Skip to main content

1.6K Messages

 • 

39.4K Points

Wed, Sep 9, 2020 11:03 PM

Ratings - Cuties (2020)

 It might be a good idea to close ratings on Cuties for a couple more days to let everyone calm down. It wouldn't have big drawbacks, the ratings were already closed until today despite being released the 19 August in France.

 

 

Responses

4.2K Messages

 • 

133.4K Points

2 months ago

IMDb Community Forums > IMDb > Data Issues & Policy Discus... > Movie not ratable

 

Movie not ratable

https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/data-issues-policy-discussions/movie-not-ratable/5f4a7cb38815453dba0fc97f

The French release date of the movie Mignonnes ...  is weirdly not ratable.

FrenchEddieFelson 

Fri, Aug 21, 2020

- - -

 9 September 2020

 

Cuties (2020)

Mignonnes (original title)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9196192/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9196192/reviews - 1 Review

    Harrowing!

    carlesmiquel   

    9 September 2020

   https://www.imdb.com/review/rw6078161/

 

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9196192/ratings

    1,567 IMDb users have given a weighted average vote of  1.6 / 10

 

(edited)

1.6K Messages

 • 

39.4K Points

2 months ago

One day later as I'm writing this. Cuties received a weighted average of 1.7 from 3019 users.

 

Please block ratings on this movie for a week or more. The ratings and reviews presently given are related to the marketing of the film (on Netflix) rather than on the film itself.

 

4.2K Messages

 • 

133.4K Points

Sep 10 2020

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9196192/reviews - 18 Reviews | 40 minutes later: 15 Reviews

.

(edited)

Karen_P

887 Messages

 • 

12.6K Points

2 months ago

As this has now been released on Netflix, people should have an opportunity to vote and voice their opinions. Whether someone agrees or disagrees with the vote ratings and reviews. Outside of the Hollywood/Entertainment liberal bubble, this movie is not garnering favorable media.

Thanks

:):)

4.2K Messages

 • 

133.4K Points

11 September 2020

 

Cuties (2020)

Mignonnes (original title)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9196192/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9196192/reviews - 46 Reviews

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9196192/ratings

5,604 IMDb users have given a weighted average vote of 1.6 / 10

Rating      Votes
10   3.0%    169

 1  88.2%  4,942

 .

 

1.6K Messages

 • 

39.4K Points

As this has now been released on Netflix, people should have an opportunity to vote and voice their opinions. Whether someone agrees or disagrees with the vote ratings and reviews. Outside of the Hollywood/Entertainment liberal bubble, this movie is not garnering favorable media.

Thanks

Prior to its release on Netflix, this film was released on 19 August in France, but then IMDb turned off the rating. Nothing has changed since then, the ratings are as bad as before with 88.1% of 1/10. People are expressing their political opinions rather than their true appreciation of the film.

 

Yesterday, I spent 5 hours on Youtube trying to convince angry youtube sheep that the film wasn't child pornography. None of these people had actually seen this film.

They are reading what suits them the best, and ignore any opposite opinions

 

In conclusion, I don't believe that anything as evolved in mentality to justifies that IMDb turned on the ratings on this film.  I'm sure that it wouldn't bother sincere users to block the rating/review system for a couple more weeks to ensure that the feedback given is related to the actual movie.

 

Karen_P

887 Messages

 • 

12.6K Points

Two weeks. Two Months. Two Years. It will not change the facts. Nor will it change the ratings. I watched approximately 20 minutes of it and could watch no more. It is absolutely what the majority says it is. Soft Core Child Porn. I too give it a rating of one. And if IMDb turned off the voting or cancelled the voting or erased all the votes, I would re-rate it a one at a later date.

 

Your suggestion will not change a thing.

 

Sorry.

Thanks.

:):)

1.6K Messages

 • 

39.4K Points

I too give it a rating of one. And if IMDb turned off the voting or cancelled the voting or erased all the votes, I would re-rate it a one at a later date.

 

I disagree, I'm ready to bet that a good part of the voters on this film created their account in the last week. Yesterday, the FAQ as well as the Parent Guide also got vandalized. 

 

In a couple of months/weeks, the Twitter #CancelNetflix will be over. Every buzz is ephemeral.

