Skip to main content
kralan's profile

Tue, Apr 6, 2021 8:14 PM

declined post does not contradict guidelines

I posted a very thoughtful review. 
My review was declined with a note saying see guidelines. 

I have read the guidelines twice. There is nothing in my review which contradicts the guidelines. 

How do I find out why my review was declined?

Responses

Karen_P

3.9K Messages

 • 

52.3K Points

9 d ago

Hi Kralan

Post the review here.

I or another contributor will likely be able to pinpoint the issue.

:):)

15 Messages

 • 

270 Points

Hi Karen, 

Thank you. (declined) review text below. 
I suppose what (also) irks me is that I just re-read the reviews already up there and many of them are much more "opinionated" than mine. 

  • Infidel (2019)
    • User Review Addition
      • Text: It's rare that I don't make it through a movie. I had read that Caviezel was incorporating his religious beliefs into his characters. It leaves a bad taste in your mouth - like he's trying to sell you something.

        As Peter Debruge wrote for Variety: "it would be irresponsible to take the film's 'inspired by true events' claim too seriously." and "In this fantasy telling, at least, God is on his side."

        Only Ramzi the interrogator is not a wooden one-dimensional Muslim character. Caviezel is Righteous. Christians Good! Muslims Bad!

        There should be a category on IMDB called 'Religious'. The film is just a few notches away from a wartime propaganda film.

        Only the wife is a 3-dimensional character. And she represents Nietzsche, a sort of blame-the-victim response because she says 'god is dead for me'. I couldn't make it to the end, but she probably goes back to church in the last scene.

7.7K Messages

 • 

177K Points

Why is there mention of IMDb in this review?

15 Messages

 • 

270 Points

Hello Jeorj, 

Do you mean why do I mention that I think there should be a specific IMDB category relative to the promoted subject matter/ genre of the film?

Is it against the guidelines to mention IMDB in a review?

Karen_P

3.9K Messages

 • 

52.3K Points

You ask.....Is it against the guidelines to mention IMDB in a review?

Specifically no. But your use makes reference to a category that IMDb does not have that you suggest that it should have. It violates this in the guidelines.

A review form is not an appropriate place to tell us there are errors in the database.

Your point being that the lack of a category for religious movies is an error in the database.

Karen_P

3.9K Messages

 • 

52.3K Points

9 d ago

Kralan

OK

Thanks.

      • It's rare that I don't make it through a movie.(Not Reviewing-making comments about you)
      • I had read that Caviezel was incorporating his religious beliefs into his characters. (Making comments about the actor in real life)
      • It leaves a bad taste in your mouth - like he's trying to sell you something. (Commenting again on real life events)
        As Peter Debruge wrote for Variety: "it would be irresponsible to take the film's 'inspired by true events' claim too seriously." and "In this fantasy telling, at least, God is on his side."(Comments again on real  life events)

        Only Ramzi the interrogator is not a wooden one-dimensional Muslim character. Caviezel is Righteous. Christians Good! Muslims Bad! (Expressions of intolerance for people on the basis of religion)


      • There should be a category on IMDB called 'Religious'. The film is just a few notches away from a wartime propaganda film. (Commenting about IMDb and it's policies) (Real life events)

        Only the wife is a 3-dimensional character. And she represents Nietzsche, a sort of blame-the-victim response because she says 'god is dead for me'. I couldn't make it to the end, but she probably goes back to church in the last scene.

  • Repeat of the guidelines. The underlined in bold are where you violated those guidelines.

:):)

What to include:

IMDb is pleased to provide this forum for you to air your opinions on your favorite (or not-so-favorite) movies and TV-series. 

Your reviews should focus on the title's content and context. The best reviews include not only whether you liked or disliked a movie or TV-series, but also why. Feel free to mention other titles you consider similar and how this one rates in comparison to them. 

Reviews that are not specific to the title will not be posted on our site. Please write in English only and note that we do not support any mark-up (HTML, XML etc.) within the reviews apart from linking names and titles.

What not to include:

Resist the temptation to review on other reviews or features visible on the page. This information (and its position on the page) is subject to change without notice. A review form is not an appropriate place to tell us there are errors in the database. If you'd like to tell us about a specific problem, please click the 'Edit page' button near the bottom of the title page.

