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.
Of 19 claims analyzed: 5 scored under 40, 11 between 40 and 69, and 3 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Opens with teaser framing A24 as pretentious award-grabber — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:00
Calls awards from 'madeupmies' — dismisses Oscars with loaded slang before naming any films.
Why this score: The speaker sets up A24 as suddenly 'mainstream' and award-chasing. By mocking the Oscars as 'madeupmies,' they signal skepticism without evidence, steering viewers to see prestige as suspect rather than earned. Neutral framing would just say 'won Oscars' and let the viewer decide what that means.
Original quote: “What's easier than talking about things that we love, respect, and cherish? >> Drugs. No, no, no. Things we absolutely, undeniably cannot even with. >> Oh, I hate you. >> That's what we're going to be talking about in this video. A24 is known for producing some of the weirdest yet kind of cool…”
Disclaimer: video isn't to 'undermine talent,' just to call films 'absolute garbage'. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 1:06
Claiming not to 'undermine talent' while simultaneously calling their work 'absolute garbage' is a contradiction. 🚩
Why this score: This is a classic 'I'm not saying you're ugly, but...' move. The speaker attempts to soften the blow by disclaiming that they're not trying to 'undermine or discredit or diminish any of the talent,' but then immediately follows it by saying they're giving their 'two cents on what films I think are absolute garbage.' Calling someone's creative output 'absolute garbage' inherently diminishes their talent in the eyes of many. It's a false equivalence to suggest one can be separated from the other in such a direct critique. A more honest framing would be to acknowledge that strong criticism of a…
Original quote: “Just a disclaimer, this video is not meant to undermine or discredit or diminish any of the talent of the writers, directors, actors. Just me giving my two cents on what films I think are absolute garbage.”
Contradicts self on Florence Pugh's acting — a confidence mismatch. — Confidence Mismatch (20/100)
At 2:52
Says Florence Pugh is a 'great actress' but then immediately 'hates' her performance in this film. — That's a quick flip-flop.
Why this score: The speaker states, 'I like Florence Pew, okay? I think she's a great actress,' but then immediately follows with, 'in this film. I hate hate the performances. I hate it.' This creates a confidence mismatch. While it's possible to like an actor but dislike a specific performance, the phrasing here is so absolute and immediate ('hate hate') that it undermines the initial compliment, making the overall critique feel less coherent. A more consistent framing would be to say, 'Florence Pugh is usually great, but in this film, her performance didn't work for me.'
Original quote: “Aside from that, I just think the acting is terrible. Is it scary? I'm also just like I like Florence Pew, okay? I think she's a great actress in this film. I hate hate the performances. I hate it. I think it's overly dramatic, overdone, overly just too badly. I can't even I just can't with this…”
Calling a film 'extravagant for the sake of extravagance' and 'having no point' – classic loaded language. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 4:30
Dismissing a film's artistic choices as 'extravagant for extravagance's sake' is a subjective judgment, not an objective critique.
Why this score: This is a prime example of loaded language. By framing the film's style as 'extravagant for the sake of extravagance' and 'having no point,' the speaker is injecting their personal negative opinion directly into the description. A neutral framing would describe the film's aesthetic choices without the pejorative judgment, allowing the viewer to form their own opinion on its purpose or lack thereof.
Original quote: “It's being extravagant for the sake of extravagance and also just having no point whatsoever to it.”
Speaker uses 'critics liked, audiences didn't' as a false dichotomy to justify their dislike. — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 7:04
Setting up a 'critics vs. audiences' battle is a classic false dilemma, implying you must pick a side.
Why this score: The speaker creates a false dilemma by presenting a binary choice: either you agree with critics or with audiences. This implies that critical and audience reception are always at odds and that one must choose a side, which isn't necessarily true. While 'Midsommar' did receive mixed audience reactions, many critics also had nuanced views, and some audiences loved it. The framing simplifies a complex reception into a convenient 'us vs. them' narrative to validate their personal opinion. A more neutral framing would acknowledge varied reception without forcing a choice.
Original quote: “Critics like this one, audiences didn't. And here is the rarity where I'm going to agree with the audiences. I did not like this one. I hated it.”
Calls Spring Breakers too gritty — aesthetic taste framed as objective flaw — No Frame (75/100)
At 8:48
Owns it's personal taste while still presenting grit as a negative — clean framing.
Why this score: The speaker flags the grimy look but immediately notes it's intentional. This avoids loaded language by acknowledging the director's choice rather than pretending the style is objectively bad. Neutral framing would be the same sentence without the 'I hate it' energy, but this version still tells you where the preference sits.