(edited)

Karen_P

887 Messages

 • 

12.6K Points

This isn't utopia. We all live in the real world. You must be male. I as a woman am appalled at this film. Soon you will see this movie pulled from Netflix.

 

I'd be willing to bet that the number is way past 1 million voters.

1.6K Messages

 • 

39.4K Points

I'd be willing to bet that the number is way past 1 million voters.

1) That number is 611 406 now. Still far from 1 000 000 

 

It is 611 406 misinformed voters that haven't seen the film, not read any of Maïmouna Doucouré's statements, and ignored professional critics.

 

This isn't utopia. We all live in the real world. You must be male. I as a woman am appalled at this film. Soon you will see this movie pulled from Netflix.

2) Being a woman, a man has nothing to do with being misinformed by social media. 

 

Karen_P

887 Messages

 • 

12.6K Points

So far you have managed to insult Youtube users. Women. And the "Men" you supposedly represent. You must be under 30 years old.

1.6K Messages

 • 

39.4K Points

I'm enunciating the ignorance of people like you and twitter users, youtube users, the population in general. It has nothing to do with insulting women and men.

 

And all of that has nothing to do with the age of someone. 

 

For making such ridicule conclusions, I'm ready to bet that you are a sockpuppet of Ed_Jones_XLIX.

 

Karen_P

887 Messages

 • 

12.6K Points

I am not a man. Why would you insult me in such a fashion?

You should be reported and removed from this place.

1.6K Messages

 • 

39.4K Points

You joined a couple of days after the first block of Ed, and then two first polls that you followed were those two poll suggestions were posted by Nikolay on Ed Jones/your behalf.

 
  Back in the day, you weren't posting anything, you just began recently after the two last accounts of Ed got ban. Your post on the same type of topics, you seem to have generally the same schedule and you post as frequently as he did.
The only difference is that you don't post poll suggestions, because, with your IMDb account, admins could associate you easily with your previous incarnations.
 
I'm sure that if your account was to be investigated by employee, my conclusions would be proven correct.
Karen_P

887 Messages

 • 

12.6K Points

I do not know this Ed guy. I am not Nikolay either. I am not a man. And how can you look that up? I cannot. The Ed guy has no account information other than he is an IMDb member for 8 years. What is this? You're making all this up just because I disagree with you. That's all.

Please do not address me further. I certainly will not. From your posting here, it is obvious that you lack an understanding of compassion.

Please do not insult me. It hurts me deeply.

4.2K Messages

 • 

133.4K Points

  

? ?
  

https://getsatisfaction.com/people/karen_palermo

Officer Aeryn Sun

Joined July 24, 2020

.

Karen_P

887 Messages

 • 

12.6K Points

Yes. That's me. Thanks

4.2K Messages

 • 

133.4K Points

cinephile
 

"... I'm ready to bet that you are a sockpuppet of Ed_Jones_XLIX. "

- - - 

 

Ed Jones ? ?

.

(edited)

Karen_P

887 Messages

 • 

12.6K Points

ACT_1, maybe you are right. cinephile is actually a sock puppet of Ed Jones

 

https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/users/5f495618c17a0660597f6b6e

sockpuppet of Ed_Jones_XLIX.

(edited)

130 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

🤣🤣🤣

 

(Luke, Leia, Han, Vader & 6 other characters.)

3K Messages

 • 

79.2K Points

@cinephile 

Yes. It's him. I've proof. 

Btw, 
"You joined a couple of days after the first block of Ed, and then two first polls that you followed...
Not exactly
- He created this account the day he was banned.
- He did not follow those conversations, he commented on them and instantly deleted them (auto follow).


- This reply was made to a this message.


- This reply was made to this message.

He has two more fake accounts out there, maybe more.
mal_doran and vala_maldoran

(edited)

130 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

What now?

 

PaedoCinephile is a sock puppet of Aeryn Sun & Vala MalDoran? 

 

I'm totally confused now.

Karen_P

887 Messages

 • 

12.6K Points

Mr Bonefide. You are close. You have speculative proof only. You cannot prove what you say. I am female. I am not Ed Jones. I am Vala. But my real name is Karen. And I am related to Ed. I will not say what that relation is as it is none of your business. But I am not Ed. So unless all three of you will please quit your obsessive behavior I shall ask for the same thing that you two requested and complained about to IMDb. Poor behavior about a member of this forum. I have done no wrong here. You are doing yourself no good here. You are completely wrong. You cannot believe that you can force a guilt by association connection to me. That would be patently unfair.

