This is one of the most subliminal Leftist films made to pass under the lens of a "normal" film.
Essentially the moral of the story is that men become "toxic" if they don't embrace homosexuality.
I should have known seeing that it was produced by BBC for Netflix.
The trailer really made it look interesting, but boy oh boy was I wrong about this one.
That's what it's coming to. Why do you think they made Superman gay in the newest comics? Why do you think they put a gay man at cover of Playboy? They want to make as many men as possible gay or bi. Their agenda is clear. Forget about all the STDs, paedophilia and family destruction this will lead to.
shareThe 20th century just called. They want their moral outrage back.
shareIf people had the same attitudes about homosexuality they had in the 20th century, the world would be a better place.
shareGood thing most civilized people progress with the times.
shareAre you sure about that? I wouldn't call Communism or Nazism "progress"
share*eyeroll*
More mccarthyism.
So calling Communism bad is Mcarthyism?
shareCommunism bad. Hot take.
shareI don't know what you're trying to argue, but even Bernie Sanders doesn't support Communism. It is widely seen as a huge disaster for the countries that implemented it. But in any case, that's not the point. The point is that society can go in a bad direction so you can't use "it's newer therefor better" argument.
shareMcCarthy was right.
share"Good thing most civilized people progress with the times."
I suppose abortion is considered civil and progress in your mind? lol
Umm WHAT? You think films can make men gay? If you think that seeing homosexuality in media can turn you gay then you ARE gay. The agenda is clear, yes, to make homosexuality acceptable in our culture.
How is it going to cause STDs, paedophilia and family destruction? Do you know what destroys families? Men feeling like they have to marry a woman when they are gay rather than living honestly. That is the entire POINT of creating a culture where people don’t feel like they have to hide and not only ruin their own lives but the lives of everyone around them. That's what the ‘agenda’ is.
If homosexuality becomes seen as 'cool' people are more likely to experiment and potentially become bisexuals. They already did it with women, now it's the turn for men. Bisexual men are significantly more likely to cheat on their women than heterosexual men. That's what causes divorce and teds to destroy families. STDs are extremely common among male homosexuality. Bisexuality is especially hazardous because it spreads those STDs from homosexuals to the general population.
That's what the ‘addenda’ is.
No, it doesn't work like that. You either are or are not attracted to men. If you would consider having sex with a guy, you are gay or bi already. I would never have a desire to sexually experiment with another woman, simply because I'm not attracted to women. The thought of it isn't the least bit appealing to me. I'm straight.
shareLogical fallacy. Just because you're 100% straight doesn't mean all people are. Sexuality is on a spectrum and it's fluid.
shareYou don't understand what sexually fluid means. Your orientation doesn't change. You are attracted to who you're attracted to. You aren't going to one day like men if you've always been attracted to women. You can be attracted to both men AND women that means you are bisexual and you always were.
shareThat's not really true, plenty of people change their sexuality. Kristen Stewart used to be straight, not she's a lesbian, Jessie J and Lindsey Lohan used to be bisexual and now they're straight. Milo Iyannopolous used to a proud gay now he's denounced homosexuality and started conversion therapy. It all depends on what people you meat and have relationships with.
Besides that's not my main point. My main point is what people are exposed to when they're in puberty before their sexuality solidifies can influence their sexuality. Yes, once your a grown adult, it rarely changes. But that doesn't mean social attitudes don't have profound affect on how many people become gay or particularly bisexual over generations. Just look how the LGBT community has grown over the years. According to the latest poll among generating Z a whopping 39% identify as LGBT. Anybody who doesn't think that this is not a result of more liberal social attitudes that celebrate and find homosexuality 'cool' is in total delusion.
Kirsten Stewart was not straight and then turned gay, Jessie J, Lindsey Lohan have not turned straight.
Milo Iyannopolous, who I had to look up, makes money by denouncing homosexuality and appealing to far-right, alt right and alt-lite politics. This piece of shit defended the idea of “13-year-olds” having sex with “older men,” arguing that child molestation provided a “sort of ‘coming of age’ relationship” for teenagers. So, THIS is who you raise up as a good example?
