for people we don't agree with. I know, believe me, that sincerity of belief does not make you right.
....once, people sincearly believed the world was flat.
....Once, i sincearly believed anyone who was not just like me was an idiot.
....Boy, was i dumb!
....Are we totaly right? Or, are we just right in our own eyes? I don't bother with sites like the CCAP. I make up my own mind. Reviews are personal opinion, just like mine or Andrew's or Ken's But, in principle...in principle...i believe i understand what they intended to say. Weither they acheved it or not, is a personal conclusion only you or i can make.
....We go to a site like Andrews, because we know from experiance we will most often like what we see. Vermin Boy went to the Capsite because he expected to find stuff he would disagree with, and in doing so, would get an image he could riff on. Fair enough. I don't tend to do that, as i got enough ulcers from my day job, what. i need more? Thats why i avoid shows like "Crossfire" and "Hannity and Combs" because i hate arguments. Whats the point?
....It won't change anyones mind about the Capsite. Thats cool. but i do want us to conciter how easy it is to dehumanise people we disagree with. J.R's quoteing of the review of Idol Hands makes me want to avoid it. As the review intended. Just by that, it confirms my own taste preferance, to avoid gory flicks. I just don't like 'em. You want it, have at it. I have my reasons, but they ain't yours.
.... I guess what i'm trying to say, is don't take it as obvious that the people who run that site are all arrogant stereotypes of the worst of Christianity. There are plenty of non christians who are the same way...they just don't get the same amount of press. Some of them are the press! And don't get me started on Washington! "Hey congress...tax this!"
.... Ah, screw it. Enough pontificating. Just keep an open mind, is all. When you get older, you may change...may? HAH! From experiance , i know. People are people. And who will judge us? I believe i know...and you will only know when you become worm food. And, boy...are Fallwell, Robertson et.al in for a suprise!
.... Thats my two cents worth. Play nice.
Definitely agreed....
Personally, I see the site as harmless, and even entertaining. And it probably is a service to people who have the same values as the people who do the site, and after all, that's who it's made for, not us.
John wrote:
>
> The review site that Ebert probably recommended is;
>
> http://www.screenit.com
>
> Which offers detailed listings of all objectionable content
> in a movie without making any value judgements.
The ironic thing about sites like these is that teens use them to identify which movies they want to see. Let's go sneak into this movie, because screenit.com says it features full frontal nudity and lots of gore. So rather than protecting children, in many cases these sites (yes that CAP one too) contribute to their "delinquency."
It's cheaper than the BARE FACTS VIDEO GUIDE!
Flangepart: You're the only one making this a "Left vs. Right" debate. There are Christians who are Liberals--believe it or not--and Liberals who are Christians. Christ himself was pretty damn liberal (and I'm sure he wasn't the first innocent man to wind up on Death Row).
My point was this: phony Christians use fear of anything different to control people. Others do that, too, but we weren't discussing them. My mistake was taking a swipe at Dum-Dum-Dubya, but he's the idiot in power right now, and he's milking the "control-through-fear" concept for all it's worth.
Hell, there's even Liberals in the GOP!! *gasp* Oh well, this is what happens when one looks to Bruce Tinsley and Rush Limbaugh for guidance. :)
Foywonder: Um...no, I don't think I need/have to. Ebert regularly gives "thumbs up" to total buttplugs; just wait and watch, or go look it up yourself. He's been doing it for years. Don't tell me to shut up, fool. You can't back it up. :P
Thumbs Up for....Speed 2!
There's my vote.
reson #592 why organized religion is singlehandedly the worst invention in the history of man.
I do watch and I honestly think he's lost his mind at times, but just because he liked a terrible movie, that means he was on the take? If you're going to make an accusation like that, try backing it up with actual facts. Otherwise, you're almost as bad as that site.
There are also conservatives, Christians, and even Christian conservatives who don't resemble any of your descriptions of same....besides, this is nothing compared to the paranoia fostered by the government about the "angry white males," militias, gun owners, and anybody who was in the least bit critical of the government during the early to mid 90s.
Eh, back to the bad movies! I doubt Ebert is really on the take--there have been more than a few bad but wildly popular movies over the years that he has panned, and some of the films he's championed have been less than successful--he's a big champion of DARK CITY for example, which has a big cult following. I think were he a clown merely in it for the bucks he probably wouldn't bother to do some of the stuff he does [every year he hosts a seminar where the audience members pick a film that they go through frame by frame--he seems to really want to give people a love of the movies, I just disagree with him quite a bit when it comes to genre stuff.]
Indeed, jmc, there was no reason whatsoever to worry about the Montana Militia, the Atlanta Bomber, the Unabomber, the KKK, lunatics who shot doctors and blew up clinics, the Wacko of Waco, or Timmy McVeigh. Harmless, one and all. Some were just doing what they did "in the name of God."
However, "the paranoia fostered by the government about...anybody who was in the least bit critical of the government" has gone through the roof. Just ask Dick Cheney (but have a lawyer present).
Again, I feel compelled to point out--AGAIN--that my description was not a blanket condemnation of all Christians or all conservatives, nor at any time did I claim it to be. I would list the names of the phony psuedoChristians to whom it does apply, but there are so very, very many...
Foy: I cannot provide actual receipts showing Ebert accepted money for his recurring habit of giving glowing reviews to total turdchunks. I have no absolute medical proof that Dan Quayle lacks a brain stem, either--but I will continue to post to that effect. My comment about Ebert was merely a joke--something anyone with a brain stem would've picked up on, FROM THE START.