Thank you very much.

 
Care to dispute who I am???
Read these pictures
May I also say that for persons that hide behind "Fake Names," BonefideBoss and cinephile  should not be considered reliable sources for anything. Ed and I have used our real names here.

(edited)

6.3K Messages

 • 

154.5K Points

Except, for all we know, you have Ed and Karen both tied up in the tool shed :P

Karen_P

887 Messages

 • 

12.6K Points

I'm a serial tyer upper tool shedder!! LOL

130 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

2 months ago

I have seen a clip from this film.

 

I am no prude, but frankly this is extremely distasteful, perverse sh**.

 

The film's rating is an indication of the reaction of the majority of human beings - who thankfully have not yet been indoctrinated by your filthy leftist pepper culture - to this smut.

(edited)

1.6K Messages

 • 

39.4K Points

@Nygma 

These clips that you find nearly everywhere on the internet are specifically edited to make you believe that this film is "extremely, perverse sh**". the people who post those clips are all using catchy titles like "WORST SCENE IN CUTIES, don't watch this film!", "Cuties is WORSE than we thought". 

 

In reality, Cuties doesn't feature any explicit nudity, and I encourage you to check it out for yourself if you don't believe me. The Parent's Guide of IMDb has now been updated to reflect the actual film so you can also rely on that.

 

If by today's standards Cuties is softcore porn. Then I don't want to know how poorly movies like Lolita (both of them), American Beauty, The Hole, Les 400 Coups, and every classic animes would be received today.

 

(edited)

Karen_P

887 Messages

 • 

12.6K Points

@Nygma

Hi. Yes I agree. The Girls used in this film were underage. They were not actresses that were over 18 playing an 11 year old. If this movie had been made in the USA it would have had actresses over 18. Not children in it.

It is Rated TV MA

 

TV-MA. This program is intended to be viewed by mature, adult audiences and may be unsuitable for children under 17. Contains content that is unsuitable for children.

 

TV Parental Guidelines

If it is unsuitable for children under seventeen, then why is the cast made up of underage girls?

 

Fathia Youssouf Is Still Underage — How Old Is the 'Cuties ...

www.distractify.com › Entertainment
 
 
Fathia Youssouf, the Actress Playing Amy in 'Cuties,' Is Only 14 Years Old. By Leila Kozma. Updated 3 weeks ago. Cuties offers a harrowing take on the sexual ...

 

This movie should be removed and re-shot with an age appropriate cast. It is Kiddie Porn.

(edited)

1.6K Messages

 • 

39.4K Points

@karen_palermo 

 

Do you know how old was Thora Birch in American Beauty, she was 17, Do you know how old was Keira Knightley in The Hole, she was 16. Do you know how old was Jean-Pierre Léaud in Les 400 coups, he was 15. Finally Jodie Foster was 14 in Taxi Driver

 

You can't blame CGI Taxi Driver and Les 400 coups, and never were these movies considered child porn.

 

Cuties don't even feature explicit nudity!

 

But there are other examples.

Do you know how old is Charli D'Amelio (the most subscribed content creator on Tik Tok), she is 16 years old, and she is followed by 9-10 years old boy as well as 45 years old man. Isn't that more concerning than the independent french film NOT produced by Netflix?

(edited)

Karen_P

887 Messages

 • 

12.6K Points

Well said. Ratings rule.

4.2K Messages

 • 

133.4K Points

12 September 2020

 

Cuties (2020)

Mignonnes (original title)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9196192/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9196192/reviews - 46 Reviews

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9196192/ratings

9,483 IMDb users have given a weighted average vote of 1.9 / 10

Rating     Votes

10    3.4%   319

 1   85.9% 8,145

4.2K Messages

 • 

133.4K Points

13 September 2020

 

Cuties (2020)

Mignonnes (original title)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9196192/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9196192/reviews - 101 Reviews

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9196192/ratings

11,236 IMDb users have given a weighted average vote of 2.0 / 10

Rating      Votes

10    3.7%    418

 1   84.1%  9,450

 

6.3K Messages

 • 

154.5K Points

In what ways can Lolita, American Beauty, The Hole or Les quatre cents coups be used as a viable frame of reference for gauging how prurient the visuals of Mignonnes are? A key thing to understand is people have been disgusted, are disgusted or would be disgusted by them too but clearly not as much, since the actors were not plainly prepubescent when participating in the shoots. They were all secondary school age minors, so they would've understood better what they were involved in than younger minors would. However, they do deserve the same or roughly the same amount of protection by society from exploitation by adults and corporate entities. I should think some stronger examples of problematic movies could be presented.

