 RED does not mean "stop." GREEN does not mean "go." Click on the CAPCon Alert image for explanation |
A ministry of the ChildCare Action Project: Christian Analysis of American Culture (CAP Ministry) A 501(c)(3) Nonprofit Christian Ministry. www.capalert.com/ Entertainment Media Analysis Report A service to His little ones through you in His name by His Word MAR25032  (2005), PG-13 [PG-13*] (1hr 40min) The #1 Christian entertainment media analysis service on the Internet. We give you OBJECTIVE tools NO ONE ELSE CAN to help YOU make an informed decision for yourself whether a film is fit for your family. More than 950 analyses for parents, grandparents, pastors, youth leaders and more. |
"http://www.capalert.com/ now_playing.htm" Target="_Blank"  Click it to try it! |
  You DO NOT have to have a PayPal account. OR by US Mail (preferred - no service charges). The CAP is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit Christian ministry (75-2607488). Your donations to us are TAX-DEDUCTIBLE |
on what Hollywood feeds your kids. SUBSCRIBE to our FREE text-only email version of these reports and our COMING SOON notices. |
  Christian Long Distance |
(This section may be and sometimes is somewhat subjective.)
 Cast/Crew Details Courtesy Internet Movie Database Production (US): Mile High Productions LLC, Touchstone Pictures, Beacon Pictures Distribution (US): Buena Vista Pictures, Summit Entertainment, The Walt Disney Company, Touchstone Pictures Director(s): Nigel Cole Producer(s): Armyan Bernstein, Lisa Bruce, Zanne Devine, Suzann Ellis, Jo Farrugia, Charlie Lyons, Brynn McQuade, Kevin J. Messick Written by: Colin Patrick Lynch Cinematography/Camera: John de Borman Music: Alex Wurman Film Editing: Susan Littenberg Casting: Joseph Middleton Production Design: Tom Meyer Art Direction: Denise Hudson Viewed At: Driftwood Theater 6 If you don't want to hear a father of 31 kids rambling against a skin/sex flick targeted at them then move on to something else. Yes, 31 kids, not all at once to be sure but 31 nonetheless. A father of two biological sons and 29 foster kids (seven adoptions out of the 29 foster kids, soon to be eight) who has intimately witnessed the changes caused by "entertainment." Repeatedly. And not just in "my kids." So, I am going to unload on such filth in film as A Lot Like Love. If you don't want to hear it, move on to something else. Besides, what I have to say in this report will probably make a few of you mad and will probably cause a few to leave our "family" as well. So be it. "Enter" at your own risk. I love He who spent three days in Hell so you and I would not have to spend one moment there and I am steaming infuriated at what Hollywood and the MPAA are together doing to His little ones (which include at-home teens). If you can stomach it, imagine your 12 or 13 year old daughter (or any age for that matter) looking up at a 20-foot totally nude Ashton Kutcher as he cups his genitals in his hands. Now imagine your daughter seeing Amanda Peet AND Kutcher from the side standing in face-to-face tight, intimate full-body nude contact. You have an accurate image of much of the content of this film. Child Protective Services (CPS) has told me that if you or I were to show nude pictures to our kids, they would call it sexual abuse and would find out why we would want to do such a thing. A CPS supervisor told me that in each case of child sexual abuse there were nude pictures of some kind in the home. How the adult filmmakers of Hollywood get away with showing nudie pictures to our kids I have no idea. Hollywood calls it "art." God calls it sin. [**, Luke 17:2] The PG-13 A Lot Like Love is perfect material for the usefulness of the CAP analysis model to caring parents and to pastors, church youth ministers and other leaders responsible to children. The level of detail the CAP model brings to you reveals the minute features of a film which secular reviews, the MPAA, advertisers, trailers, etc. can't or won't tell you so YOU can be in a better position to make your own informed moral decision whether a film is or is not fit for your family. I only wish I could afford to get these reports to you much sooner. I wanted to give this film a final score of ZERO because of the sexual assaults on morality in it targeted at youth but I couldn't -- the CAP analysis model is insulated from my personal feelings and is driven entirely by God's Word. This fact is testimony to the utility of the CAP analysis model -- to reveal for you beforehand, objectively to His Word, the presence of immorality and the concentrations of immorality, numerically showing the position(s) of the concentration(s) relative to the six CAP investigation