My Problem with A24 Films (I HATE These Movies)
Credibility score: 44/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "My Problem with A24 Films (I HATE These Movies)" and rated it 44/100 for credibility (a BS score of 56/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-07-18. Its weakest claim — "Disclaimer: video isn't to 'undermine talent,' just to call films 'absolute garbage'." — scored 20/100 and was flagged as false equivalence. 19 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
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.
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.
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 '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 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.
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.
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 →