 

As to the matter of criminality, we all should know that a vast majority of people are not only legal laymen but also selective about designating who is perpetrator and who is victim, as people intuitively take into consideration the disparity of advantage between parties to incidents of unethical behavior or immoral behavior. There are tons of behaviors that are felonious but which would not register as "criminal" in the minds of most people, and just as well, there are tons of behaviors that are not felonious (at least in full context) but which would somehow mistakenly register as "criminal" in the minds of most people. Even though most people are legal laymen, a significant portion of that majority also is aware of the United States' prohibitions upon ex post facto laws and vaguely aware of statutes of limitations. So, whenever statutes concerning pornography are enacted or altered, any expansions of the criminal liabilities found within them must not apply to events taking place before the enactment or alteration. This is important in regards to dredging up movies that were organized, shot, edited and published decades ago.

 

Furthermore, law systems can be complicated, and just one of the reasons that we have courts of law is due to the fact that sometimes one law contradicts another law, whereby precedence of one over another may not always be clear, which often have to be reconciled by a judiciary. Granted constitutional law takes precedent over all statutes, executive orders and court decisions, we all know that most people have or have had expectations that "rights", including unalienable ones, are limited, maybe not as limited as laws, rules, regulations and governance are, but limited nonetheless. Plus, judges, given adequate rank, tend to be the final arbiters of how the body of laws within their respective jurisdictions are to be interpreted, but they can only produce opinions about law that may require further interpretation themselves, and stare decisis, typical as it may be, is at the discretion of a court of last resort. Given an opportunity to change its mind, it might possibly so do. We could almost say that the existing systems (which have existed for centuries) just barely work. For now, that seems good enough or fair enough. Societies of the future might see things differently.

4.2K Messages

 • 

133.4K Points

14 September 2020

  

Cuties (2020)

Mignonnes (original title)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9196192/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9196192/reviews - 114 Reviews

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9196192/ratings

13,876 IMDb users have given a weighted average vote of 2.2 / 10

Rating         Votes

10     3.9%     539

 1   83.3%  11,555

 

 

.

(edited)

4.2K Messages

 • 

133.4K Points

15 September 2020

  

Cuties (2020)

Mignonnes (original title)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9196192/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9196192/reviews - 126 Reviews

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9196192/ratings

15,737 IMDb users have given a weighted average vote of 2.3 / 10

Rating          Votes

10     4.2%       654

 1     82.1%  12,924

.

 

 

6.3K Messages

 • 

154.5K Points

What I've gathered from observing what various vloggers and bulletin board communicators across the Web have to express is that one of the main things that sets Mignonnes apart from other movies or shows that would otherwise be equally shocking/disturbing/disgusting is the fact that there are several scenes with closeups or zoomed-in shots of the region of a twerking child's body below the chest and above the knees (or likewise whereby the legs are spread).

 

In regards to costume design, the movie seems to be on par with or actually slightly less shocking than the small number of controversial episodes of Dance Moms, a television show about children participating in intense dance competitions. For both titles, I'm basing this off trailers and excepts available for viewing on YouTube.

 

I'm finding it odd that I've not yet been able to find a single article or blog post on the Web that even so much as mentions both Mignonnes and Dance Moms. How could I be the first person in the world to think of this? Thankfully I'm not. I may have observed a comment or two in the respective comments sections of excerpts taken from various movies and uploaded to YouTube. Is this suspicious? Should we be paranoid that the Lifetime Television Network and fans thereof simply don't want the negative attention which has been directed at the Netflix streaming service to bleed over in their direction? Or should we paranoid that America's religious "reactionaries" are looking for any excuse to persecute Netflix for being too biased toward "woke" culture? I don't know. So, many events that have occurred throughout this year have been seemingly unprecedented, as though humanity is on the verge of a collective nervous breakdown.