Original quote: “I don't even think this film looks good. It's too gritty. Too gritty, grimy looking for me, which I guess is the point.”
Labels Spring Breakers a 'goon flick' — reduces film to sexual intent only — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 9:06
Dismisses any artistic layer by calling it pure goon material — straw-man framing of intent.
Why this score: The speaker sets up a false binary: either it's a serious A24 film or it's just jerk material. This erases the possibility that a movie can be both deliberately trashy and still have themes. A neutral framing would acknowledge the sexualization exists while asking what else the film is doing, not pretending the sex is the entire project.
Original quote: “How about you? I just think this is just for no reason other than to get hit in the wank bang to goon over. This is like a goon central movie.”
Calls out Radcliffe's Harry Potter fame and directors' debut status — name-dropping to signal quality judgment — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 9:30
Drops 'Harry Potter' and 'directorial debut' like they explain why the movie fails — classic appeal to outside reputation.
Why this score: The speaker never says what the directors actually did wrong, just flags that it's their first film and that Radcliffe was in Harry Potter. This lets the audience fill in the negative judgment without providing specific evidence. A cleaner framing would either critique the actual choices or admit the debut status is irrelevant to the quality argument.
Original quote: “Swiss Army Man stars Daniel Radcliffe. I mean, Harry Potter directed by Daniel Shiner and Daniel Quan. This was their directorial debut.”
Calls Swiss Army Man cheap erection/fart jokes — dismisses surrealism as lazy — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 10:07
Reduces absurdist comedy to 'cheap jokes' — loaded framing that ignores intent.
Why this score: The speaker equates surreal comedy with laziness by listing bodily humor as proof. This skips the actual debate about whether the surrealism lands or not. A neutral version would describe the specific gags and say whether they worked for the speaker, rather than using 'cheap' and 'lazy' as the entire argument.
Original quote: “It is so bad I want to give you a zero but that's not possible. So I give you a one. Holy. It's supposed to be comedy but like surreal. It's like cheap comedy. It's like erection joke, fart joke with surrealism.”
Calls film 'pointless' then prefers Midsommar — personal taste framed as objective judgment — No Frame (75/100)
At 10:37
Straight personal preference stated plainly — no loaded words or hidden framing.
Why this score: He owns that it's subjective ('didn't click with me', 'not into that humor') and gives a direct comparison without pretending it's universal. That's clean framing — he's just telling you his taste, not dressing it up as fact. Neutral alternative would be the same thing he's already doing.
Original quote: “Another pointless film that A24 had the capacity to just fun. I don't know. This film didn't click with me. Maybe cuz I'm just not into that humor or into the style. I don't know. It's just not for me. I don't like it. Do I like this better than any of the other ones? I'm going to be honest, I'd…”
Labels film 'pointless' then ranks it below Midsommar — personal taste framed as objective judgment — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 10:37
Calls it 'pointless' like that's a fact, then uses his own dislike of Midsommar as the new low bar.
Why this score: He's mixing 'this didn't work for me' with 'this is objectively pointless.' The emotional button is the loaded word 'pointless' — it sounds like a structural critique when it's really just taste. Neutral version would be 'I didn't connect with the humor or style.'
Original quote: “Another pointless film that A24 had the capacity to just fun. I don't know. This film didn't click with me. Maybe cuz I'm just not into that humor or into the style. I don't know. It's just not for me. I don't like it. Do I like this better than any of the other ones? I'm going to be honest, I'd…”
Assumes Defoe expected Lighthouse-level weirdness — projects intent onto actor — Missing Context (45/100)
At 10:57
Speculates on Defoe's expectations with zero evidence — classic mind-reading move.
Why this score: The speaker guesses what Defoe 'thought he was getting' based only on the actor's past roles. No interview, no quote, just projection. A fair framing would say 'Defoe has done weird films before' instead of assuming disappointment.
Original quote: “Our last one I'm going to hate on is called The Legend of Ochi. It's a recent release directed by Isaiah Saxon. This is also his film debut. Starting off horribly. I remember seeing this trailer in the cinemas and thought this is going to be absolute and I'm sorry that William Defoe participate in…”
Calls film 'starting off horribly' before plot even begins — prejudgment via trailer reaction — Confidence Mismatch (30/100)
At 10:57
Says it's 'horrible' based on a trailer alone, then apologizes for Willem Dafoe like the film is already guilty.
