Those hardcore aesthetes over at the Childcare Action Project have weighed in with their characteristic scrupulous evaluation of the H____ P____ film . Every scriptural lapse, no matter how small, is weighed in the balance. The Jesus-Hater-Haters at CAP have always been good for a laff or sixty (not to say six-hundred and sixty-s-...oh, why do we even bother), due in large part to their unique combination of familiar fundamentalist rantery with a fantastically detailed, painstakingly objective rating system in which each film's individual sins are cataloged and made manifest in a set of EZ-to-use visual charts. (The latter half of this successful formula is not something that just comes along with religious fanaticism: Website construction seems to be a calling for obsessive-compulsives of all kinds).

We don't expect any new thrills from this kind of review of Potter, of course: it's old news. Everyone loves this sort of thing, right? We all bond together over the guy describing his inability to sit through the "nude lesbian licking kissing" spectacle that apparently comprises Mulholland Drive. Snickery over his "discomfort" is the kind of not-really-very-guilty pleasure we professional scoffers take (let's face it, hmm?) for granted.

What we like about the CAP review of the Pottermovie is that this is the only one we have seen from a person who has not read any of the books -- indeed, one for whom the plot was entirely a new discovery. There's a clear-headedness to the whole approach that yields a refreshing analysis. Put aside the foregone conclusion -- that the premise of the the whole thing is end-to-end Satanic -- and you get from the CAP reviewer a simple verdict: that the movie's pretty violent and -- visually speaking at least -- obviously derivative of the less-inspired Star Wars films. And not otherwise notable.

We couldn't agree more. And come to think of it, Mulholland Drive is pretty much about topless kissing licking lesbians.