antinymgaming
Joined Apr 2019
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.
Badges5
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews6
antinymgaming's rating
There is a lot of great queer media that's been released recently and in the past covering a variety of communities and subcultures. There has also been some fantasy wish fulfillment stuff which I don't prefer but can interesting and entertaining on it's own merits.
This movie and the book it comes from are repulsive to to me for 2 reasons:
Firstly: It completely misunderstands gay relationships between men, its not just unrealistic (which could be ok) it's cartoonish and stereotypical, just not in the usual way.
Secondly: It's objectifying and accessorizing to male homosexuality. This is not gay fiction by or for a man, this is gay fiction by and for WOMEN.
The second issue is what I'd like to zero in on, because on one hand I could see how this could aid in it being appreciated as a campy romp by my fellow gays, but on the other this is possibly one of the most regressive gay movies to ever be released.
I've never met a gay/bi guy in person who likes this movie (if they've seen it), I've met to many women enthusiastically praise this movie whilst also behaving in subtlety homophobic ways towards me. I feel they mostly are ignorant of what allyship as a straight person actually means.
This is a generalized experience and to be clear, the women in my life that are important to me (many of which are queer) can have a nuanced conversation and perspective on the subject of women writing gay men through the female gaze.
However as it stands, this movie is a frustratedly shallow BL fantasy for women that's on the same level as Twilight masquerading as a progressive drama/comedy that socially accessorizes and objectifies queer men.
This movie and the book it comes from are repulsive to to me for 2 reasons:
Firstly: It completely misunderstands gay relationships between men, its not just unrealistic (which could be ok) it's cartoonish and stereotypical, just not in the usual way.
Secondly: It's objectifying and accessorizing to male homosexuality. This is not gay fiction by or for a man, this is gay fiction by and for WOMEN.
The second issue is what I'd like to zero in on, because on one hand I could see how this could aid in it being appreciated as a campy romp by my fellow gays, but on the other this is possibly one of the most regressive gay movies to ever be released.
I've never met a gay/bi guy in person who likes this movie (if they've seen it), I've met to many women enthusiastically praise this movie whilst also behaving in subtlety homophobic ways towards me. I feel they mostly are ignorant of what allyship as a straight person actually means.
This is a generalized experience and to be clear, the women in my life that are important to me (many of which are queer) can have a nuanced conversation and perspective on the subject of women writing gay men through the female gaze.
However as it stands, this movie is a frustratedly shallow BL fantasy for women that's on the same level as Twilight masquerading as a progressive drama/comedy that socially accessorizes and objectifies queer men.
First viewing I watched it stone cold sober, there was one scene I liked, I left the theater feeling empty.
The second viewing, I was severely drunk and with friends and we were probably very rude theater guests, one of my friends moaned in a german accent whenever chica was onscreen. Some one else in the theater whistled at Josh Hutcherson, Doug was by far the best and most loved character in the movie. Afterwards there were many jokes to be had about the bad writing, the sushi and beers afterwards were the highlight of the night.
Anyway, here's why I gave this terrible movie a 10/10:
Five Nights at Freddy's (the game series) was my first introduction to many important and complex things in art, despite it being a now-cringe inducing mainstream internet degeneracy fest.
FNAF was the first game I played to have a limited perspective and utilize it perfectly, it was the first piece of media I engaged with that had elements of horror and suspense, it's arguably pulp in regards to gameplay. It was also the first piece of art I had seen that did not spoon feed you the story but infact dangled bits in front of you leaving open interpretation, and a narrative that was surreal and Lynchian-lite.
These are the things that to me as a fan, make FNAF special. It is an artistically important series whose influence can be seen in this generation of storytellers regrettably growing up on the internet.
By no means if FNAF as a series a masterpiece or intentional in many of its merits, but movie had much to live up to in terms of entertainment and uniqueness.
It did not deliver any of these things, a 15 year old could make a better plot and a Tarantino film bro could write better dialogue.
I give it 10/10 because at least they got the movie out. I hope the next one is better.
The second viewing, I was severely drunk and with friends and we were probably very rude theater guests, one of my friends moaned in a german accent whenever chica was onscreen. Some one else in the theater whistled at Josh Hutcherson, Doug was by far the best and most loved character in the movie. Afterwards there were many jokes to be had about the bad writing, the sushi and beers afterwards were the highlight of the night.
Anyway, here's why I gave this terrible movie a 10/10:
Five Nights at Freddy's (the game series) was my first introduction to many important and complex things in art, despite it being a now-cringe inducing mainstream internet degeneracy fest.
FNAF was the first game I played to have a limited perspective and utilize it perfectly, it was the first piece of media I engaged with that had elements of horror and suspense, it's arguably pulp in regards to gameplay. It was also the first piece of art I had seen that did not spoon feed you the story but infact dangled bits in front of you leaving open interpretation, and a narrative that was surreal and Lynchian-lite.
These are the things that to me as a fan, make FNAF special. It is an artistically important series whose influence can be seen in this generation of storytellers regrettably growing up on the internet.
By no means if FNAF as a series a masterpiece or intentional in many of its merits, but movie had much to live up to in terms of entertainment and uniqueness.
It did not deliver any of these things, a 15 year old could make a better plot and a Tarantino film bro could write better dialogue.
I give it 10/10 because at least they got the movie out. I hope the next one is better.
After watching Theatre of Violence during a school-mandated viewing, I got into an argument with a classmate over whether or not it's subject truly received justice. A man who almost certainly commited the most hanious crimes possible- and yet there is a strong debate on how to administer punishment.
As I stated in the title, the documentary often felt like a court drama, and its beautiful (probably) anamorphic cinematography lends well to its credit in that regard. Of course visuals are nothing without a coherent narrative, and one is provided efficiently but with a touch of dark thematic depth beyond the descriptions of the crimes themselves.
While watching, you get the sense that many of the interviewees, both europian and ugandian, have skewed perceptions of the situation.
To me this is the most interesting element of the documentary and the reason it had a reason to be made at all, I only wish they had leaned into it harder. The political subtext of a ugandian mass murderer being tried and convicted in Europe is frustrately ironic. Yet at the same time paradoxically the only way something close to justice can be served given the sociopolitical circumstances of Uganda. The European vs African views of the situation is what in my opinion gives the documentary philosophical texture and conflict. It is also what started the argument I referred to in the beginning of this review.
To be clear, there is no sympathy to be drawn from the subject. He is a serial violator of human rights and many have suffered or died because of him. However, I don't view the essential question of the documentary as *What* to do with him, but *Who* does it to him, and the presidents that could set.
As I stated in the title, the documentary often felt like a court drama, and its beautiful (probably) anamorphic cinematography lends well to its credit in that regard. Of course visuals are nothing without a coherent narrative, and one is provided efficiently but with a touch of dark thematic depth beyond the descriptions of the crimes themselves.
While watching, you get the sense that many of the interviewees, both europian and ugandian, have skewed perceptions of the situation.
To me this is the most interesting element of the documentary and the reason it had a reason to be made at all, I only wish they had leaned into it harder. The political subtext of a ugandian mass murderer being tried and convicted in Europe is frustrately ironic. Yet at the same time paradoxically the only way something close to justice can be served given the sociopolitical circumstances of Uganda. The European vs African views of the situation is what in my opinion gives the documentary philosophical texture and conflict. It is also what started the argument I referred to in the beginning of this review.
To be clear, there is no sympathy to be drawn from the subject. He is a serial violator of human rights and many have suffered or died because of him. However, I don't view the essential question of the documentary as *What* to do with him, but *Who* does it to him, and the presidents that could set.