Why this score: He's framing the entire movie as failed before describing any actual content. The move is prejudgment: trailer disappointment gets promoted to 'this is awful' without waiting for the film itself. A cleaner frame would separate 'trailer looked bad' from 'the finished movie is bad.'
Original quote: “Our last one I'm going to hate on is called The Legend of Ochi. It's a recent release directed by Isaiah Saxon. This is also his film debut. Starting off horribly. I remember seeing this trailer in the cinemas and thought this is going to be absolute and I'm sorry that William Defoe participate in…”
Assumes Dafoe expected 'The Lighthouse 2' — speculative mind-reading with zero evidence — Missing Context (45/100)
At 11:08
Projects Dafoe's expectations with no quotes or receipts — classic assumption disguised as insight.
Why this score: He's taking 'Dafoe did a weird movie after The Lighthouse' and turning it into 'he must have thought he was getting another weird arthouse thing.' No evidence he expected that. A neutral version would just say 'Dafoe did another strange project' without guessing his mindset.
Original quote: “I remember seeing this trailer in the cinemas and thought this is going to be absolute and I'm sorry that William Defoe participate in this. I wonder if he thought he was getting gearing up for like the lighthouse too.”
Summarizes plot then immediately calls it 'awful' — story recap used as setup for blanket dismissal — No Frame (75/100)
At 11:33
Gives neutral plot summary then states opinion directly. No sneaky framing here.
Why this score: He actually lays out what the movie is about before dunking on it. That's fair — you're getting the premise and his reaction in the same breath. The neutral version would look almost identical to what he did.
Original quote: “It is about a farm girl named Yuri who is taught not to go outside after dark and to fear creatures known as the Oi. But when she gets a baby Ochi, she sets off to find its real family and discovers that maybe people have been lying to them or have misjudged the Ochi severely. I will just say this…”
Summarizes plot then immediately declares 'awful' three times — summary as setup for blanket dismissal — Volume Game (35/100)
At 11:33
Repeats 'awful' like repetition makes the judgment stronger instead of giving specific reasons.
Why this score: He gives a neutral plot recap then slams it with volume rather than critique. The rhetorical move is using repetition ('awful, awful') to manufacture weight. A stronger frame would name what specifically fails — writing, design, tone — instead of just turning up the volume on the word.
Original quote: “It is about a farm girl named Yuri who is taught not to go outside after dark and to fear creatures known as the Oi. But when she gets a baby Ochi, she sets off to find its real family and discovers that maybe people have been lying to them or have misjudged the Ochi severely. I will just say this…”
Calls child acting 'annoying' and 'can't act' — generalizes from one film to 'most of the time' — Missing Context (45/100)
At 11:56
Broad 'child actors are annoying' claim with zero examples beyond this movie.
Why this score: He starts with this specific film then pivots to 'most of the time' without naming other child performances or showing why this one fails. A cleaner framing would keep it to 'the kid in this movie didn't work for me' instead of turning it into a rule about child actors in general.
Original quote: “The [__] creatures are awful. The acting is awful. I don't have a thing against child actors, but I do think most of the time they're maybe it's not their fault. Maybe people just write children annoying, but more often than not, they come off as annoying. They can't act.”
Says 'I don't have a thing against child actors' then calls them annoying and exploited — classic disclaimer before attack — False Equivalence (40/100)
At 11:59
Opens with 'I don't have a thing against' then immediately attacks child actors as annoying and exploited.
Why this score: The 'I don't have a thing against' line is the classic setup that lets him criticize while pretending to be fair. It creates false equivalence between 'some kids are annoying on screen' and 'don't let your kid act at all.' A neutral version would separate performance issues from the ethics of child acting.
Original quote: “I don't have a thing against child actors, but I do think most of the time they're maybe it's not their fault. Maybe people just write children annoying, but more often than not, they come off as annoying. They can't act. To mention all the dark, horrible advantages that get taken of them. Don't…”
Calls puppetry a gimmick — dismisses artistic choice as cheap trick — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 12:30
Labels the puppetry a 'gimmick' before any real analysis — steers you to see it as shallow.
Why this score: By calling it a 'gimmick' instead of just saying 'I didn't like the choice,' the speaker frames the decision as cynical and attention-seeking rather than a deliberate artistic move. A neutral version would be 'I think the puppetry was the wrong choice for this story.'
Original quote: “The story itself, I get it. The misunderstanding, thinking for yourself, not to be prejudiced, stuff like that. so many other ones that are so better in this film to go off of this. I just feel like they did it for the gimmick of the puppetry.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →