The movies: Call Me by Your Name, Love, Simon and C***blockers (recently released as just Blockers with a picture of a rooster attached) are, in a phrase, child pornography.
WHO SHOULD SEE THEM:
Now here’s a truly offensive Trifecta for you:
DUE TO THE UNFORTUNATE NATURE OF THIS REVIEW AND PHOTOS NECESSARY TO MAKE MY POINTS, PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW MINORS TO READ THIS!!
Pornography: From the online Dictionary: "Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings."
I have been freshly disturbed by the succession of child-sexploitative movies recently released.
In full disclosure, I have not seen and do not intend to see any of these movies. Blockers, as it so happens, is not even in theaters yet so my information was limited but easily accessed and assessed merely by the unfortunate happenstance of seeing the trailers.
As to Call Me by Your Name and Love, Simon – I am of the philosophy that you do not have to shoot yourself in the foot with a nailgun to know doing so would have unpleasant consequences. I can, however, figure out the destructiveness of a storyline based upon its synopsis, which you can read for free either at wikipedia or the movie spoiler. You can also get details on the explicit content of a movie from a subscription to screenit – everything about a movie is available, from jump scares to smoking to exact numbers of which profanities are used to explicit descriptions of sexual and imitative behaviors.
I would certainly not pretend to be able to comment on cinematography, effectiveness of the music score or the acting. Then again, if I only read a book or the screenplay I would not be able to assess that either. However, I CAN tell you, after due diligence research, without question, about the extremely vile, sexually exploitive, pedophilia-promoting agenda of these stories.
First there was the Oscar darling Call me By Your Name which featured an older man seducing, sexually using, then abandoning a 17 year old boy. This movie featured graphic displays of male-child sexual behavior and one grotesque event involving a peach which I will leave to your imagination. Not only does the 17 year old boy persuade his even younger girlfriend to have sex with him multiple times but he switches between her and the grown man, putting both members of the young couple at risk for whatever other contacts the grown man has had, not to mention risking pregnancy for the girl. The parents go blithely along with the abuse of their son by this much older grown man. The girl finds out about his homosexual extra lover and, understandably, breaks up with him. The grown man takes advantage of this boy’s raging hormonal state to use him as a sex toy for the summer, then abandons this now damaged youth to his confusion and solitude. This movie, predictably, got all kinds of positive attention from Hollywood and liberal intelligensia for cinematography and acting. It has also been pointed out to me that sex with a child this age is legal in Italy.
Well, if sex with sheep was legal it would still be bestiality. And sex with a child is pedophilia whether it is legal or not. And in our country if you put photos of this behavior on your cell phone you could end up in jail.
Onto the stage appears Love, Simon – a story about a young man who is also confused, as most boys are, about the raging inferno of hormonal emotions churning through him. With no adult guidance he decides he is homosexual and spends the entire movie secretively embarking on a quest to find out the identity of and "hook up" with the "other" "gay" boy – Bram – who has anonymously come out via electronic social media in their high school. There are a few exchanged emails to justify Simon's infatuation with someone who could be anyone, including an adult predator. Simon rebuffs any romantic consideration of a girl who is already a friend, with whom he shares similar interests and who likes him. Instead, Simon pursues an anonymous gay "other," whom he knows little about, objectifying him to use him to gratify a sexual fantasy. In short, Simon refuses to pursue a promising and meaningful relationship with a friend to pursue someone solely on the basis of a shared sexual fetish.
His parents are shown to be clueless and non-judgementally accepting of a decision which has far more long-reaching and permanent consequences than college choice or purchase of a car, which you know DARNED well they would have had PLENTY to say about.
Tipping the hand of the script writer and directors’ intentions, without question, is the choice of high school play. In the source material book Simon vs The Homo Sapien Agenda, the high school play to be performed is the innocuous musical Oliver! based on the Charles Dickens story of the orphan boy. For the movie, Love, Simon, Oliver! is thrown out and Cabaret is chosen. CABARET! One of the singularly most sexually graphic and disturbing musicals in the mainstream.
