MovieChat Forums > Mignonnes (2020) Discussion > A wrongly interpreted film

A wrongly interpreted film

posted 4 years ago by holly61 (954)
23 replies | jump to latest

It's about a downward spiral and eventual redemption and it is a heavily realistic film. Just put aside the assumptions of pedo pandering for one minute.

This film is the look into a young persons life and it is a raw look. An African Muslim immigrant child who gets seduced by the culture of her out of control secular peers and goes on a downward spiral only to end up the worst in the bunch. Her decisions get worse and worse as the film progresses (hence the vagina shot) only influenced by her perceived emotional turmoil over her father's marriage to another woman (second wife) and trying to maintain her ''faux friends'' and sexual status on social media. It is actually a very sad film and as I said a very realistic one.

Like it or not the film shows a true reality. Not to say it isn't a heavy film. A lot of scenes really made me cry.

[–] jewoogle (2269) 4 years ago

this movie was a very bad movie, its boring and poorly made but also sick how sexual it is. the only halfway good part is at the end she stops twerking and goes back home to be a kid again and jump rope. just because the message at the end tries to be good doesnt make up for all the twerking and sexual shots of 11 year olds

[–] holly61 (954) 4 years ago

I think the actresses were 13-14 though....

[–] jewoogle (2269) 4 years ago

13 or 14 is still underage as fuck. they should of got some skinny malnourished 18 year olds to play the kids

[–] holly61 (954) 4 years ago

Evan Rachelle Wood was 14 when she did the film ''Thirteen''. No controversy back then...

[–] jewoogle (2269) 4 years ago

was there underage buttcheeks flying over the whole screen? this movie was so fucked up, the trailer was mild. i ended up watching it for research since all the libtards said "if u dont watch it you cant judge it" i watched it, it was fucked. honestly regret it not only was it boring and poorly made, all the sexualization and explotation that people inferred from the trailer and advertisement was there by 10 fold. this movie was made by pedos for pedos and any normal person watching it would feel sick

[–] holly61 (954) 4 years ago

Yes. And the two main characters were groped and squeezed by a ''21'' year old character in the film.

[–] jewoogle (2269) 4 years ago

okay yeah that movie is probably as fucked as this one

[–] holly61 (954) 4 years ago

See for yourself (the scene)

youtube.com/watch?v=KcQrGxA0_Ns

[–] jewoogle (2269) 4 years ago

yes that is pretty bad but this movie is even more pedo fap material than that

[–] beancrisp (1625) 4 years ago

FACT: There are no sexual shots of 11 year olds in Cuties. Prove me wrong.

[–] jewoogle (2269) 4 years ago

prove urself wrong u pedo!

[–] KutWrite (1302) 3 years ago

SPOILER

There were some inappropriate shots, esp. near the end, but nothing I'd call sexual or pedophilic.

The film made me uncomfortable, but I think I got its message, which was against the sexual forces pulling the protag, and for her surprise redemption at the end.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I don't recall anyone saying this premise was difficult to comprehend. And it's just banal.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

No it isn't. It's child pornography.

[–] beancrisp (1625) 4 years ago

FACT:By definition there is no child pornography in Cuties. Prove me wrong.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Fact: you don't understand the terms "sexual" or "pornography". Prove us wrong.

Please, use a dictionary, then understand this apparently isn't your fight.

[–] torey (12) 4 years ago

By definition, Child Pornography is stuff that violates these tenets

Whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genitalia or pubic area.
Whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity.
Whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child.

Go google "Non-nude pornography"

[–] Kendricks (2239) 4 years ago

This.

The threads on this board are creepy beyond measure. Look at all those closet pedos defending this movie.
It's flat out appalling and makes you wonder where this is all leading.

The point of cuties is the normalization of "sexy kids", something the political left in general is working on for quite a while now. Google "Desmond is amazing", to name another example.

[–] Oberon (91) 4 years ago

hence the vagina shot

There is a vagina shot in this? The French really aren't shy about sexuality because this movie is rated "suitable for all audiences" in France.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Ah, Europe. That tells us a lot right there. By the way, I'm European.

[–] Oberon (91) 4 years ago

I am too 🙃

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Yep, and the trash you people seem to adore has ruined this continent. Starting to think that perhaps someone in the 30s and 40s had the right idea.

[–] KutWrite (1302) 3 years ago

SPOILER

No vagina shot. The character takes a shot of her own vagina, but we see nothing of it.

It did make me uncomfortable, but not as much as the twerking etc at the end. However, to me, that's not porn, nor pedophilia. Watch the intercut faces of the judges and audiences at the contest. It's supposed to make us uncomfortable, esp. knowing that the group that usually wins the contest say they go much further than these girls.