Replies

Cuties’ Review: Dull and Indefensible

[...]
You can’t judge a movie by its content. It’s not about content. It’s about what the movie has to say about the content.
[...]
Before we get to Cuties, let me go a bit further…
Bully (2001), Kids (1995), L.I.E. (2001), Thirteen (2003). Tough movies. R-rated movies. What you call hard Rs. All about underage kids doing all sorts of terrible stuff. I will and have defended all four. Again, not about the content. About what the movie says about the content. No one, unless they’re already corrupted, walks away from those four movies thinking any of that is okay. All you want to do afterward is take a shower.
That’s why, initially, sight unseen, I defended Cuties. I did not defend Netflix’s appalling ad campaign, which was aimed directly at the naked-guys-in-a-raincoat-named Floyd crowd. For whatever reason, Netflix is big on sexually exploiting children. Barack and Michelle Obama and Susan Rice are getting rich(er) off all those Floyds.
Okay, I didn’t exactly “defend” Cuties. Gave it the benefit of the doubt. For all the reasons mentioned above.
Now I’ve seen it and can’t defend it.
Cuties is soft-core child pornography disguised as art. Nothing less. Nothing more.
Cuties does not tell Naked Floyd to be ashamed of himself. Naked Floyd’s going to love Cuties. That’s a problem. A big problem.
[...]

he far-left fake news outlet, the New Yorker, accidentally told the truth about Cuties. But because the truth was off-message, the New Yorker deleted the tweet. “Cuties, which has angered scandal-mongers on the right, is the story of a girl’s outrage at, and defiance of, a patriarchal order,” the New Yorker tweeted accurately. Yep, that’s precisely what Cuties is. Where the New Yorker screwed up, though, was in saying so out loud.

The Telegraph (Paywall) is even more blunt:

Apparently now, not wanting to f*** kids is a "fearful" position to take.