areas (W, I, S, D, O, M) shown by the CAP thermometers. No secular film review or critic service can do this for you. Even if they did, it would be by their own standards, not God's. The film was atypically lite for PG-13 films in violence/crime (W), foul language and arrogance and hate (I), the use of God's name in vain and other unholy/evil matters (O), and there were no murders or suicides (M) in the entire 100 minutes. But there was enough negatively influential material found in both the Sexual Immorality (S) and Drugs/Alcohol (D) investigation areas to lose all of the 100 starting points in each, clearly making this film equivalent to R-rated films in both Sexual Immorality and Drugs/Alcohol. The atypically low amount of ignominy in the other four of the six CAP investigation areas is the only reason the final score was as relatively high as it was. Mom/dad, clamp on to the fine detail the CAP analysis model brings you. Films which earn a score of 54 and below are equivalent to R-rated films in the comparative baseline database. While this film earned a final score of 57, it earned ZERO in Sexual Immorality and ZERO in Drugs/Alcohol. This is why we have told folks from the start to not rely on just the final score. Inspect the scoring in each of the investigation areas and inspect closely the listing in the Findings/Scoring section. (Yes, it is a list of findings since the items would not be there if they were not observed in the film.) Then make your decision whether an unseen film might be fit for your kids. When you get a chance, click on the CAP thermometers for this or any other analysis to get a more complete understanding of the utility of the CAP analysis model than can possibly be presented in this Summary/Commentary section. And maybe visit CAP Methodology from our site map on our home page your next convenience. Folks who have done so come away with a deeper appreciation of just what this service can do for them. Again, if you do not like to hear of sexually immoral deeds in and as entertainment leave this report now. But if your kids watch this film they will not only hear of them but will see them in large-than-life, 20 x 60 foot booming action. This flick for your at-home teens is rated PG-13 for "sexual content, nudity and language." The MPAA got it right this time but more befitting an R-rated film. There certainly was a lot of "Sexual content." Specifically, intercourse. More than once. With and by more than one actor/actress pair. And "nudity?" There certainly was a lot of that, too. Kutcher and Peet are seen as described above fully disrobed from the rear and the side (him frontally), repeatedly, individually and in intimate face-to-face, squeezing full-body contact. Repeatedly. And for more than one second. Each. One scene of double nudity is even used as a display in a "art" exhibit and is thus seen again. Repeatedly. Odd, too, that the MPAA [apparently] does not include the influence of the use OR abuse of alcoholic beverages in their rating criteria (if they have any). Booze seemed to be part of nearly every other situation. Drunkenness was part of the story as well. Repeatedly. [Eph. 5:18] One would think the MPAA would at least make note of such use/abuse in their ratings since the professionals have clearly identified a direct link between the influence of alcoholic beverages in and as entertainment with abuse of it by adolescents. A recent study has found an undeniable link between the presentation of alcoholic beverages and tobacco in and as entertainment and abuse of them by adolescents. And teaching/causing youth to abuse alcohol/tobacco by emboldening youth with them in and as entertainment invokes Luke 17:2. Art? What is it that makes nudity "art?" Art is not sin but art becomes sin when art uses sin. God made the human body and thus it is indeed beautiful. But God speaks darkly and shamefully of the display of nudity more than 40 times in both the Old Testament and the New testament. making the display of nudity such as in and as entertainment sinful. No, a doctor seeing nudity in the performance of his job is not sinful. And no, it is not sinful to see nudity by chance, for example, on the streets. But it is sinful for us to seek it and take pleasure in it or to parade it as did Kutcher and Peet. Besides Peet and Kutcher were not married, either in the show or in real life. And even if they were married, even in real life, such a display in and as entertainment is wrongful, to be reserved for the married couple behind closed doors where it is part of the beauty of marriage. Our kids can always use a little more desensitization regarding sexual purity and corrosion of natural inhibition, right? Teens