130 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@jeorj_euler 

 

You make assumptions.

 

I am not American, am not overtly religious by any stretch of the imagination, and have nothing against Netflix - indeed, I enjoy many of the original films and series and other content very much. The titles that do not interest me, I don't watch.

 

I am against this film Cuties because of the the way it sexualises (pre)pubescent girls. I do not need to be American or a member of the Christian right or any kind of what you call "religious reactionary" to find this material EXTREMELY DISTASTEFUL AND BORDERLINE PORNOGRAPHIC

 

Also, I do not know anything about this Lifetime TV show you mention.

 

Vary rarely do I watch Lifetime material - usually when I'm very drunk & too stupid to follow a serious story line. Lifetime is very low quality. I suspect that most of the people who are up in arms are, like myself, completely ignorant of the existence of this Lifetime show you mention. Netflix on the other hand is a massively popular service inside and outside of the U.S. So if something as vile and controversial as Cuties is on that service, people are going to notice.

130 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@ACT_1

 

Stop posting effing links and stats.

 

We all have access the the same info you do and are more than competent to look it up.

4.2K Messages

 • 

133.4K Points

for History - as these numbers change

130 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

Make a blog.

 

Put a link to your blog on your Sprinklr and IMDb profile pages.

 

6.3K Messages

 • 

154.5K Points

I made no assumptions here about any particular participant of the IMDb Community forum. I also didn't mention Christians. The fact is, there are tons of highly-vocal Internet users promoting "#CancelNetflix", and most of them are both United States citizens (or non-citizen inhabitants) and at least slightly religious, be them Judaist, Catholic, Protestant, Sunni, Shia, Mormon, Satanist or beyond. I'd reckon there are many atheists as well, in the alarm. Certainly these Internet users span the political spectrum, so not only "reactionaries" would be on the bandwagon but "moderates", "centrists", "liberals" and "radicals" too. I don't understand how my words wound up being interpreted as some kind of personal attack here, but I can see how anybody who subscribes to an aggregate identity of some kind would get upset at even the mere mention of "epithets" too frequently used to "mock" the corresponding aggregation, collective or group. I should think that an individualist wouldn't be triggered or bothered by anything incapable of constituting a threat of irreversible damage to any asset that he or she relies upon.

 

In regards to Lifetime Television Network, I also don't watch it. I scarcely had even heard of Dance Moms before recently submitting "slut dance" as search query on YouTube and thereby coming across an excerpt from the show in the search results. I don't ordinarily undertake the transmission of queries like that. The very thing that led me to execute such a search were the public debates caused by the public outcry in regards to the marketing behaviors of Netflix streaming service.

130 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@jeorj_euler 

 

I was using myself as an example of one of the what I believe to be many people who do not fit the criteria of "American Religious Reactionaries" or "People who hate Netflix' woke culture".

 

I was trying to illustrate that there are many anti-Cuties people who do not fit these labels - I was not inferring a personal attack and apologise if I did not communicate clearly/

 

Also, you're right, you did not explicitly write "Christian" - my apologies again.

6.3K Messages

 • 

154.5K Points

Well, I apologize for me misunderstanding. I also should've been careful, in the first place, not to seem like I was singling out the more religious of my fellow countrymen, or myself (however that works) for that matter. We understand that people who find Mignonnes to be objectionable, or who are unable to stand to watch it, come from all walks of life. As near as I can tell, most of the attention to the situation, as visible to my mechanisms, comes out of the Anglosphere, particularly the United States, but maybe that is due to me being inadvertently Americentric. I don't know which countries outside of the United States that the Netflix company has made streaming of the movie available to its subscribers. Seemingly most of the people overtly "defending" the movie are anything but "conservative", so to speak; which of course gets the attention of political people who will swiftly point it out, provided that it benefits their social agendas or their fiscal bottom lines to do so. Rest assured, there are people trying to punish companies for either pushing or resisting "woke" culture, and meanwhile anybody's ability to remain neutral is increasingly being seen as a threat to the supposed opposing "sides" of the "war", but that may not matter much since "sides" might plainly not be as powerful as they seem.

1.6K Messages

 • 

46.8K Points

Outside of the U.S. we access Netflix with VPNs to get the biggest bang for our buck.

 

(Now I shall get into trouble again 😂)

6.3K Messages

 • 

154.5K Points

I've been occasionally reading the title-specific board over at MovieChat, and the folks over there have expanded their conversations about specific movies and "reality" television shows far beyond the titles that have thus far been referenced here. There is no telling how much of the global reaction was intended by Maïmouna Doucouré and Sylvain De Zangroniz.

Karen_P

887 Messages

 • 

12.6K Points

2 months ago

IMDB rating is at 1.8, or 18% if comparing to Rotten Tomatoes. Rotten Tomatoes is lower at 0.3 or 3%!!!!!!!!!

Yes the critics rave about it. But the public speaks. Even there.

 

https://www.change.org/p/let-s-cancel-netflix-subscriptions-and-help-make-better-streaming-options

 

(edited)

130 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@karen_palermo 

 

Almost right... but we need to adjust for the fact that the lower bound of IMDb scores is a 1.

 

So an IMDb rating of 1.8 translates to a RT percentage score of (1.8 - 1) / 9 x 100 which is just under 9%

 

The RT percentage score translates to an IMDb rating of 1 + (0.03 x 9) which is 1.3 to one decimal place. 

(edited)

Karen_P

887 Messages

 • 

12.6K Points

And if IMDb had a 0 rating. Do you think this film would get a 0 vote?

130 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

I would imagine that a significant proportion of the "1" voters would give it a 0, yes.

1.6K Messages

 • 

39.4K Points

@Nygma 

 

Indeed, they would give it a "0", they haven't seen the film, what they seek is to wreck IMDb's ratings an express their misinformed opinions.

130 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@pedocinephile 

 

How do you know who did and did not see the film?

 

I did not see the film, have no intention to, and did not rate it.

 

1.6K Messages

 • 

39.4K Points

Easy, there are 5 groups of people

 

A- People that have seen the film and liked it.

 

B- People that have seen the film and disliked it.

 

C- People that haven't seen the film and liked it.

 

D- People that haven't seen the film and disliked it.

 

E- People that haven't seen the film and haven't rated it.

 

F- People that have seen the film and haven't rated it.

 

E and F don't have direct on the film's rating so they can't be held responsible for the film's poor rating.

 

A and C are uncommon otherwise the film would have a good rating.

 

As Alyssa Rosenberg from The Washington Post said:

"If you want to talk nonsense about a movie on the Internet, you have to prove that you’ve actually seen it"

I do have proof that I have seen Cuties: 

Furthermore, those saboteurs are already shouting on every platform that they have not seen the film, that they intend to see the film and that they want to cancel Netflix.

 

What is the result???

Cuties has the highest 1/10 percentages since Cumali Ceber, Sadak 2, Kartoffelsalat, and Smolensk. (Above 5000 votes)

 

Do you know what those other 4 have in common? They were all botted. That proves that misinformation is as harmful as any bots to IMDb.

 

 

 

 

 

(edited)

1.6K Messages

 • 

39.4K Points

People are so dumb that in the last days a different movie named Cuties (2020) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5896778/

 

Got 80 new ratings and now is rated 1.5 on IMDb. These people don't even take the time to check that they are hating on the right film.

 

 

(edited)

1.7K Messages

 • 

58.6K Points

Hopefully, IMDb can do something about the wrong votes for the different movie called Cuties.

But yeah, it does point how stupid and lazy some people are.

Karen_P

887 Messages

 • 

12.6K Points

You forced me to watch the whole thing.

Netflix

https://www.netflix.com/watch/81111198?trackId=13752289

Production Quality 2/10 Amateurish

Cinematography 2/10 Jerky hand held camera work

Sound 1/10 Absolutely awful. Amateurish.

Story 10/10

Screenplay 1/10 Poor interpretation. Written to be shocking instead telling a story. Shallow characterizations. The foot scene was stupid. C-mon!!! Would have rather seen her slapping herself and crying while talking. Not her feet! There is so much more. That stuck out!

Acting overall 1/10 by adults 2/10 by the kids.

Choreography 8/10 They got the dancing correct. The little girls danced just like nightclub strippers. Very Sad.

Directing 1/10 Polanski would have been more sensitive!

Music soundtrack 1/10

Lighting 1/10

This is not much better than a home movie in quality.

This is no Award winning movie.

Lastly. I felt that the FBI was gonna bust in and arrest the both of us for watching this.

