Welcome to my movie blog, containing reviews and articles. I've been writing since 2004 - with a short break during 2009.

The Christian classification system...

Read it and weep. I'm very tolerant of Christianity. Lots of my best friends are Christians, and perhaps I would be if I was able to keep in the same mindset for more than one week. I agree with the peace-and-harmony bit, and defend it as I do anyone's faith in arguments.

But OMG...

Sometimes, just sometimes little things tick me off.

This site is one of them:

Yes, it's a bit hard to navagate but persevere because it is surely one of the best film resources on the web. Let's see what it says about Fellowship of the Ring:

  • multiple exceptionally graphic attacks by unholy beings, including by thousands of creeping beings with much impalement (do you remember that bit? I can't...I certainly don't recall "much impalement")
  • long sequence of dire urgency with explosive sound (oooooh, scary!)
  • explosive startle (ahhhhh!)
  • portrayal that being stabbed by an evil being's sword will make the victim evil (surely this metaphor is in Christian favour?)
  • many instances of demonic faces/eyes (er....)
  • impalement then drowning murder (what, both?!)
  • many attacks by evil beings, some (especially one) very, very hideous (not just normal hideous, very very hideous...)
  • sorcery to open mountain wall (this is the one I really object to. Nobody "used sorcery" to open the door. They just spoke the password. It was a magical door! The complaint should be "magic mountain wall"

I suppose they're right, in a way, but that doesn't mean I can't find it funny. I do believe that films do influence behavior, and that extreme immorality affects your mindset, and I agree in principle that little people should be protected from things they shouldn't see. But some of these complaints are insane. Tragically, the Godfathers were not reviewed (aw! But perhaps I'll do it myself some time using their system...) but I did manage to find one gem.

Sin City. Ok, so I haven't seen it - probably for the reasons listed - but just take a look at their complaints:

  • multiple bullet impacts with blood, splatter and body part loss
  • 76 uses of the three/four letter word vocabulary
  • stuffing head in toilet with feces to intimidate, twice
  • nude woman with appendages hiding gender-specifics
  • name calling with "fool" [Matt. 5:22] (this makes me laugh. One of my friends is an R.S. student, and she always tells us that Jesus said not to call people fools...)
  • gunfire murder, at least 13 individual plus a multiple, graphic

It's the ordinary wording that makes me laugh. Gender-specifics...

According to Empire Miscellany 3, the only film ever to recieve 100 is Mary Poppins. On that page they claim, "While there were several occurences of "magic," there was nothing evil or sinister about any of the "magic." Mary could have been angelic". Which is strange, considering that she uses her magic for personal gain (transporting lampshades around? Levitating? They got The Little Vampire under levitating, among other things).

If I had the option, I'd sponsor this site - it needs to stay on the web.

One more. So far I've picked on two bound to wind them up. But lets take a look at something more harmless, even pro-faith. How about Signs?

Not happy with just giving it 60/100 on the holiness chart, they actually criticise it as a film as well, which takes some swallowing. Not just because I get irritated by people who dislike it, but because they've got their jobs muddled up.

  • child arrogance against father, multiple times, once explosively animated
  • child demanding his "vote" outweighs his father's authority
  • adult in underwear
  • "I hate you. I HATE you" to God (yeah...kinda missing the point here, right?)
Now seriously, if they can only give 50% to a film about a man trying to find faith, what can you give 100 to?!

Don't remind me, the singing nanny...

(a few more classic complaints I couldn't fit in elsewhere:

  • body piercing
  • bitterly unfair belittlement of mom for not believing her son's story
  • a nine year old boy walking the city streets alone
  • God's name in vain once with the four letter expletive and three times without
  • mooching
  • massive tattoos
  • rude gaze
  • one use of the most foul of the foul words
  • Angel Gabriel as a woman (actually, Gabriel was androgenous. But that comes under pansexualism. And if he were male, they'd get him under the same rule as they got satan - being portrayed as a man. So really it should just be "showing Gabriel")
  • risking death for love
  • plants attacking to kill, repeatedly
  • camera angle to force viewer on private parts (clothed) (this is Harry Potter 4. You remember this bit, right?)
  • unholy battle as if between the angel Michael and Satan (this claim is opinion only...)
  • seeking ill-gotten gain, repeatedly
  • statue nudity
  • two kids sitting atop an aloft blimp
  • punk music in startup background
  • minors in survival mode
  • notable meanness
  • much revelry
  • vandalism mischief
  • great falls without hitting bottom
  • fatal injuries being non-fatal
  • series of two pokemons taking turns slapping each other not in jest
  • about as much sense as scenes from *The Yellow Submarine* by the Beatles (this is not their area of concern!!)
  • child permitted in hardhat construction area
  • sadness due to death of an associate
  • supernatural mumbo-jumbo


Copyright 2009 Cinecism. All rights reserved.
Free WordPress Themes Presented by EZwpthemes.
Bloggerized by Miss Dothy