My Problem with A24 Films (I HATE These Movies)
Credibility score: 44/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
Claims analyzed
Opens with teaser framing A24 as pretentious award-grabber — Loaded Language (45/100)
Calls awards from 'madeupmies' — dismisses Oscars with loaded slang before naming any films.
Disclaimer: video isn't to 'undermine talent,' just to call films 'absolute garbage'. — False Equivalence (20/100)
Claiming not to 'undermine talent' while simultaneously calling their work 'absolute garbage' is a contradiction. 🚩
Contradicts self on Florence Pugh's acting — a confidence mismatch. — Confidence Mismatch (20/100)
Says Florence Pugh is a 'great actress' but then immediately 'hates' her performance in this film. — That's a quick flip-flop.
Calling a film 'extravagant for the sake of extravagance' and 'having no point' – classic loaded language. — Loaded Language (45/100)
Dismissing a film's artistic choices as 'extravagant for extravagance's sake' is a subjective judgment, not an objective critique.
Speaker uses 'critics liked, audiences didn't' as a false dichotomy to justify their dislike. — False Dilemma (20/100)
Setting up a 'critics vs. audiences' battle is a classic false dilemma, implying you must pick a side.
Calls Spring Breakers too gritty — aesthetic taste framed as objective flaw — No Frame (75/100)
Owns it's personal taste while still presenting grit as a negative — clean framing.
Labels Spring Breakers a 'goon flick' — reduces film to sexual intent only — Loaded Language (45/100)
Dismisses any artistic layer by calling it pure goon material — straw-man framing of intent.
Calls out Radcliffe's Harry Potter fame and directors' debut status — name-dropping to signal quality judgment — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
Drops 'Harry Potter' and 'directorial debut' like they explain why the movie fails — classic appeal to outside reputation.
Calls Swiss Army Man cheap erection/fart jokes — dismisses surrealism as lazy — Loaded Language (45/100)
Reduces absurdist comedy to 'cheap jokes' — loaded framing that ignores intent.
Labels film 'pointless' then ranks it below Midsommar — personal taste framed as objective judgment — Emotional Button (45/100)
Calls it 'pointless' like that's a fact, then uses his own dislike of Midsommar as the new low bar.
Assumes Defoe expected Lighthouse-level weirdness — projects intent onto actor — Missing Context (45/100)
Speculates on Defoe's expectations with zero evidence — classic mind-reading move.
Calls film 'pointless' then prefers Midsommar — personal taste framed as objective judgment — No Frame (75/100)
Straight personal preference stated plainly — no loaded words or hidden framing.
Calls film 'starting off horribly' before plot even begins — prejudgment via trailer reaction — Confidence Mismatch (30/100)
Says it's 'horrible' based on a trailer alone, then apologizes for Willem Dafoe like the film is already guilty.
Assumes Dafoe expected 'The Lighthouse 2' — speculative mind-reading with zero evidence — Missing Context (45/100)
Projects Dafoe's expectations with no quotes or receipts — classic assumption disguised as insight.
Summarizes plot then immediately calls it 'awful' — story recap used as setup for blanket dismissal — No Frame (75/100)
Gives neutral plot summary then states opinion directly. No sneaky framing here.
Calls child acting 'annoying' and 'can't act' — generalizes from one film to 'most of the time' — Missing Context (45/100)
Broad 'child actors are annoying' claim with zero examples beyond this movie.
Summarizes plot then immediately declares 'awful' three times — summary as setup for blanket dismissal — Volume Game (35/100)
Repeats 'awful' like repetition makes the judgment stronger instead of giving specific reasons.
Says 'I don't have a thing against child actors' then calls them annoying and exploited — classic disclaimer before attack — False Equivalence (40/100)
Opens with 'I don't have a thing against' then immediately attacks child actors as annoying and exploited.
Calls puppetry a gimmick — dismisses artistic choice as cheap trick — Loaded Language (45/100)
Labels the puppetry a 'gimmick' before any real analysis — steers you to see it as shallow.
See the full analysis with sources and timestamps →