(edited)

1.7K Messages

 • 

58.6K Points

Hopefully, IMDb can do something about the wrong votes for the different movie called Cuties.

 

Can a staffer respond to this please?

6.3K Messages

 • 

154.5K Points

The average rating has done little other than steadily slowly increase.

1.6K Messages

 • 

39.4K Points

@jeorj_euler 

 

Yes, but I can assure you that most of these votes are from non-regular voters. Otherwise, the film would have been on IMDb's Bottom 100 a long time ago.

6.3K Messages

 • 

154.5K Points

2 months ago

Maybe the IMDb site authorities should commit more resources into suspending or purging sockpuppet accounts rather than temporarily locking down specific features on specific pages of the site, for long multiple days.

130 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@jeorj_euler 

 

It isn't viable - anyone with a VPN and the ability to spoof their MAC Address (which is not at all difficult) can bypass any ban.

6.3K Messages

 • 

154.5K Points

I didn't mention anything about basing recognition off Internet addresses. By the way, there is the proverb, "Wearing a mask doesn't prevent you from signing your name." Coined by Roger Dingledine, right? I either don't know the exact origin or can't remember. So, sure, the sockpuppet account creators could also randomize their metadata too, but there are probably machine learning algorithms that can spot them without any false positives. Unless the spammers are ready, willing and able to employ the same kinds of tools, they will usually lose, and quickly. But of course, there are also "meatpuppets" as Wikipedia calls them, but they can be spotted too, to a degree.

Karen_P

887 Messages

 • 

12.6K Points

20 days ago

Update: Cuties film streaming service NETFLIX get sued in The State of Texas for the displaying of underage girls for prurient sexual purposes. The state claims that certain scenes have "No Artistic Value"

6.3K Messages

 • 

154.5K Points

Netflix, Inc., has been indicted by a grand jury in the 1 A District Court of Tyler County, Texas, for "promotion of lewd visual material depicting a child", under Texas Penal Code § 43.262. Despite not mentioning it, I was actually aware of this the previous time I posted a message to this thread.

1.6K Messages

 • 

39.4K Points

@Karen_P

 

As the election approaches, Republicans of Texas are only trying to reassure their very conservative electorate and gain some democrat votes from poorly informed people.

 

They have no chances of winning the case, and they know it.

Karen_P

887 Messages

 • 

12.6K Points

In case you're not paying attention.

 

A "Grand Jury" made the decision. Those are people, not politicians. Your statement is groundless and uninformed. When you make a statement like that, at least know that someone will be there to set the record straight. A grand Jury is not a political party. It is made up of regular folks. People of the state.

 

"They have no chances of winning the case, and they know it."

 

You sir, have NO chance of knowing what any "Jury" in Texas will do. And you know it!!!!!

 

Thanks. But you are fooling no one. Except maybe young misinformed youth. And they usually are never on jury's in this country.

6.3K Messages

 • 

154.5K Points

Well, there is an old saying, "You can indict a ham sandwich." (To be honest, this seems much harder when the sandwich is a state official, a "pig" sandwich for that matter.) So, surely cinephile is suggesting that the rangers (who are investigating the perceived offense) and prosecutors (who presented the case to the grand jury) are members of or have an affinity for the Republican Party. I've not been able to verify that as of yet. I can only see that several Texas legislators and United States legislators from Texas are really excited, boastful or pleased about the indictment. Given the flaws of the justice systems of the various States, it is not necessarily unusual for prosecutors to be pressured into charging accused persons who are likely to have broken no law simply because protesters, journalists, celebrities, demagogues, rioters, ambulance chasers or whomever demand so. Look what happened to George Zimmerman in Florida. Look what is happening to Mark McCloskey and his wife, in Missouri, along with many others in the same or other States. There is also the matter of Kyle Rittenhouse, who according to all available evidence used lethal and non-lethal injurious force to protect his well-being (probably his life too), but who may somehow be disqualified from normally using self-defense as a trial defense against the accusation of murder, due to double-speak long codified into law. Worse yet the civil services in Kenosha, Wisconsin, have a poor reputation in regards to giving people accused or suspected of crimes a fair shake, at the same time as enforcing personal protection orders and stuff like that. (Talk about being fucked from both sides.) Hopefully Tyler County, Texas, is different.