really need to get a good idea of what mom and dad look like without any clothes, right? Gotta get with the times, right? From the backwards hat and bare midriff crowd I can hear it now. "I've seen nudity before!" Oh? As entertainment? Displayed for millions of viewers? For money? Full nudity? Both male and female? Together? In a full-body press? Repeatedly? Well, the first time of a sin does not excuse the second. Nor does the second excuse the third ... nor the thousandth. Nor does the thousandth excuse the first. Nor does "acting" excuse demonstrating sin. While it is a sin to take pleasure in such displays, it is also sinful for they who display it. Oliver Martin (Ashton Kutcher) met Emily Friehl (Amanda Peet) as Emily fought with her now ex-boyfriend at an airport. After playing several turns of the eye-contact game in the boarding area then on the plane, Oliver went to the lavatory. Amanda soon followed and had sex with Oliver in the lavatory -- by her initiative, her aggression. That sets the stage for the entire show - a teeney bopper, MPAA-approved sex/skin flick for your barely pubescent kids who are least likely to be able to master the drives inflamed by such display. [1Ths. 4:3 - 7] Did you ever wonder why so many of our young teens seem to have such worldly awareness of sexual sin and such contempt for sexual purity and natural inhibition? And did you ever wonder why so many of our teens think such is acceptable "real life?" Well, now you know. "I learned all about that stuff at school and the skating rink!" Well, from where do you think they who did the "teaching" got it? I have no more to say about the plot or story. What would be the point? A pretty package does not excuse the content. No, we do not compensate scoring or anything else for the sake of context. Indeed, we ignore context. Context does not excuse sin. Please, read the text at the "BEFORE You Read On..." link above. I dearly wish I could have afforded to get this to you sooner. Much of modern entertainment is playing with Fire and most of us don't realize it. SCRIPTURAL APPLICATION(S) If needed to focus or fortify, applicable text is underlined or bracketed [ ] or bold. If you wish to have full context available, the Blue Letter Bible is a convenient source. If you use the Blue Letter Bible, a new window will open. Close it to return here or use "Window" in your browser's menu bar to alternate between the CAP page and the Blue Letter Bible page. CHAPTER/VERSE ***Selected Scriptures of Armour against the influence of the entertainment industry*** As always, it is best to refer to the Findings/Scoring section -- the heart of the CAP analysis model -- for the most complete assessment possible of this movie. |
 |
(The heart of the CAP Analysis Model)  Wanton Violence/Crime (W) Impudence/Hate (I) Sexual Immorality (S) Drugs/Alcohol (D): Offense to God (O) Murder/Suicide (M) |
 |
 Christian Educators Association International |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
| There are some in the entertainment industry who maintain that 1) violent programming is harmless because no studies exist that prove a connection between violent entertainment and aggressive behavior in children, and 2) young people know that television, movies, and video games are simply fantasy. Unfortunately, they are wrong on both accounts." And "Viewing violence may lead to real life violence." I applaud these associations for fortifying 1 Cor. 15:33. Read the rest of the story. From our more than eight years of study, I contend that other aberrant behaviors, attitudes, and expressions can be inserted in place of "violence" in that statement. Our Director - Child Psychology Support, a licensed psychologist and certified school psychologist concurs. For example, "Viewing arrogance against fair authority may lead to your kids defying you in real life." Or "Viewing sex may lead to sex in real life." Likewise and especially with impudence, hate and foul language. I further contend that any positive behavior can be inserted in place of "violence" with the same chance or likelihood of being a behavior template for the observer; of being incorporated into the behavior mechanics and/or coping skills of the observer. In choosing your entertainment, please consider carefully the "rest of the story" and our findings. |
| In the name of Jesus: Lord, Master, Teacher, Savior, God. Tom Carder President ChildCare Action Project (CAP): Christian Analysis of American Culture 100% dependent on your tax-deductible financial support |  |
|
|
|
||
Christian Long Distance |
We exist only by your tax-deductible donations. PLEASE Features PayPal! You do NOT need an account to donate. |
