+1
Haven’t seen it yet, but don’t they have reason for “misandry”? Very good reasons if I’m reading the reviews properly.
Naturally. But it’s like incels saying they have a reason for ‘misogyny’. I actually meant the director/producers/people involved seem to be exhibiting misandry, not the characters. I felt
WARNING: spoilers below
drugging a teenage boy and tying him up and taking him away from the men/his father against his will because men are bad is, well
drugging a teenage boy and tying him up and taking him away from the men/his father against his will because men are bad is, well
, I know people do that and that’s certainly a woman’s right, but she’s in the very least taking away the exact same choice she wants so desperately to have/feels so entitled to. I feel
WARNING: spoilers below
boys have a right to grow up with at least a single male figure in their lives, rather than in a society of Amazons
boys have a right to grow up with at least a single male figure in their lives, rather than in a society of Amazons
. Anyway, the film until that point was fine, well-made, but it sort of had this air of extreme one-sidedness, with Whishaw who tends to play gay men being sold as a bit of a sexless eunuch exception, which is even weirder.
I don’t know. I like films about isolated communes, so on that level it was perfectly watchable.
Last edited by AgrippinaX; 02-25-23 at 10:50 AM.
Reply to Topic
