Tamara Drewei is not even terrible. That's the most that can be said about the item itself, so instead of wasting our breath there let's discuss two more general points.
First off, have you noticed the systematic (and evidently deliberate) attempt of cucks shooting movies in the past decade or two to follow "a female point of view" exclusively, focusing on a supposed "female internal life" as if such a thing existedii and to the detriment of everything else (which here means literally, everything) ? Somehow, magically, the inescapable reality of just how intolerably, mindnumbingly boring, utterly uninteresting, entirely stale and tiresome the outputs of this approach are has so far escaped cucks' notice, which I credit as the truly amusing aspect of the whole bondoogle. How, just how can you sit through two hours of a camera following women around and it not occur to you that they actually pay the folk over at the lab to watch the rat cages ?
I will readily grant that the "camera following woman around" is the necessary and predictable continuation of our contribution to this world, just as much as say the camwhore atrocity. Obviously camera follows the naked lady around as the fundamental and foundational convention of porniii, and the inhabituation with this mode will necessarily and for the obvious reasons produce "mainstream" cinema using the same tools in the same manner. Nevertheless, hasn't anyone ever told these nimrods that porn is boring ?!
Your argument that women are responsible for bad movies seems untenable. With respect, your movies aren't even aimed at women.
Hey, fuckly, listen to me, my movies exist because of women, because they've driven men batshit crazy into 'man caves' and Call Of Duty XI. Did they have giant robot movies in the 1930s and 40s? No, all of those movies had dance numbers. Back when a guy could punch a dame for overcooking a chicken there was no shame in watching some fool tap dance his way through WWII. Now these bitches expect you to change a diaper and shave your balls? Fuck that. Giant robots.
Second off, consider that if the year were 1960, the "incidental" of some loser UStard getting away with murder, especially in Europe!!!1 would have made the whole film and three sequels. Today, it can be safely and quaintly a minor plot point, which the audience is both expected and trusted not to notice it too much.
Did you even remark that the age-old conceit of cinema, imported from an even older craft, demanding imperatively and without possible escape that murderers are punished in the very work was abandoned ? When did it get abandoned, how, and why ?
Did you notice that a different conceit, very specifically of cinema (and drawing its roots very specifically from Goebbles' use of mass media, at that), demanding that the technologically superior derives no benefit from his superiority against the average, moderate, salt-of-the-earth, ignorant-as-rocks characters ? That is still there, notwithstanding how ridiculous it is, and how entirely and absolutely not supported in practice.
They did away with the murder stain, notwithstanding that the cases where one effectually escapes it are scant, but they kept the "hacker gets caught hacking by dork" nonsense, notwithstanding that there hasn't yet been a case seen where this is actually how it played out. Remember the MIT rape ?
The necessary conclusion here would be that the "common man" of 2010 does not fear murder! He is so far-removed from any sort of consideration of his own death the conception of his violent and premature ending at the hands of another simply doesn't exist, for him. What the "common man" of 2010 cares about is me, and his rape at my hands, that is important enough to maintain spurious, anti-realist conceits around. Murder however... he's forever 12 and what is that ?
For my own use, this films marks a moment of convenience, "that moment in time when the general public crossed into fully blown psychosis". Because it's what it is, absolutely, indisputably, when the public thinks itself invulnerable the public meets the diagnosis criteria for psychosis, what more needs be said about it ?———
- 2010, by Stephen Frears, with that guy Hippopotamus nearly ruined and the first chick they could find willing to appear in cutoffs for three scenes so they had what to put on the poster (she's still British, which means exactly as ugly as you imagine). [↩]
- Or at least could in principle exist -- even the most inbred wrecks among the cuckdom admit if pressed enough that there isn't, actually, such a thing, neither in nature nor in history ; but with the same breath propose that "this is because nurture, not because nature" ie somehow women just didn't have "the opportunity" ahem, "weren't given", mind the bold as it's important, weren't given, they say, the opportunity to develop an internal life. Otherwise they'd totally have one.
Note that spinning does not and can not constitute life, internal or of any other kind ; and that the flimsy "african proverbs just as good as European proverbs even if reality contradicts and therefore women can too have an internal life even if it doesn't actually exist" construct may work at your "baby shower", but only if no actual women are present besides the chattel she-cows, and even then it's dubious enough. [↩]
- As the object ; porn as the process has a different convention at its basis. [↩]