Damn, irony IS dead.
>The ironic thing about sites like these is that teens use them to identify which
>movies they want to see.
I use it to see if any of my favorite actresses have finally done a nude scene in their latest movie. :)
>Indeed, jmc, there was no reason whatsoever to worry about the Montana Militia, the Atlanta Bomber, the Unabomber, the KKK, lunatics who shot doctors and blew up clinics, the Wacko of Waco, or Timmy McVeigh. Harmless, one and all.
>my description was not a blanket condemnation of all Christians or all conservatives
But apparently you're okay with blanket condemnations of lunatics and wackos,eh Squishy?!! Not everyone who bombs children and...uh...builds a stockpile of weapons in order to obtain sovereinty or...um....hate people based on skin color are....wackos...okay, irony IS dead.
Dude, take a sedative. Seriously.
Alright, maby i roused some folks with my first line.Fair enough.
....You said i was the only one makeing this a "Left vs. right" thing. Well...thats how it seems to me. By that, i mean that its shorthand for the types of opinions and beliefs that esch group tends to be identified by. I had to define it by what i'm most familure with. That is my experiance.
.... Jesus was a Liberal? Well...depends from what side of the word you mean it. If you mean that he wanted us to treat others as we want to be treated, Well and good. The problim is in how we define words these days.I don't see Jesus as someone who would be "Acceptable" to either side of the spectrum, as his teaching were not what many groups think they are. Thats my take on it, and its what i have to go on.
....A mistake at takeing a swipe at "Dum-dum-dubya"? Not if its what you think. I state my thoughts, and what ever the resaults, well there it is. Same as you. As for "Looking to Bruce Tinsley and R. Limbaugh" for guidence,...please. Its entertainment, and of a type i can live with, but i still have to make my choices for my self. Lets leave it at this. I'd not respect you if you tried to B.S. me. I may disagree with you, but at least i know where you stand. And i hope you feel the same way. I have a low tolerance for bulls**t.
....As for phony "Christians", see last line above. I think most of the problim stems from who people think he was, and what they think he taught. There is more complexity there then anywhere else in the world, i think. And after years of study, i see more every day. Suffice to say, I take his teachings very seriously. I'm not perfect, just human. I got a long way to go. I have nothing to loose by keeping up the struggle aginst my dark side.
....Well, thats enough about all this. Hash it out as you choose, i'm done with it.
....P.S. "HAIL FREEDONIA!"(Runs off singing Hooray for Capt. Spalding)
Being a Christian myself, I never listen to Ebert because he puts down all the good movies that I like. I quit watching him and he got annoying too.
I watch the movies before letting my children see it. Right now my child is starting repeating what she hears and I had to stop letting her watch Shrek ( which she loved).
What is a website going to tell that I all ready know?
So, I went to the site and checked a few reviews.... Appartently "punk music in startup background" and "punk dress" are by their very nature sinful. Not to mention "encouraging sadness." (see the Fight Club review). Also, Bob's shooting by the cops doesn't qualify as murder, apparently. I guess as a sinner he must have deserved being shot in the back of the head while running away. I also enjoyed the popup you get every time you go to a new page. Its like televangelism on the internet. For a good time read either the Dogma or South Park reviews. I also enjoyed how they missed the whole Ghost Dog-as-Buddha sub plot of "Ghost Dog," which was sort of the point of the movie. If they had noticed it, I bet it would have scored even lower for trying to encourage "false gods". Sorry, but I'm not wasting anymore time with these people, except maybe for a laugh occasionally.
And in the Idle Hands review a married couple sitting in bed is noted under the sexcategory, but they neglected the brief nudity. I guess since the person who gets nude is then murdered it's okay because that heathen who dared bare her skin was duly punished!
Hamburger Pimp wrote:
>
> So, I went to the site and checked a few reviews....
> Appartently "punk music in startup background" and "punk
> dress" are by their very nature sinful.
Why am I in a handbasket and where am I going?
No s**t! I'm with you totally J.R. I'm a Christian too(don't read that as saint because I'm not). It's just movies for crying out loud! I've always thought that sin invovled taking part in the act. All we are doing is watching a movie!
So the folks at this site want us to go back to the days of the Dick Van Dyke show, where Rob & Mary slept in separate beds? What's wrong with a married couple sitting in bed? I can understand, though disagree with, their desire not to see nudity, violence, drug use, or hear profanity, but do these folks have separate beds at home?
My hat (and the top of my head) tips to Babydoll, for being a good parent and an independent thinker, and for giving Ebert the shove-off. Huzzah!
Further clarifications:
(1) I should have included the words, "for his time" when describing Jesus as "pretty liberal." Liberal as in, "desiring quick social change against the accepted norms." (Were Jesus on Death Row on trumped-up charges right now, how many of his purported followers would be standing outside waving signs that read "Go Sparky Go?")
(2) By "mistake," I meant I should have kept my post focused on the issue at hand instead of bringing up politics. (Whoops, I did it again!)
(3) We ain't fighting, Flangepart. We're debating, having a frank exchange of ideas with some friendly (I hope) jibes. (Further kudos to J.R., by the way--had me going for a second there!! Hee hee!)
I love the way he phrases that. Sounds more like something the Stygian witches from CLASH OF THE TITANS would say rather than a fundamentalist film critic.