What has this to do with the topic? Well, you all remember CAP Alert from my prior rant right? I just decided on a whim to check out their review.
If you don't know the site, click the link provided above (and see exactly why it is so popular among movie freaks/culture groups!).
And now, here's my reviewing of their review (sorry, "analysis").
The analysis starts off by comparing other Lindsay Lohan movies. Lohan, it should be noted, is probably the best of the child actors around today, so of course her audience is going to want to follow her around. Of course, actual talent has nothing to do with audiences--I mean, look how far the Olsens have gotten on no acting talent, horrid direct-to-video movies, Full House reruns and painful TV shows. Anyway, some of Lohan's audience is still fairly young, so indeed parents might want to take note of the movie's rating (PG-13).
Carder then goes on to state that since Cady is unprepared for school life, the film turns partly into a slam against home-schooling This bit is actually quite a ridiculous assumption to make. I saw no slamming (but then again, High School is three years behind me now) and Cady certainly did not need to learn how to "manipulate all the latest vulgarities" to get popular.
Carder then states the movie's basic plot (and, in what has to be a first, he actually uses present tense, just like all the rest of us). And then he describes Regina's mother, who is most definitely not the ideal mum. Especially not if she wants to hold another baby to her chest. Eww! (but damn, I LOVED Cady's reaction!) Anyway, Carder lays down in no uncertain terms that Regina's mum is not the ideal parent. FOr that matter, Regina isn't exactly the ideal kid either. Of course, it didn't take Adrian Monk to notice exactly what Regina's little sister was doing. Anyone who wants to act like this woman has an IQ of what? less than his/her waist size in inches? Or should I be generous and compare it to waist size in centimetres?
Anyway, Carder also describes Cady's two friends, Janis and Damien, and then states that the viewer is "led to believe that Janis is lesbian and Damien is gay." Damien might be gay, but it's never explicitly stated that Janis is anything other than straight/bi. I mean, she even gets with a guy at the end. However, here is where Carder's review screws up.
Carder wrote:Apparently Canada has made it illegal to believe God's Word about the practice of homosexuality and has made free speech about it and freedom of religion illegal. But America has not. Just think. In Canada, homosexual practitioners can now approach young kids and their parents cannot speak out against it. If you don't want that to happen here, speak out. Now! To your legislators and congresspeople. Now! And don't let them tell you there is nothing happening. YOU tell THEM what is happening. They work for YOU. And they do NOT know everything. Some of them are apparently clueless about the progression of the practice of homosexuality in America. And some of them want it to progress. If you don't tell your legislators and congresspeople what you want and don't want, you'll have to take what you get.
My chief reaction to this is: HUH? WHAT? Let me get this straight: If Freedom of Religion is illegal, then gays can convert children because it's also illegal to believe in the Bible? Did I miss the part where it was stated that Christianity is Canada's official religion? Besides, the movie was only filmed in Canada. The rest of it was American. And Americans haven't banned belief in God's word at all. And besides, as an email about homicide in Australia has recently shown, baseless statistics are completely meaningless. Besides, not all congresspeople want to remain stuck in the past.
And please, while we're on the subject, will someone tell me exactly how homosexuality is destructive? And who exactly does it destroy?
Let's move on to the Findings/Scorings.
First, in Wanton Violence/Crime, we have the bus thing. The review describes it as "graphic". A few seconds of bodies getting hit by buses with no blood visible to me does not qualify as graphic. They also have the school-wide riot (which wasn't exactly the prettiest of sights) and something described as "threat". I don't recall exactly what that was.
In the next WISDOM category, we get most of the movie's barbs and a few other things. Now the teens uttered only a few mild profanities (that are nothing compared to what teens really say) and the word "effing" was also used. But doesn't "Fugly" mean "Fucking Ugly"? I did not note that term referred to anywhere here. Oh, and there were lies and deceit, but you obviously wouldn't know that in a movie titled "Mean Girls" that is set in a school. And if you can't tell what "Moral abuse of child" means, fret not, for I have no freaking clue either. Presumably it refers to Regina's kid sister, but why isn't that under the next section?
Our next section is indeed all about sex. We do indeed get most of the things described and the only thing really surprising was the bit with the dog. Oh, and maybe the school coach making out with the student. And the statue nudity is something that must have appeared in the six-or-so minutes of movie that I missed (I came in late, and had to go to the loo later on). Not that that would really raise much of an eyebrow today.
On to the offense to God section. As we can hardly expect these teens to be down with G O D, it certainly comes as no surprise that they use His name in profanity.
Now the next category is the most useless in the entire site. Since Murder and Suicide are both violent and illegal, shouldn't they just be piled under the first category?
Good Lord, Carder...give me one good reason why I shouldn't question your sanity.
