Ok, let’s critique the NYT’s review of SOF. First, the NYT is upset with how police procedures are portrayed in the movie:
“The queasiness derives from the contemporary-thriller vibes of the police procedural material. They feel inappropriate.”
Ironic seeing that they’ve overlooked illegal police procedures this administration is guilty of for three years now!
Next, they criticize the scene where the children are prepped and photographed by the groomer:
“ Then there are the scenes in which actual child actors perform being prepped for provocative pictures by adult groomers. What are the ethics of depiction here?”
Now they’re concerned about how child actors are treated in this movie yet they were silent when it came to the movie “Cuties”.
Finally, they focus on character assassination of the main character in the movie:
“(It should be noted that the real-life Ballard has been accused of exaggerating his rescue narratives.)”
Never once do they address the subject matter of the movie and how this scourge needs to be eradicated from our world. The NYT is the same as it alway has been; worthy of wiping your ass or lining a birdcage.
Oscar winning movies like "A Beautiful Mind," do things like downplay the non-political correctness of their main characters to make them more sympathetic. For instance, the real life John Nash was an anti-Semite which was omitted. He probably didn't also have a cute imaginary little girl as a friend.
Ok, let’s critique the NYT’s review of SOF. First, the NYT is upset with how police procedures are portrayed in the movie:
“The queasiness derives from the contemporary-thriller vibes of the police procedural material. They feel inappropriate.”
Ironic seeing that they’ve overlooked illegal police procedures this administration is guilty of for three years now!
Next, they criticize the scene where the children are prepped and photographed by the groomer:
“ Then there are the scenes in which actual child actors perform being prepped for provocative pictures by adult groomers. What are the ethics of depiction here?”
Now they’re concerned about how child actors are treated in this movie yet they were silent when it came to the movie “Cuties”.
Finally, they focus on character assassination of the main character in the movie:
“(It should be noted that the real-life Ballard has been accused of exaggerating his rescue narratives.)”
Never once do they address the subject matter of the movie and how this scourge needs to be eradicated from our world. The NYT is the same as it alway has been; worthy of wiping your ass or lining a birdcage.
I hate these 'easy-to-smear' statements. As long as one person in the entire world has 'accused him' of exaggerating, it's a true statement.
But to the untrained (sheep) eye, it smears Ballard.
These people have to hide behind lies, because they have nothing else. And that's why we will win. We have truth.
They probably asked the colleague sitting next to them to make the accusation, so that they can say they are reporting the truth.
It's akin to having the fish dealer toss the fish you bought to you so you can claim to others you caught it.
Oscar winning movies like "A Beautiful Mind," do things like downplay the non-political correctness of their main characters to make them more sympathetic. For instance, the real life John Nash was an anti-Semite which was omitted. He probably didn't also have a cute imaginary little girl as a friend.
But that's acceptable.