Also, please do not include the following:

  • Profanity, obscenities, or spiteful remarks in either the body or header of your review. 
  • Expressions of hatred or intolerance for people on the basis of race, ethnicity, nationality, gender or gender identity, religion, sexual orientation, age, or disability, including by promoting organizations with such views.
  • Time-sensitive material (i.e. mentions of events, promotional tours, seminars, lectures, etc.).
  • Avoid unannounced spoilers! Please don't reveal crucial plot elements, if you include spoilers without warning readers in advance, your review may be subject to removal. To label a spoiler make sure you check the 'contains spoilers' checkbox. Also, please never include spoilers in your review header as this is always visible.
  • Square brackets [ and ] are not allowed apart from when used to link names and titles
  • Phone numbers, mail addresses, URLs, email addresses, links to Twitter or Facebook pages etc.
  • Availability, price, or ordering/shipping information.
  • Advertising, promotions or solicitations of any kind
  • Writing in ALL-CAPS! Writing sentences in all-uppercase characters is considered "SHOUTING" and must be avoided.
  • Content in languages other than English
  • Do not include personal opinions on real life events or subject matter on which a film is based.

Any review in violation of these guidelines will not be posted or may be edited to conform to the guidelines. In addition, IMDb reserves the right not to post any review for any reason.

(edited)

15 Messages

 • 

270 Points

9 d ago

Hello Karen, 
I certainly appreciate that you took the time to respond. However I am much more confused now that I have read your answers. 
Unless I am completely missing the point, your comments are not in keeping with the list. Unless the point is semantics.

I would mention, for example:

  • Do not include personal opinions on real life events or subject matter on which a film is based."
    The vast majority of the existing comments violate this point.
  • I do not understand what you mean here: It leaves a bad taste in your mouth - like he's trying to sell you something. (Commenting again on real life events). Because this is my opinion of and reaction to the film. Again, the vast majority of (other) "reviews" on the film give the reactions of the viewers to the film. Reviewers say where they live, that they love or hate the movie, etc. In fact, if you read the reviews, you will see that almost every single one violates that point. Are you saying that all the other points violate the Guidelines when they include something about the person who wrote the review? Literally every single (accepted) post on the movie then violates this: Do not include personal opinions on real life events or subject matter on which a film is based.
  • I also do not understand your comment here: Only Ramzi the interrogator is not a wooden one-dimensional Muslim character. Caviezel is Righteous. Christians Good! Muslims Bad! (Expressions of intolerance for people on the basis of religion). My whole point is that the film is an expression of intolerance for Muslims, and I am pointing that out. I am (very obviously not saying "Muslims Bad" I am paraphrasing the makers of the film.
  • It's rare that I don't make it through a movie.(Not Reviewing-making comments about you). Are you suggesting that I should write "it's hard to make it through this film"? 
  • And why is it not allowed to write something about the lead actor when writing a review. That makes absolutely no sense. I do not understand what you are saying. Is it not allowed to comment on the career and skills of the actors?
  • are you suggesting the review should read like this: The movie Infidel suffers from poor script writing. The writers had a religious agenda in mind. The characters are wooden. Muslims are portrayed as all being bad people?

Karen_P

3.9K Messages

 • 

52.3K Points

@kralan

This is acceptable

It would be impossible to take this film that is 'inspired by true events' too seriously, in this fantasy telling, at least.

Ramzi the interrogator is not a wooden one-dimensional Muslim character. Caviezel is righteous, in his good vs. evil roll!

The wife is a 3-dimensional character. And she represents Nietzsche, a sort of blame-the-victim response because she says 'god is dead for me'. You like I may find it hard to watch the complete film, and make it to the end.

Karen_P

3.9K Messages

 • 

52.3K Points

@kralan

Also this is what you do with reviews that slipped by the editors, which happens.

Report them for removal.

THIS REVIEW WILL SOON BE "SLEEPING WITH THE FISHES"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(edited)

15 Messages

 • 

270 Points

That's interesting, because in that case, I would constitute that the IMDB rules and guidelines do not work. The review above that you quote informs me what I would have dearly liked to know before watching what is, truly, a hateful film. I would have really benefited from knowing that Dinesh Dsouza is an extremist and produces mulsim-hating films on a regular basis. I personally am not religious, but I prefer to avoid propaganda-type films. I wish that I had the opportunity to benefit from the warning before I watched the film. 