Your ‘main point’ is wrong. You can’t be talked into or manipulated into being attracted to the same sex if you are straight. As it becomes more acceptable for people to admit attraction to the same sex or both sexes OF COURSE the number of out lgbt is going to rise. The number of left handed people has tripled since nuns and teachers stopped smacking their hands with a ruler or discouraging it. It’s a good thing that less gays believe that they have to get married and hide their sexuality, that destroys families, that is a terrible problem and it’s going away.
Who did Kristen Stewart date when she was starring in Twilight? Rings a bell? Google Lindsay Lohan and Jesse J. They define themselves as straight, but didn't used to in the past.. Milo's moral reputation makes no difference to the argument. And his paedophilia comments are only an ammo on my side. The association between (male) homosexuality and paedophilia doesn't come out of nowhere.
It's astonishing people still believe the myth of non fluid sexuality despite all the evidence to the contrary. There is such thing as a Kinsey scale you know. Let's say 70% of the population is naturally predetermined to be totally straight and cannot change their sexuality despite environment. And let's say 5% are totally gay and cannot change. That sill leaves 25% of the population who's sexuality will depend on the environment. If society discourages homosexuality the LGBT population will be 5%, but if it celebrates and encourages it, it will be 30%. That is a massive difference. And considering the risk factors associated with homosexuality (STDs, drug use, paedophilia, mental illness, promiscuity, break up of families...) it makes no absolutely sense to encourage it, because you're also spreading those risk factors.
Hello buddy. I see you're using number-based pseudoscience again. Would you care to post sources for these claims?
I assume you're inventing all of these numbers and using these invented numbers to prop up your invented assumptions about gay people, but if you miraculously have any decent sources to add a shred of credibility to this analysis I would enjoy reading them
I wasn't citing data here, I was just presenting a thought experiment to convey a point. Apparently you aren't capable of reading a post.
shareNo that's not true at all.
All these men CHOSE to eventually leave their wives to be with other men, late into their marriage, and even after having kids:
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/my-husband-is-gay-1.1086647
https://otherman.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/04/my-husband-says-hes-gay-what-should-i-do-is-he-gay-bi-or-needs-help.html
https://www.fatherly.com/love-money/open-letter-to-my-children-about-the-man-i-loved/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2572269/Mans-anguish-excitement-leaving-wife-coming-gay-30-captured-haunting-self-portraits.html
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/feb/20/coming-out-husband-wife
I would never have a desire to sexually experiment with another woman, simply because I'm not attracted to women. The thought of it isn't the least bit appealing to me. I'm straight.
These people were gay or bisexual to begin with. I don't understand how you can't see that. If someone left their female partner for a male one that means that they were always attracted to males or males and females both. Orientation is fixed.
"There is no gay gene. There never has been, there never will be. There is no gay allele strands, there is no gay gene cluster, there is nothing in the neo-natal or peri-natal stage of fetal development that induces genetic homosexuality. It is neither chemical, nor genetic, nor neurophysiological. "
No there isn't a gay gene. There never was because genes don't make you gay. If you want to deny the scientific proof that hormones & androgens in the womb affect your sexuality and orientation that's understandable because you may not be educated about it. Here is your opportunity to benefit from the extensive research that has been done by scientist all over the world and reviewed by their peers.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3296090/
https://academic.oup.com/endo/article/152/8/2937/2457178
Orientation is fixed.
If you want to deny the scientific proof that hormones & androgens in the womb affect your sexuality and orientation that's understandable because you may not be educated about it
I don’t know what the point of responding is because I’m just repeating myself since you didn’t understand my point the first time but . . .
George Michaels was always gay, he didn’t decide one day or over a few weeks that he was attracted to men. That is not how it works and if you think that you can just choose who you are attracted to then you must be attracted to both men and women already.
You are citing a bunch of religious references instead of scientific evidence. These people are brainwashing themselves so that they can be acceptable to other members of their faith and that they can justify their faith to themselves. This is why nothing I say matters, because you have to make everything fit your religious beliefs.
You don’t understand that all scientific documentation is hypothesis, that’s why it has to be peer reviewed by other scientist who come to the same conclusions. Gravity is a hypothesis (theory) in science, not a fact. That’s how science works. You didn’t read the articles at all anyway, you are just tacking your own beliefs onto the end and trying to pretend like you know what these articles say.
George Michaels was always gay, he didn’t decide one day or over a few weeks that he was attracted to men.
This is why nothing I say matters, because you have to make everything fit your religious beliefs.
