sasja-93834
Joined Mar 2022
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews2
sasja-93834's rating
This would have been far funnier if it was fronted by Philomena Cunk, she would have given it the authenticity it is longing for. As it is this is still a funny mockumentary but it could have been so much better. It is a comedy isn't it?
The science is questionable, the interpretation ridiculous, the bending of half truths and dangerous nonsense as fact is frankly astonishing. The entire premise being along the lines of my dog has 4 legs, a cat has 4 legs therefore my dog is a cat.
There is an underlying desperation of the religious fraternity to stay relevant, they fail.
This needs a warning at the start saying it's utter nonsense.
The science is questionable, the interpretation ridiculous, the bending of half truths and dangerous nonsense as fact is frankly astonishing. The entire premise being along the lines of my dog has 4 legs, a cat has 4 legs therefore my dog is a cat.
There is an underlying desperation of the religious fraternity to stay relevant, they fail.
This needs a warning at the start saying it's utter nonsense.
Pretty biased account of the life of Napoleon focusing on his achievements which were impressive but totally ignoring so much of the harm and hurt he caused to his own people and the countries he plundered. The narrator is clearly a fan but some balance is needed and the full story told.
Unfortunately with such a one sided account it loses a lot of impact and comes across as dishonest making you question what you're actually told.
The man was a dictator and just like Hitler had a "Napoleon" complex, named such for a reason.
It's also long and repetitive, a one or at a stretch 2 one hour specials would have been enough, if the somewhat creepy defence of this dictator was tempered.
Unfortunately with such a one sided account it loses a lot of impact and comes across as dishonest making you question what you're actually told.
The man was a dictator and just like Hitler had a "Napoleon" complex, named such for a reason.
It's also long and repetitive, a one or at a stretch 2 one hour specials would have been enough, if the somewhat creepy defence of this dictator was tempered.