I do not understand why the Guidelines protect a person like Dinesh Dsouza, who clearly has a political-religious agenda, and censure intelligent watchers who understand what is going on. In my opinion, a film is for pleasure and enlightenment, on a wide variety of levels. 

15 Messages

 • 

270 Points

PS - the film is described as Action, Adventure, Thriller, which is clearly  a very inadequate description.

410 Messages

 • 

9K Points

@Karen_P *role not roll

410 Messages

 • 

9K Points

I don't know who Dinesh Dsouza is, but after a quick read of his Wiki, I like him.

He says it how it is.

I live in the city with the highest percentage of Muslims in the UK.

There's a few other places with more Muslims which are the few bigger cities, or a higher percentage of Muslims which are a few small towns, but there's no more than 10 in the entirety of the UK the last time I checked that are higher than my city's.

They make up roughly 25% of the city's population (most people incorrectly think it's way higher) yet they commit at least 50% of the crime in the city (which is probably one of the reasons why most people think their population percentage is higher than it is).

How do I know?

Daily news stories.

Monthly court files.

Annual Police statistics.

People can deny it as much as they want, but it won't change the fact that Muslims commit more crime on average than Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Buddhists etc do. The crime numbers speak for themselves.

(edited)

7.7K Messages

 • 

177K Points

While Dinesh D'Souza does take great care not to whitewash any terrible political situation antithetical to his special interest, he will exaggerate some things to the point of making false allegations, albeit unspecific of the identities of the supposed perpetrators (or motive bearers), effectively fear-mongering. He seems a bit more extreme about it than, say, Fox News.

Invariably there will be some places in the world in which a majority of crimes are committed by Muslims, but most civilized places in which Muslims make up a significant percentage of the ethnoreligious portion of the population, crimes committed by Muslims there are probably not disproportionate with the demographic composition there. That's merely a hypothesis on my, though. The actual situation could be better or worse.

Of the folks who harbor grievances against Muslims, I'm not sure what their focus on average is, but I focus more on criticizing Islam for its reverence of the tyrant Muhammad, while also criticizing the existence of draconian sovereign theocracies in the world, regardless of their espoused particular faith or lack thereof. I would prefer either that nobody subscribed to Islam or that Islam would be reformed so as to be less cruel toward outsiders and those unqualified for participation, less outdated concerning diet and hygiene, but I cannot and ought not force my way. Just to be clear, that's not to say that there is no merit at all in Islam. All of the major faiths have some merit. (Certain beliefs and customs about diet and hygiene are shared by Judaism, Catholicism and Islam alike, and many of the outdated practices could theoretically be key to healthy living in the event of yet another dark age occurring.) However, as I understand it, some Muslim communities embrace their subscription to Islam as if it was more of a cult than a faith, and this probably happens to a degree with all faith-oriented (or superstition-oriented) cultures, but Islamic civilizations do seem to be the very slowest to abandon barbaric institutions. I know that what I've expressed is probably going to offend somebody, but sometimes these things have to be expressed. Hopefully nobody would want to see my life ended over what I've expressed. Unfortunately that is a legitimate concern of anybody who criticizes Muhammad.

410 Messages

 • 

9K Points

@jeorj_euler 25th of March 2021 - 8 miles by car, or 7.5 miles by foot away from me.

R.E. Teacher shows his class a Charlie Hebdo cartoon of Muhammad to educate his pupils about blasphemy.

Headteacher with no backbone suspends the teacher because the image wasn't "approved" beforehand.

Muslims threaten to kill the teacher, so he has to go into witness protection.

Two more R.E. teachers are secretly suspended because they knew the image was going to be shown in class.