You don’t understand that all scientific documentation is hypothesis,
You didn’t read the articles at all anyway, you are just tacking your own beliefs onto the end and trying to pretend like you know what these articles say.
(contd)... Also, the reason I asked if you read it and the reason I brought up neurophysiology is because in the first link from Hines, it literally reiterates my point about how human cognition is developed from the limbic system, which is not active during the prenatal stage of development, meaning you cannot be influenced with your sexual preferences BEFORE that organ is even properly developed.
As stated in the piece... "Also, each of the other behaviors that are influenced by early hormone exposure are likely to have somewhat different periods of maximal sensitivity as well, depending on when relevant neural systems are undergoing hormone-dependent developmental processes.
This is key right here, because the relevant neural systems for humans doesn't begin to receive and process information for cognizance until environmental stimuli is introduced, which is, again, a post-natal development.
Here is another significant portion of the study that proves it's pseudoscience... "Overall, nevertheless, studies where hormones have been manipulated experimentally in a wide variety of mammalian species, ranging from rodents to rhesus monkeys, indicate that exposure to high levels of testosterone during critical periods of early development promotes male-typical neural and behavioral development, whereas exposure to lower levels of testosterone leads to female-typical neural and behavioral development. Given the large sex difference in human sexual orientation, the hypothesis that the early hormone environment influences this sexually differentiated outcome merits investigation."
That would be fine and well if it wasn't already proven that some homosexual men actually have HIGHER testosterone levels than heterosexual men:
https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/ajp.131.1.82
In essence, it completely disproves that testosterone/estrogen during prenatal years is an incubator for homosexuality.
What the world needs is a return to moderately toxic masculinity. Not actual abuse, but of the Connery/Bond variety of half a century ago. The creeping pussification of the past several years is not doing society or anybody any good, including women.
share"Toxic masculinity" is a myth. If it isn't, neither is toxic femininity. Sexes are different. Period.
shareSo this movie is actually saying that everyone needs to be gay? Somehow I doubt that. “Embracing acceptance of people who are different” would be more what I would think this would be.
It’s sad that ever since November 2016, it’s become a bad thing to think that everyone should be treated with respect. Acceptance has disappeared. And I see this from all sides of the political spectrum if anyone wants to try to turn this into a “left vs right” argument. People are people, and right now there’s hardly anything but hate everywhere you look.
The issue is less acceptance and more the Left's attempts to use media to socially engineer society and convert people to their way of thinking. Sadly, they've become relatively successful. Just 20 years ago we weren't talking about where men should be able to use women's bathrooms but now it's treated like a serious discussion.
shareWhat women’s bathrooms are there were any man is allowed to just walk in? I’m not aware of this existing.
If you’re talking about unisex bathrooms, yes, those do exist and have for longer than 20 years.
"What women’s bathrooms are there were any man is allowed to just walk in? I’m not aware of this existing."
In Massachusetts it is illegal to discriminate against someone´s gender identity in sex-segregated facilities. Ie a biological male can walk into a women´s bathroom if he identifies as female.
Yes, there are public bathrooms that allow people who identify as women to use the women’s bathroom. Is that a problem? And that’s not what PrimeMinisterX specified, anyways. I personally would have no problem if my wife or my daughter were in a women’s bathroom that allowed people who legit identified as a woman to use it too. Am I worried about predators? Absolutely, but predators are everywhere and laws are not going to stop them. If there were no transgender people at all I’d still worry about predators assaulting people in bathrooms.
I know people had problems with black people using the same bathrooms too back in the day. And people also thought being homosexual was the same as being a pedophile.
I am not talking about what PM specified. You asked the question, "What women’s bathrooms are there were any man is allowed to just walk in? I’m not aware of this existing."
I answered your question. They indeed exist. Any biological man is allowed to walk into and use women´s public restrooms in MA as long as he identifies as female.
Whether it is a problem or not is not a discussion I really wish to partake in.
If you have to identify as a woman to walk into a women’s bathroom, then that does NOT include “any man”. What do you not understand? “ANY man” includes those who identify as a man. You have STILL not provided a legitimate example to my question.
shareYou know the world is turning upside down when you have to stipulate what you mean by "any man".
shareSpeak for yourself. I meant literally ANY man. You are the one who used the term any man without actually meaning any man.
shareI am speaking for the last few thousand years of human history where the definition never changed, not some silly definition that has come into vogue in the last 5-20 years so that people with mental issues don´t feel offended.
share"Any man" can say he identifies as a woman. Do you think it's something that's verified??
shareHell yes, it's a problem:
https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/teesside-woman-accused-using-sex-22260053
You're probably just fine with people(?) like this going into women's restrooms.
