The ChildCare Action Project (www.CAPalert.com) is an extreme example of Christian movie reviews that has become a sort of humor site for non-Christians because the kind of things it points out. It claims to be "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!" Each movie is rated overall on a scale of up to 100 points (higher being more appropriate for children), on six sub-scales with the mnemonic "WISDOM" (Wanton violence/crime; Impunity/hate; Sex/homosexuality; Drugs/alcohol; Offense to God; and Murder/suicide), and on "influence density," how frequently things the reviewer considers inappropriate occur. Though I disagree with the reviewer (and it does seem to be a single person running the site) on many issues, I do have to respect him for giving The Passion of the Christ a score of 69, not far from say, the 67 given to The Rocky Horror Picture Show -- at least he applies the same standards to religiously-oriented and secular movies. But in my opinion, the reviews do have a lot of inconsistencies.
Original comments from when there were writeups above mine:
CAP can't make up their minds -- in the review of South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut they complain about angels being depicted as female (and "nude, very nude" ones at that), but in the review of Dogma they complain about an angel pulling down its pants to show that it has no genitalia. So are angels supposed to have a sex or not?
Added later on: the CAPalert reviews are often inconsistent in more disturbing ways. For example, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is described as promoting evil through and through and given a score of 55, because it deals with witchcraft as a positive force. (The later movies in the series got scores in the 60s.) However, Mary Poppins is one of the least-objectionable movies, according to the reviewer; it's given a score of 100. To me, Mary Poppins has just as much magic involved as does Harry Potter -- the only difference is that Mary can walk into drawings and fly without having to recite spells or wave a wand. If the fictional world of one is acceptable, why is the equally-fictional world of the other movie bad? The reviewer says about Mary Poppins:
"There were no instances of offensive material throughout the movie. While there were several occurences of "magic," there was nothing evil or sinister about any of the "magic." Mary could have been angelic. While some might consider the "We won't go to sleep!" from Michael to Mary Poppins to be arrogance and/or impudence, the obstinence was NOT at his parents. All instances of Jane and Michael taking issue with parental authority (e.g., the song) were with respect and even apology. I cannot find in the Bible anywhere God has a problem with children disagreeing with their parents but I can find a LOT of warnings against arrogance toward and rebellion against parents..."
(The Big See
commented to me, "In any other movie he'd not only object to magic but also to rebellious children who run away, dictate the terms on which their father hires a nanny, and are generally willful and disobedient.")
Whereas the CAPalert review of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets says, "An example of this is Professor Lockhart who teaches protection against the dark arts using witchcraft, sorcery and wizardry. That, in and of itself is misleading and false, saying that witchcraft, sorcery and wizardry are not dark arts while God says they are. Now this movie has planted in your young child's mind that which God specifically calls evil is not evil." So how is there nothing evil about Mary Poppins' magic then?