That type of thing isn't usual in the UK.
Crimes like:
Stabbings and shootings (usually drive-bys at houses).
Drug dealing offences.
Rape and other sexual offences.
Dangerous drivers and/or unlicensed drivers.
No MOT, untaxed, unregistered etc vehicles.
Etc are nearly always Muslims.
In England and Wales my city is currently ranked:
1st for Violence (we were ranked 1st in 2019/20 too)
10th for Weapons (we were ranked 25th in 2019/20)
16th for Drugs (however we we ranked 1st in this too in 2019/20)
Muslims play a huge part in those rankings.
Guess which towns and cities have the highest percentage of COVID cases?
The ones with the highest percentages of Muslims.
It's no surprise to me or anyone else in the UK.
I've barely seen any Asians wearing a mask in the few cases I've been food shopping in the last year.
There's even been a couple of Muslims I've known personally through work, friends or relatives, who have made national news headlines for their crimes.
One had the biggest cannabis factory that the Police in a Midlands based city had ever seen.
One was the leader of a serial child rape gang.
Not to mention the countless Muslim faces I've recognised over the years on the front page of the biggest local newspaper, usually for things like drug dealing, but I'm pretty sure there have been a few murders too.

(edited)

7.7K Messages

 • 

177K Points

Throughout the past decade, I do remember observing news reports about law enforcement agencies neglecting to investigate but eventually busting "gangs" of Muslim men of Pakistani ethnicity/origin for raping young girls (or for grooming young girls to that effect, along with conspiracy) in the Rochdale and Huddersfield, in England. Some of these news reports used vague (perhaps politically-correct) descriptions of the offenders, in the sense of referring to them as "Asian men". That kind of stuff I do find very disappointing.

In the United States, the situation doesn't seem to involve "no go" zones, and a few incidents have been severe enough to get the attention of news outlets. There is no recognizable pattern beyond the offenders fitting the demographic profile of Muslim male refugee. Here I referred to offenders as "males" instead of specifically men, because there was an incident in Twin Falls, Idaho, whereby two boys under the age of fourteen years raped a five-year-old girl at knife point, while a third boy video-recorded it. Reportedly, two of the offenders are from Sudan, and one from Iraq. I've not been able to acquire followup information about that particular case, but my suspicion is that the oldest of the offenders influenced or outright coerced the participation of the two several-years-younger offenders, and regardless, it could be a signal of brainwashing, indoctrination or neglect on the part of the legal guardians or beyond. (There is no indication that any of the boys are orphans, so they were probably in the custody of biological relatives who would also be refugees.) Supposedly, the police and prosecutors stumbled in properly resolving the case, and city officials and journalists there were alleged to have tried to cover up the national origin of the offenders. However, the various news articles are somewhat conflicting, as some use the word "refugee" to describe the boys, whereas others use the word "immigrant". That is problematic because those words do not carry the same meaning, since a refugee is somebody intended only to be temporarily invited into a sanctuary/asylum, whereas an immigrant is somebody who is or intends to become a citizen of the nation inhabiting his or her new location. (I do suppose, however, that such a thing as a non-citizen immigrant could exist in a complicated federal-structured place like the United States.) The homicide committed by Mohamed Noor, who was a Minneapolis police officer at the time, and on-duty enforcing "the law", did gain some small amount of mass media attention. Due to the lack of extensive coverage, the two aforementioned incidents naturally seem to be isolated incidents, and as Americans know, people belonging to all kinds of demographics commit all sorts of crimes in the United States. The Federal Bureau of Investigation tracks or so tries to track statistics concerning violent crime throughout the United States. One of the thing that most interests me is how much more crime males commit than females do, all around the whole world, all throughout history.

Listen, we very much need to end this tangential conversation, since it starting to have nothing at all to do with the content of IMDb, not even particular movies produced by Dinesh D'Souza. As we can see, I seem to have completely gone off the rails here.

Karen_P

3.9K Messages

 • 

52.3K Points

9 d ago

Please.

Do not shoot the messenger.

You wanted to know why?

I gave you those reasons.

Extrapolate what you will from them.

But I know how IMDb interprets the rules.

Those rules/guidelines are for the most part clear.

Follow them and you'll have no issues.

I personally have written reviews that are severely critical as well as giving high praise.

One thing that has not ever happened is that one of my reviews has been rejected by IMDb Staff.

