Occasionally someone here points out that there are a lot of fake reviews, good ones, that must be put here by the filmmakers or their relatives, the ones who like the filmmakers.
I'd have to agree, at least in this case, that that isn't some sort of conspiracy theory.
I absolutely didn't watch the whole thing. I couldn't, but still, as a reasonably intelligent and articulate person, not that intelligence was needed, feel that this project should be condemned.
And, again, regarding the credibility of a diagnosis made with incomplete data:
I have long felt, that If you see a piece of dog s**t lying on the sidewalk, do you need to pick it up, see it it, sniff it, and finally , to convince yourself that in fact it is dog s**t, take a big bite and chew it awhile? And even then, without prior experience with that flavor, how could you be ABSOLUTELY sure that it wasn't fake?
Some people apparently, and even worse, not for fetishistic reasons that at least have their own justification, but in the spirit of "reality testing" do find it necessary to qualify their impressions that way.
Bad enough to step on this movie, but to give it a chew and watch it?...... Put the time into a visit to a psychologist.
عرض المزيد 
