declined post does not contradict guidelines

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.

Why is there mention of IMDb in this review?

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?

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.

@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.

@kralan

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

Report them for removal.

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. 

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

@Karen_P *role not roll

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.

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.

@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.

@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"!!!!!!!!!!!!

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. 

@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.

@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.

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 

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.

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 .

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!

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.