(edited)

15 Messages

 • 

270 Points

8 d ago

@karen_p Thank you for taking the time, and for posting your version of what you think is an acceptable. Much appreciated. I will try again.
I do have some questions. 
1. If you notice that a producer is producing hateful films, how do you describe this in a review.
2. When you say don't shoot the messenger - understood. But I do feel as if you are protecting what strikes me as a hypocritical set of Guidelines, which amounts to censure, which does leave a bad taste in my mouth. For example, based on what you have shared and your knowledge, why is this review prominently displayed and accepted: 

Absolutely Stunning! Must Watch

axhejaz18 September 2020
I'm a Persian and I'm a Christian and I'll say this. God bless this man for starring in this movie and demonstrating how disgusting the government of Iran truly is. God Bless beautiful, gracious, loving America! ❤😘
Karen_P

3.9K Messages

 • 

52.3K Points

@kralan 

That is not a review either.

That should be removed every bit as much as this one which was approved, now reported and removed.

If you see a review that does not follow guidelines. "Report It"!!!!!!!!!!!!

15 Messages

 • 

270 Points

A clear example of double standards on the part of the person or people who accept / disprove reviews.

It looks to me like the person who approves / disapproves the posts is heavily biased and shows a very clear favouritism. That feels very unpleasant to me. 

Why would a moderator approve things like 'god bless america' and 'iran is a terrible country' etc and not approve a post i submitted stating that a film is biased in nature, and therefore fundamentally flawed. 

It is bizarre to me that such one-sided moderating exists. If this is any indication of how the site is moderated then I see little point in submitting reviews. 

15 Messages

 • 

270 Points

8 d ago

@Karen_P Obviously I appreciate very much your responses. 

I have written a new version of my review. It is still not clear to me why it is not acceptable to refer to the real-world situation of the people who make the movie, but anyway. Here is my draft review. 

Do you think that this falls within the acceptable guidelines?

Regarding the film Infidel. 

One of the producers of this film regularly produces religious films with a subject matter which promotes Christianity. Some viewers may experience that this takes away from the development of the characters, because there is an underlying agenda. 

When characters such as the lead in this case are wooden, or one-dimensional, it makes it hard to believe in them, their decisions are less believable. 

Some viewers may enjoy the film. You may also think it resembles propaganda. Propaganda is 'The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.'

You may enjoy this film if you believe that some religions or their followers are "better" than others. You may also find the film to be unrealistic. In the film, all the Christian people are "good". Also in the film, all the Muslim people are "bad". All the Muslim people constantly smoke cigarettes. A Muslim man commits a very serious crime. We have no insight into his character or motivation. A Christian man gets in a difficult situation and is miraculously triumphant over the Muslim people.

It is a film in which good versus evil is very clear. You may experience this as problematic because religious conflict is painful and hard to document. You may also be comforted that everything is so simple in the story. 


Karen_P

3.9K Messages

 • 

52.3K Points

@kralan

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 "I would have really benefited from knowing that Dinesh Dsouza is an extremist and produces mulsim-hating films on a regular basis."

This is THE very reason that it should be removed. That statement is "Propaganda" created by others to silence those that they do not agree with. It has no place in a review.

If this is your idea of information, then you write so as to promote the "Cancel Culture". That behaviour has no place in a free society.

IMDb reviews "MUST" be free of politically motivated diatribe.

15 Messages

 • 

270 Points

@Karen_P 
Ha ;)
You are very patient, thank you for your diligent posting and answers. You (would) make a good forum moderator.

From what I see = you are surprised that I said I found the post which stated that "Dinesh Dsouza is an extremist and produces Muslim hating films on a regular basis" valuable, or informative. I do, actually, not to put a too fine point on it, value that information. Based on what I saw in the film, that is a true statement, as opposed to being 'propaganda'. If I had known that, I would not have had to watch what is, after, a very bad film.

I am not sure it matters whether or not I agree or disagree with that reviewer's statement. Any objective film watcher / critic would quickly surmise that the film is a one-sided story.  My point is that the 'review' is 'true' and thus a 'fact'.

I am surprised that you think I promote a cancel culture. In fact, it is Dsouza who is trying to 'cancel' an entire religion, of more than one billion people. That Dsouza is a propagandist  appears to be an accurate statement, although more people than him were involved in the film. I believe the statement Dsouza is a propagandist because I watched the film Infidel. I went into it thinking it was presumably a "good" film. About a third or half of the way through, it dawned on me that the film is extremely biased and has a very specific agenda, besides entertainment. When I watch an action thriller film i want to be entertained, not proselytized You probably haven't seen the film. I don't recommend that you do ;)

Perhaps this becomes a circular argument. But how would you otherwise propose alerting potential viewers of what they should arguably know. 

