The whole thing is done to really weirdly rigorous guidelines (ofcourse!! this is afterall made by the most anal person in the world, it seems), which boil down (I think) to 'WISDOM':
Then they somehow rate each thing and come up with an aggregate score which generally, even for the most inoffensive of movies, is really high. They literally pick out every single thing from a film that contravenes what they deem appropriate, to the tiniest letter.
For Example: I tried to think of the most innocuous film ever, so I tried ET. This is what the lowdown is on that:
Wanton Violence/Crime (W):
Offense to God (O):
mischief by adolescent !!! DISGUSTING.
The oddest thing about the individual nitpicky reviews is that they pick out things that you totally didn't even notice. a kid tries to touch a mum's bum?
That this strange thermometer based review site even bothers to review films with 'R' ratings (which I think is the same as the UK 18 rating pretty much), is bizarre-
no wait, this is what they say in the 'No Country For Old Men' review (which I watched the other week and, by the way, thought was awesome)
"While we do not particularly care to conduct analyses of R-rated films, it is necessary to do so for a few R-rated films to maintain the mathematical integrity of the CAP analysis model since the verification and validation of it was completed by actual use on G, PG, PG-13 and R-rated films (NC-17/X films will not be analyzed by the CAP Ministry). In other words, how could I otherwise say, for example, a PG-13 film earned a score in the range of scores earned by R-rated films (a "R-13" film) if I do not analyze a few R-rated films?
Further, the "R" is nothing but a signal to parents. And for some youths "R" is a lure. By analysis of hundreds of R-rated films over the years, I cannot remember a single one that did not have underage youth in the audience ... except this one. I viewed it from DVD with none of my kids in the "audience." By the way, "underage kids" includes at-home teens.
If our analysis of R-rated films will cause even one parent to prevent his/her underage child from watching a R-rated film then we will have done our job. And it is working. More and more parents are thanking us for this service because it tells them the truth about the content of films which advertisers, promoters, the MPAA, trailers/previews can't or won't tell so mom/dad might be in a better position to make an informed moral decision whether an unseen film is fit. I sometimes wonder if a film is unfit for kids why is it fit for adults? Isn't that which is sinful for a child also sinful for an adult? "
Anyhow, in the review they picked out the obvious things, but also such odd little gems as:
- illegal modification of a firearm
- rude gaze
- sexual invitation (i'm noting that because if I recall correctly, that was a wife and a husband?)
A slightly less innocuous one now: You've Got Mail: fairly run of the mill chick flick right? RIGHT? No, heathen!! Get away from me before you give me AIDS!
While the review actually gives it a fairly ok rating of 76 out of 100, it lost points thusly:
I have no idea what 'gamming' is. I find it somewhat ironic that they talk about 'the use of lies (during a warm, loving 'talk')'
Ok one more. Miss congeniality (I admit... I am a fan of this movie. Leave me alone.)
Again, reading these reviews makes me strain to remember what the hell the reviewer is going on about. It was originally a 'PG 13' which is like a 12 for UK pretty much. But don't let that rating fool you!! This film only got 40 out of 100 (the lower the score, the more filth-strewn it is) and these are the reasons why:
- very detailed nude mannequin
- dressing to maximize female form or skin exposure
- reckless driving to get coffee
- bar with drinking
- promotion of Zen meditation
Yeah. there is CHAMPAIGN (sic) in this movie. The root of most, if not all evils. Zen Meditation?! are you serious?! VILE.
The weird thing to me is... some people take this stuff seriously. And quite a lot of people, it turns out. It always surprised me that other people didn't read this kind of thing with a wry smirk like I have always done... I read these things like 'oh silly old timey folk!' and forget that they aren't old, they're from now!
And this site, for all it's rigorous workings out, it takes into no account the actual stories in the movies. The fact that yeah, people are bad in movies, but that they GET THEIR COMEUPPANCES. They don't take into account that there are consequences in movies.
By this wacko's rules, the fucking bible would be too filthy for human consumption, so full of violence and revenge and just plain nonsensical cruelty. Not to mention all the sex! Jesus.
I think the guy sums it up himself, if it weren't painfully obvious already:
"The bottom line? I do not enjoy watching R-rated films, but I will. Occasionally. In fact, after more than 1200 films I don't particularly enjoy watching films."