What does a person masturbating out their window have to do with trans women using a restroom?
shareDid you not read that this person is "A woman"?
shareWhat does it have to do with women's bathrooms?
shareGood question! I would very much like to know as well, but I guess you have the bigots stumped.
shareWow! You guys are dense! The left feels people should be allowed to go into whatever restroom they want according to what gender they "identify" as. This "woman" who was exposing "her " penis and using a sex toy in public, according to leftist reprobates should be allowed to go in women's restrooms. I definitely don't want my daughters is a restroom with that thing.
shareI can’t speak for anyone else, but if this story is true then this person is a major sex offender and should be sent to prison. So NO, I do NOT think this person should be allowed in public bathrooms at all. What does this have to do with ANY other trans people?!? I’m really feeling like a broken record. WOW, you’re dense!
share"Any man" can identify as a woman, trans, whatever, but you know this so quit playing stupid in hopes that I'll trip up. The majority of Americans oppose trans people using restrooms according to how they "identify". Ever your leftist rag confirms this:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/transgender-bathroom-rights_n_5492286
Trans people make up approximately .6 percent of the population. It is extremely selfish for them to put their desires in front of 99.4 percent of the population.
Still ignoring the actual question at hand.
shareNo. You're just to dim to understand.
shareYES! You ARE in fact ignoring the question.
shareYou: "What does a person masturbating out their window have to do with trans women using a restroom?"
Me: " "Any man" can identify as a woman, trans, whatever, but you know this so quit playing stupid in hopes that I'll trip up. The majority of Americans oppose trans people using restrooms according to how they "identify". Ever your leftist rag confirms this:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/transgender-bathroom-rights_n_5492286
Trans people make up approximately .6 percent of the population. It is extremely selfish for them to put their desires in front of 99.4 percent of the population."
Obviously it's not centered on trans people but people saying that they identify as something they're not, for nefarious purposes but you already know this and have no defense for it. If people want (the majority doesn't) this kind of thing, there should be three restrooms: Men, women and unisex. Problem solved.
And what prison do you think it should go to? Male it female prison?
shareProbably the most mentally unstable take on these forums.
No social justice points will be awarded.
And how do you know who's "legit"? Do they have certified trans cards? Restroom passports? People lie, in case you didn't know.
shareThere are men who want to pretend to be women and use women's bathrooms.
shareThat’s not what you specified originally, but anyways, if you’re speaking of transgenders, so what? Is this a problem? Do you think people of color should have their own restrooms as well?
shareA man can't become a woman and men shouldn't be using women's bathrooms. (And vice versa.)
A "transgender" person should be treated for their obvious mental illness, not catered to by society as if their condition is normal.
This is very scary and horrifying. Who decides what is “normal” and not “normal”? And all you have to do is open up a history book and see what happens when people call for a demographic to be forcefully “treated” against their will…
shareLet me ask you, if someone says to you, "I identify as a cheetah. I may have been born into a human body but I'm certain that I was meant to be a cheetah," would you take that person's self-identification seriously or would you understand that they have some mental condition and are under a strong delusion?
It's no different from a man who thinks he's supposed to be a woman or a woman who thinks she's supposed to be a man. The sheer fact that attempting to turn this idea into a reality requires an enormous amount of hormones and painful and destructive surgery should be enough to tell you that there is something unnatural about it.
I don’t care at all about what people want to identify as. Whatever it is in peoples biology that makes them feel one way, or another, wether they feel like a man or a woman, wether they feel sexual attraction to men or women or both, wether they like macaroni and cheese or don’t, wether their favorite color is blue or green or red, I have no idea what determines this. And it shouldn’t matter. People feel what they feel, and it’s all legit and natural. The only thing UNnatural is to expect everyone to fit into boxes and take away their liberty of self.
shareAgree, but the problem is not with what they believe. I don't give a shit.
The problem is when they FORCE us to believe the same.
The problem is with the one asking you to agree with him that he is a cheetah and to change the basics of science as to show that he IS a cheetah. And that's the real problem, not how he feels.
