Click on CAPCon Alert
image for explanation
A service to our youth through you,
their parents and grandparents, in His name by His Word
Stealing Harvard (2002), PG-13
Analysis Date: September 18, 2002
CAP Score: 17
CAP Influence Density: 2.03
|To subscribe to (or unsubscribe from) our FREE text-only versions of our Entertainment Media Analysis Reports as they are calculated, visit our Mailman. If you experience difficulty with Mailman, send us your request. Your email address will NOT be given or sold to other parties.|
STEALING HARVARD (PG-13) -- ...septic sinema. ... hardcore R-13...
Production: Imagine Entertainment, Revolution Studios
Distribution: Columbia Pictures
Director(s): Bruce McCulloch
Producer(s): Chris Brancato, Susan Cavan, Marty P. Ewing, Howard Lapides, Maureen Peyrot, Bert Salke
Written by/Screenplay: Story: Martin Hynes,Peter Tolan. Screenplay: Peter Tolan
Cinematography/Camera: Ueli Steiger
Music: Christophe Beck
Film Editing: Malcolm Campbell
Casting: Juel Bestrop, Jeanne McCarthy
Production Design: Gregory P. Keen
Art Direction: Steven Schwartz, James E. Tocci
I am not at all concerned about this being a spoiler of the movie. I hope no one ever sees it. My description of *Stealing Harvard* is septic sinema. Just about every manner of crude and vulgar "humor" is used.
John Plummer(Jason Lee) works for his fiance's father at a home healthcare company called "Homespital." John and Elaine Warner (Leslie Mann) are engaged to be married but have set a financial goal of $30,000 for down payment on a house before they tie the knot. After scrimping and saving, their goal is at last reached. Ready for marriage (as if marriage will excuse their long-term cohabitation), Elaine starts house-hunting but John is confronted with a commitment from his past. His niece Noreen (Tammy Blanchard), daughter of Patty (Megan Mullally) who does not know which of her many paramours is Noreen's father, reminds John of his promise of many years ago to pay for her college. Noreen was accepted into Harvard. Okay. Now all John wanted to know was how much Noreen needed. Over $29,000. Does John let his niece, of whom he is very fond, fend for herself, trash his word and satisfy his finance or does he regard his promise as binding and crash the plans of the John/Elaine pair to buy a home for raising a family?
Woe and misery! What to do? What to do? Through all this at John 's side is Duff (Tom Green), an amoral walking, talking definition of crude who reminds John an oath is an oath, that he has no choice but to honor his promise to Noreen. That Duff hates Elaine is of no influence, of course. Duff also comes up with an idea that criminals get away with theft every day. Why not steal the $30,000?
One of Duff's clients (Duff is a landscape "engineer") is rich and lives alone. It just so happened that on the day of interest Duff left open the window to the room with the safe. Reluctantly, John agrees to do the deed. But in the middle of having his hands in the cookie jar a .357 magnum with a seven inch barrel peeks around the corner into John's face. The rich owner is holding it. After an expected period of dialogue comes the best indication of the caliber of this "entertainment." The plot moves to the owner making John dress up as the owner's wife and pretending to be her as they "spoon" as the movie called it. No, I won't explain that term. And this is not the last time you'll see two men spooning if you decide to watch this cinematic cyanide.
With that plot foiled, Duff's introduces John to his Uncle Jack (Seymour Cassel) who is fed up with the State using his chain of liquor stores as lotto joints. Duff's uncle agrees to split the $70,000 in the lotto pot in one of his stores with John IF John steals it. Not willing to use real firearms, John insists he and Duff use toys guns which become a give-away for the level of threat the pair of bungling bandits present. Foiled again, John and Duff now seek the second 30 grand from Elaine's father (Dennis Farina) ... with Elaine's help. But wise to the treachery, Elaine's father lies in waiting with his dog to foil even this caper. I mention "with his dog" because the dog is a key character in the vulgarity of this PG-13 movie. The dog appears to attack Duff and clamp down on his privates but instead the episode becomes sexual as John (while he, Elaine and Duff watch the dog do the deed) says "I think he really likes you." And it is repeated with a smidgen of variation, emulating *America's Sweethearts*
Among the ignominy in *Stealing Harvard* are, in addition to the above mentioned examples, providing booze to teens [Luke 17:2}, several episodes of a man and a woman in bed together for premarital intercourse (nude but gender specific parts unseen) [1Cor. 7:2], transvestism at gunpoint, and firearm threats and gunfire to kill. Foul language [Matt. 12:36]. God's name in vain both with and without the four letter expletive [Deut. 5:11]. Women are used as toys. Extortion [Hab. 2:6]. Drinking. Gambling. The listing in the Findings/Scoring section will tell the tale better than this Summary/Commentary.
If needed to focus or fortify, applicable text is underlined or bracketed [ ]. 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.
*******Food for Daily Thought*******
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.
Wanton Violence/Crime (W):
Offense to God (O)(2):
NO service charges!!!
Donations to the CAP Ministry are Tax Deductible!!!
Christian Media News
|NOTE: The CAP Analysis Model makes no scoring allowances for trumped-up "messages" to excuse or for manufacturing of justification for aberrant behavior or imagery, or for camouflaging such ignominy with "redeeming" programming. Disguising sinful behavior in a theme plot does not excuse the sinful behavior of either the one who is drawing pleasure or example from the sinful display or the practitioners demonstrating the sinful behavior. This is NOT a movie review service. It is a movie analysis service to parents and grandparents to tell them the truth about movies using the Truth.|
|"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 nearly seven 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.|