I completely agree with you that 'cancel' culture is short-sighted and teenage behavior at best.


Karen_P

3.9K Messages

 • 

52.3K Points

My My.

That last dialog proves my point. You cannot keep your writings objective and "Must" be subjective.

When you learn this fine point you may be able someday to write a scathing review and keep your personal views on life out of those reviews.

Karen_P

3.9K Messages

 • 

52.3K Points

8 d ago

If that review gets approved, I'll be surprised.

You are commenting on the real world rather than the film. You are repeating the far lefts propaganda.

One of the producers of this film regularly produces religious films with a subject matter which promotes Christianity. Some viewers may experience that this takes away from the development of the characters, because there is an underlying agenda. (This is not reviewing. It is making a statement about your view on the psychological makeup of the producer)

When characters such as the lead in this case are wooden, or one-dimensional, it makes it hard to believe in them, their decisions are less believable. 

Some viewers may enjoy the film. You may also think it resembles propaganda. Propaganda is 'The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.' (Again. You have interjected that this is propaganda. That's your opinion on a real world event)

You may enjoy this film if you believe that some religions or their followers are "better" than others. (Violates the intolerance reference) You may also find the film to be unrealistic. In the film, all the Christian people are "good". Also in the film, all the Muslim people are "bad". All the Muslim people constantly smoke cigarettes. A Muslim man commits a very serious crime. We have no insight into his character or motivation. A Christian man gets in a difficult situation and is miraculously triumphant over the Muslim people.

It is a film in which good versus evil is very clear. You may experience this as problematic because religious conflict is painful and hard to document. You may also be comforted that everything is so simple in the story. 

How it should read:::

One of the producers of this film, the controversial Dinesh DeSouza, produces films with a slant that some may disagree with.

This explains why the lead characters in this case are wooden, or one-dimensional, and it makes it hard to believe in them, and their decisions become less believable. 

Some viewers may enjoy the film. Some of you may also notice that it presents a one sided narrow view of the "real world"

You may enjoy this film if you believe that some religions or their followers are "better" than others. But most free thinking people will find the film to be unrealistic as I did.

How about these unrealistic stereotypes. All the Muslim people constantly smoke cigarettes. If a Muslim man commits a very serious crime, we are given no insight into his character or motivation. But if a Christian man gets in a difficult situation there is a full backstory to peruse and is miraculously triumphant in the end over the Muslim people. Laughable at best!

It is a film in which good versus evil is very clear. You may experience this as problematic because religious conflict is painful and hard to document. You may also be comforted that everything is so simple in the story. 

(edited)

15 Messages

 • 

270 Points

@Karen_P 

Thank you, again, for your diligent editing work. 
I do not agree, however, with several of your points: 
You write: "You are repeating the far lefts propaganda."
I do not even know where to begin with that one. I do not think politics has anything to do with this. And if it does, what does "far left" have to do with truth. The fact that the film makers who made Infidel have a very religious agenda is established. Why does wanting the truth expressed make me "far left"? 

You wrote: (Again. You have interjected that this is propaganda. That's your opinion on a real world event). Ok what would you call it then? I looked up and read about 'propaganda' before I posted that. What would you call it when an adherent to an organised religion tells a story in which all their believers are depicted as being inherently 'good' and adherents of other religions inherently 'bad'? That is the real question here. 

You wrote: You may enjoy this film if you believe that some religions or their followers are "better" than others. (Violates the intolerance reference). 
Note: this is not my opinion. I am explaining what the film does. In other words the film itself violates the intolerance principle.

Conclusion: I am very grateful that you took the time to edit my posting. Obviously my posting has too much "salt" in it and will never be accepted.




Karen_P

3.9K Messages

 • 

52.3K Points

7 d ago

I do not think politics has anything to do with this.

If you cannot see it then there is no hope you'll grab the concept.

What would you call it when an adherent to an organized religion tells a story in which all their believers are depicted as being inherently 'good' and adherents of other religions inherently 'bad'? That is the real question here. 