Bingo.
shareIt’s impossible to “force” people to do anything. Have you never heard of free will? You should as you are exercising your free will throughout this thread.
shareYou're sooo funny. And dense.
Are you paying taxes??? Or rather your parents, I guess you're a kid that doesn't really know how the world works.
No idea what me paying taxes has to do with basic human decency. But yes, I pay taxes and have been supporting myself through employment since I was a young adult. What does this have to do with anything, exactly?
shareHas to do with this: "It’s impossible to “force” people to do anything."
Try to not pay your taxes. And see if it's "impossible to "force" people to do anything" - you'll be surprised.
Have you ever heard of nazi work camps where people were FORCED to work??? Or the socialist work camps? The gulag?
Even in the penal US system there are people that are forcefully kept in prisons and forced to work.
Are you that dense that you forgot what was your argument??
A man thinking he's a woman (or vice versa) is as natural as pedophilia or psychopathy. People FEEL all kinds of ways but that doesn't mean that all feelings are within the moral order. Sometimes society must step in and say, "Okay, you may feel a certain way but you shouldn't act on that feeling."
It seems that your perspective is that whatever you feel is perfectly good and moral. But I believe that a lot people feel all sorts of things that are contrary to the moral order.
Here’s a perfect example of the stupidity of catering to it
https://www.cp24.com/news/woman-charged-after-allegedly-sexually-assaulting-boy-6-in-toronto-park-1.5507641
Could you imagine how confused the victim was when he tried to describe his attacker as a man and everyone at the police station and court house was trying to correct the kid from inappropriately “mis-gendering” his attacker? Kid must have been completely befuddled about the idiocy of the adults who were supposed to protect him
Fucking hell, man. That article runs off the rails immediately with it's first words: "A woman is facing charges. . ."
Society has gone into freefall almost overnight, it seems. Even just 10 years ago you would not have read something like that accompanied by that photo.
You want to read some real rage fuel from Clown World?
This story here almost made me go into a fit:
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/father-arrested-says-school-tried-covering-up-his-daughters-rape/
You fail at analogies. A black woman is a woman. A transwoman is not a woman.
You might be ok with a trans flashing his dick at your 11 years daughter but most people are not.
And btw, some black people have asked for segregated spaces as well - I bet you agree with that kind of segregation ...
I don’t know what an 11 years daughter is, but how will discriminatory bathroom laws stop real pedophiles from doing what they do?
The analogy is sound. If you don’t see that then you don’t see that. Black people used to have to stay in their own bathrooms. It happened. It’s a part of our history. Now more hate is fueling our current society by telling real transgender people which bathroom they need to use.
I have no idea what makes you think you know what I would agree with when it comes to segregation.
11 years old daughter, don't be dense.
"but how will discriminatory bathroom laws stop real pedophiles from doing what they do?" so let's make it legal to do so??? Let's encourage pedophiles to do it by pretending to be women, so wise.
Laws that punish murder didn't stop murderers, right? So we should just get rid of those laws that are trying to prevent crimes??
And you liberals are so keen on gun control laws to prevent crime, but in this situation those laws that would prevent this kind of acts are ... useless?
The analogy is NOT sound. Racism is not the same thing as segregation based on sex.
I never said I had an 11 year old daughter, so still don’t know what you’re talking about.
Are you equating letting a transgender in a bathroom of the gender they identify as with pedophiles? Where is your evidence that trans people are pedophiles?
Who said I was liberal? I am not and think most gun control laws are useless. What does this have to do with trans people?
"I never said I had an 11 year old daughter, so still don’t know what you’re talking about."
you're really dense, aren't you? It was a hypothetical example. To translate it for simpletons: "If you would have a 11 years old daughter would you like for a trans woman to flash his erect dick in your hypothetical daughter?" Or your girlfriend? But I know, you are just deflecting.
No, I'm identifying trans gender as transgender, a LOT of them not going through the snip and so still having a dick, pedophiles or not. And yes, SOME of them are pedophiles. My evidence that a lot of trans still have a dick is in the statistics (see below, 2 out of 3 still have a dick).
And yeah, dicks should NOT be allowed in women bathrooms, pedophiles or not pedophiles - and I don't care how they identify.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/d3ggjj/how-to-tuck
Btw, are you related to cathy newman by any chance?
