I read that in the sense that they’re too conventional looking for what is a pink acid trip around a mass produced toy doll with an impossibly shaped body.
In fact of all 4 that’s the only critique which is actually about the movie (notice how all the others are raging against some general fantasy they have in their minds, which they associated with the movie) and it even uses language that’s not typical of the far-right crowd (how many far right nutters have you ever seen casually mentioning experiences from taking some kind of drug even in a methaphorical sense?!)
I suspect that it might actually be a legic critique, on top of which some people are projecting their own internal prejudices (because it was mixed with and presented as something from a far-right raging nutter) without actually doing your own personal analysis of it (aka thinking for yourself)
It’s a bit hypocrite (or lacking self-awareness) to criticise others for their unthinking prejudiced take on something whilst having an unthinking prejudiced take on something.
I mean, a liitle thinking about it by yourself easilly leads to the same conclusion as the OP on the other 3 (clearly the product of brainless rightwinger fanatics) it’s only this one that in style and content seems off from that, unless you’re forcing certain possible but not logical interpretations of the meaning of its contents to force it to fit a prejudgement, which, IMHO, is dangerously parallel to very same mental processes that lead the far-right nutters to think this movie is about “spreading gayness”.
No saying that I agree or disagree: all I’m saying is that this 4th comment in style and substance does not seem to be in the same bucket as the other 3.
I read that in the sense that they’re too conventional looking for what is a pink acid trip around a mass produced toy doll with an impossibly shaped body.
In fact of all 4 that’s the only critique which is actually about the movie (notice how all the others are raging against some general fantasy they have in their minds, which they associated with the movie) and it even uses language that’s not typical of the far-right crowd (how many far right nutters have you ever seen casually mentioning experiences from taking some kind of drug even in a methaphorical sense?!)
I suspect that it might actually be a legic critique, on top of which some people are projecting their own internal prejudices (because it was mixed with and presented as something from a far-right raging nutter) without actually doing your own personal analysis of it (aka thinking for yourself)
It’s a bit hypocrite (or lacking self-awareness) to criticise others for their unthinking prejudiced take on something whilst having an unthinking prejudiced take on something.
I mean, a liitle thinking about it by yourself easilly leads to the same conclusion as the OP on the other 3 (clearly the product of brainless rightwinger fanatics) it’s only this one that in style and content seems off from that, unless you’re forcing certain possible but not logical interpretations of the meaning of its contents to force it to fit a prejudgement, which, IMHO, is dangerously parallel to very same mental processes that lead the far-right nutters to think this movie is about “spreading gayness”.
No saying that I agree or disagree: all I’m saying is that this 4th comment in style and substance does not seem to be in the same bucket as the other 3.