>Movie is le bad because it’s... LE HISTORICALLY INACCURATE
Wtf is this guy’s problem?
 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
>Movie is le bad because its...
>Movie is le bad because it’s... LE HISTORICALLY INACCURATE
Wtf is this guy’s problem?
|
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
idk if you noticed but he's a huge effeminate pussy, and while that doesn't make him a "bad person" it makes him pretty hard to listen to
many such cases
Assuming that the epic history """man""" isn't actually a biological woman (unlikly), how long before he troons out?
What the frick are you talking about?
"His" avatar looks like a FtM Troon and "he" sounds like a girl doing a guys voice
"He" probably is just a confused autistic woman that hated herself too much
>*Gets raped and forcibly detransitioned by a cis man (me)*
>(Nasally, feminine nerd voice): "ERM, this is very sexist and transphobic for a Livestream in the 21st century!"
>complains about the historical inaccuracy of The Patriot and Braveheart because LE BONGS WEREN'T DAT BAAAAAAD
>gives a pass to 300 because "lol it was done with mythical storytelling sensibilities in mind, of course it's okay to depict your enemies as subhuman monsters" (as long as they're not bongs)
Absolute fricking hackfraud clown.
he is biased because he is a britbong.
I would give him a pass for hating Braveheart except if you are analyzing history it is absolutely shameful to be this biased.
>Movie is le bad because it’s... LE HISTORICALLY INACCURATE
>Believes in black Cleopatra
in black Cleopatra
No way, tell me you're lying
I'm lying
No I'm not.
You're not me homosexual.
You're not me either
Hello me, meet the real me
this piece of shit homosexual has a hateboner for Mel Gibson. He's an awful movie reviewer
I started watching his Apocalypto one recently and holy shit. He immediately goes full hate boner on Mel and goes on to say the small tribe isn't a Mayan civilization. No fricking shit they weren't part of the Mayan civilization that enslaved them for sacrifice, and apparently Mayans only sacrificed important people to their gods so those lowly savages would make poor offerings. I couldn't even finish it.
yes, that one is the worse.
he completely missed the point of the movie, is the comparison between civilizations peak and decline, for that the ending was absolutely necessary.
his review was such a brainlet take, like some comic fanboy complaining that a movie is not the same as the comic.
I can understand not like Braveheart and The Patriot from a historical standpoint, but he took his bias into Apocalypto with him and now he is historically a tool.
Didn't he like 300 because it was historically inaccurate?
>Channels whole gimmick is he talks about historical inaccuracies in film/TV
>REEEEE WHY DOES HE KEEP POINTING OUT THE INACCURACIES
You morons are doomed to lives of neverending screeching
>whats this guys problem
Autism, special interest (niche history b.s) is viewed as under attack when there's any form of variation to it
why does it look like vegas?
why won't he do schindlers list?
>fiction is ......fictional?
>how is this possible?
I haven't watched a video since he spent twenty fricking minutes sperging out about the food the Mayans should have been eating in Apocolypto. Given his hatred of Mel Gibson, I knew he was going to have the typical "Mel thinks the Spanish are saviors" moron take about the ending.
His criticisms of Apocalypto are complete bullshit
He liked Gettysburg and Last of the Mohicans so he isn't a total pleb.
He's pretty good. IMO movies that pretend to be based on real events should have disclaimers pointing out all of the ways they have fictionalized events.