Why the hell would I want anyone flashing private parts at my family? Where did this suggestion come from and what does it have to do with trans people. Straight people are pedophiles too, you know? How about we just don’t let any straight people out in public? Wouldn’t that be just as valid of a suggestion?
shareYou don't realize that is EXACTLY why there are women only SPAs, bathrooms, pools, locker rooms, etc???? you are really dense my man.
The bathroom is just an example of a safe space for women but it can be anything else, including the ones I enumerated.
https://nypost.com/2021/07/06/furor-over-trans-in-la-spa-proves-progressives-arent-really-feminists-after-all/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna911106
shareAnd I would trust the bullshit "science" behind a liberal social studies "study" posted by a liberal media because?
“Embracing acceptance of people who are different” would be more what I would think this would be.
it’s become a bad thing to think that everyone should be treated with respect. Acceptance has disappeared.
Someone said "The Cell" had a message like that too, when it came to how messed-up mentally the criminal in that was.
shareReally? The Cell? Hmmm....
Gosh I haven't seen that film since around the time it came out. I remember it being very disturbing but also capturing the ethereal and fluid nature of dreams like few other movies out there. I was very mesmerized with the visuals at the time.
I don't know if I have the stomach to watch it again, because it was very disturbing.... but now that you mention it, I may have to put on my big boy pants and watch it to see if that's what the message was.
I've never actually watched it, despite wanting to do so just to see the bizarre costumes, but I was afraid of the nightmare fuel.
Anyway, on "The Cell" page, someone pointed out how, when the psychologist looks into the killer's memories, she sees him as a child, being beaten for playing with dolls. Kinda makes you wonder....
but I was afraid of the nightmare fuel.
when the psychologist looks into the killer's memories, she sees him as a child, being beaten for playing with dolls. Kinda makes you wonder....
😂
Getting all upset about it seems a bit… sissy, wouldn’t you say?
Seems like the movie touched a nerve by holding a mirror. You don't like the reflection?
shareI keep hoping to one day come to this message board site and read some actual meaningful and in-depth things about serious movies and tv shows; alas, that day still is still elusive as shown by several replies in this thread.
This movie is so much more than what several have "seen" and railed on about.
A futile hope that I empathize with. Good discussion seems to be localized to specific films/programs + users. But even then, it seems more productive at times to turn elsewhere for more targeted discussion.
It's like reddit film threads, right? You have some people who are actually interested in having good discussions. And other people who just wanna upvote/downvote with all the intellection of a blog commenter.
It's just a shame cause moviechat looks like an oldschool message board, but people comment as though they're on some facebook or youtube thread.
Not sorry to disappoint you because there is nothing meaningful about misrepresenting masculinity as "toxic", even less so that peak masculinity is somehow a euphemism for homosexuality.
I'm pretty sure if there were people in here talking about how "stunning" and "brave" the director was for conflating the two you wouldn't be deriding those same people for their opinion.
But this film was literally exactly as I said it was, and I even ventured further into the thread to explain how. Your only retort is to lament that people aren't sharing an opinion you agree with, which is actually less meaningful than the thread discussion itself, since one is about a topic that can be discussed (regardless of the viewpoints held) and the other is someone throwing a hissy fit that people aren't behaving the way they want.
The OP sounds preoccupied with homosexuality. I wonder why that would be?
shareBecause that's what the movie is about....?
shareLOL! Your obsession with homosexuality plainly pre-dates this movie.
shareIt's modern Leftist culture that is obsessed with homosexuality. Even if you wanted to escape it, you can't. It's shoved to the forefront of all forms of media.
shareExactly.
I went into this movie just about "blind".
I only saw the trailer -- around the exact same time I saw the trailer for Old Henry. I even got the two confused and thought Benedict Cumberbatch was in Old Henry.
But anyway, I watched and thoroughly enjoyed Old Henry. That's how REAL masculinity is supposed to be showcased.
I followed it up (regrettably) with The Power of the Dog, and I have to say that it was a huge disappointment for me because I had no idea it was about embracing homosexuality.
I saw Old Henry as well. Thought it was great. The identity twist was a little weird, but overall it was a good example of how to do an engaging western on a small budget.
I was thinking of watching The Power of the Dog when I first heard about it, but then I found your post and went, "No, thank you."
I'm glad people like you have no bearing on what gets to be considered a good film.
share