An IMDb review is not the place for political debate nor your opinion of it. There is no "Real" question here. If your personal opinions about your philosophical views are interjected in a review then they are not reviews that IMDb will accept.

It's that simple.

I will no longer reply and repeat over and over the same points. Disagree all you want. Be "Switzerland" or not. You can write that you dislike something because it depicts religion in an unrealistic way. But we DO NOT need to be given lessons in a review about your personal slant on religion. IMDb does not want it's members to opine on such things or anger and inflame it's participants with "Your Brand" of propaganda.

Yes. You. You are part of the propaganda machine when you write in this manner.

So, go ahead and reply. Be outraged. But you'll get declined, and if a review gets by the editors, it WILL NOT get by the readers. Your review will be reported and removed.

So comply. Or do not. Or just stop writing reviews like that. Reviews are not a place for you to "School" us.

Good Bye!

:):)

15 Messages

 • 

270 Points

Wow. You are really upset. Not sure if that's really all meant for me? You really want to talk about politics? I am sorry if I upset you so much. Perhaps you should re-consider whether you really want to 'moderate' this type of forum. 

I have been thinking a lot about what you said. You chastised me, and indicated that I was somehow a pawn of the "far-left". I don't even know what that means. I'm in my fifties and I've never heard another adult talk about the "far left".  You seem to be accusing me of being on the "far left" because I pointed out the inherent flaws and hypocrisy of a religious doctrine thinly veiled as entertainment in a movie review. 

What interests me is good story-telling, that teaches me something. The same for films. I pointed out that a film was inherently biased. Not sure why that puts me in a position of "schooling" you. To the other people in this forum writing about how bad Muslims are, I would suggest talking to a Muslim person. 

Portraying all the Muslims in a country as being bad and making them the cause of everything that is wrong is a vast over-simplification. It's throwing fuel on the fire. But maybe that's the point and I am too naive to see that.

I am interested in compassion, the subject of anger, being kind to others, and trying to understand. This appears to threaten you. My apologies for that .

Karen_P

3.9K Messages

 • 

52.3K Points

Your reply is like one of your reviews.

Unnecessary, and meant to inflame.

So comply. Or do not. Or just stop writing reviews like that. Reviews and your reply above are not a place for you to "School" us.

Good Bye!

7.7K Messages

 • 

177K Points

7 d ago

Well, overall, it does seem like writing reviews for chauvinistic, biased, misleading, manipulative, fear-mongering or hatred-inspiring "documentaries" can be complicated in way nothing like evaluating fictional movies predicated mainly on entertainment. I suspect, for the most part, it is challenging to utilize IMDb's review system to point out the ways that a filmmaker has conveniently omitted important evidence of one form or another from a pertinent movie by that filmmaker. On the other hand, in a movie review, it is not a problem at all to simply point out that particular scenes in a movie are manipulative, or that an entire movie is manipulative, regardless of the genre of the movie. Sometimes the trivia section is the appropriate place to indicate factual inaccuracies intentionally placed in a movie, for either artistic license or manipulative reasons, but trivia has to be objective and oriented around facts, not at all subjective or oriented around opinions of the trivia item authors. Thoughts?

15 Messages

 • 

270 Points

Yes, absolutely. I admit that I had not really paused to consider. The complications which quickly ensued have left my head spinning. I would not have thought it so much of a reach to simply comment about something, let alone begin to dissect the structural shortcomings of a film. I was not expecting to be out-played by a moderator / gate-keeper who would deign my commentary insufficiently neutral, whilst waving flag-wavers on through a different gate. I must have bought the wrong pass.

My main frustration is simply that the problematic aspect is the ability to comment. And that the person or organisation making the decision displays such flagrant double-standards. That and the 'category' of the film. Let alone the contents of my response or opinion. I'm not so much an adherent to the 'shouting people down' school of thought.

The greatest irony for me here is that great films, alongside books, are one of the essential beacons of hope civilisation has to offer. They expose all types of essential truth, subvert power structures, etc. So that to be muzzled on a forum for films is confounding.

I suppose it was also naive to comment on the shortcomings of a mockumentary - as opposed to a science fiction film.

I do very much like your technically oriented solution. As if there were facts within facts.