THE FOLLOWING SECTION CONTAINS GOOGLE PHOTOS FROM THE MOVIE AND THEATRICAL VERSIONS OF CABARET. THEY ARE OFFENSIVE. BUT THE FOLLOWING IS WHAT THE CHILDREN IN LOVE, SIMON ARE TO BE IMITATING ON STAGE. CHILDREN!!!:
Cabaret is set in Germany just before World War II breaks out. It takes place primarily in a seedy bar and dance hall from which the movie takes its name. The lead is Sally Bowles who sings about her life of promiscuity ("Mein Herr") and lives it. She sleeps randomly with men and during the course of the play "hooks up" with Brian, a bisexual who also, during his relationship with Sally, has sex with another man and impregnates Sally. (Brian’s a busy boy.) To his credit, Brian wants their child but Sally doesn’t so has an abortion. This ends their relationship (no surprise) and she finishes up the musical singing about life being a cabaret. During the play there is a number where a man is sandwiched by two women ("Two Ladies"), a song and dance about a man in love with a Gorilla ("If you could see her through my eyes") where the punchline is "She wouldn’t look Jewish at all" – a double punch of bestiality and anti-Semitism. And in the musical there is a LOT of sexually suggestive Fosse-dancing of scantily clad women and men. These are not the only unsavory parts of the movie but they are certainly highlights.
Regardless that the original intent of the movie was to demonstrate the degenerate disintegration of German society in tandem with the rise of Nazism, there IS no way to clean this musical up to be appropriate for children to watch much less perform. And THIS, Cabaret, is what the scriptwriter and director chose for a group of HIGH SCHOOLERS to perform, in public, to memorize, to repeat over and over as they rehearse, and then to act out in front of their family and community…..That alone is the lionizing of child – sexual exploitation.
It appears from photos on Google from the movie Love, Simon that the children in the movie did, in fact, act out these sexually explicit scenes. This alone tips the hand of intent of the pedophiliac sexual objectification prevalent in Love, Simon.
During the course of Love, Simon, along with the lovely Cabaret, there is a plethora of profanity and bodily references, some rather creatively but not constructively, used, including an adult using the word "virgin" as an insult. There is also excessive drinking, homosexual kissing, casual references to masturbating, and casual sex amongst teens.
There is also a montage in which Simon fantasizes that straight kids have to "come out" to their parents. This montage is not challenged. There is no one and nothing in the movie to point out the obvious – that a child coming "out" as straight to the negative reaction of their parents would be the equivalent of a child "revealing" to his parents that they have: normal eyesight, made the honor roll, or do not have juvenile diabetes and having their parents react negatively. Like the reverse of that stupid Geico commercial about people who enjoy sitting on gum or walking into a glass door.
Regardless whether you believe homosexuality is a genetic or learned behavior, only the most deeply entrenched in blindly held propaganda would deny that homosexuality is a biologic disadvantage – never mind the medical, emotional, social, and spiritual repercussions. But logic has nothing to do with anything involved in this movie – only objectification of the children in various sexual connotations.
And now soon to arrive on the scene is C***blockers. Can’t even put the full name of the movie in this blog in good conscience. The premise, according to the trailers, is a group of parents, after translating emojis left on their daughter’s laptop, correctly figure out that their children plan to have sex on prom night. Simple solution: mom and dad go with them to the prom or they don’t go. Problem solved.
Do they do this? No, of course not. Then there would be no opportunity to: show parents as incompetent boobs, have one of the fathers engage with one of the high school boys in a colonoscopy style beer chugging contest, listen to underage girls talk explicitly and with blasphemous language about how they plan to lose their virginity, (with GREAT regret I heard the young ladies express their plans during the trailer in an open public theater in far more graphic language than that I just used), and watch scenes with CHILDREN drinking and carousing in a Caligula-like orgy.
These movies are all designed like a pedophile's dream and every one of the people in these movies should be arrested for sexual exploitation of juveniles. While the kids in the first two movies, Call Me and Simon were, and this is small consolation, JUST 21 when the movies were made, portraying a child who performs sex acts even if you are not in fact a child is still a demonstration of pedophilia. And it seems to me that the film makers knew darned well that what they were doing WAS pedophilia or they would have not chosen the age of the actors so carefully. Had they genuinely thought what they were doing was wholesome they could have hired underaged performers.
The third movie, Blockers, interestingly does not post the age of the teen actors on us.imdb.com. I suspect THEY think they can get away with underaged sexuality because it is a "comedy".
So there we have it – examples of explicit pedophilia, sexual objectification of children and the advocacy of sexual promiscuity amongst children!!
Arriving just in time for Easter.
It is a frustrating and disgusting phenomenon that this kind of debauchery – even against children – can masquerade as entertainment with impunity. Despite the romantic implications of the names of the first two films – Call Me by Your Name and Love, Simon, and the pretend to comedy of the third – Blockers, to paraphrase Mae West, a jaded performer who likely would have been horrified at the proceedings of these movies – Love and humor had nuthin' to do with it, dearie.
If you do, don’t say you weren’t warned.
32 thoughts on “TRIFECTA OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY – CALL ME BY YOUR NAME, LOVE, SIMON AND ****BLOCKERS”
Way to take the song from Cabaret out context, the show was written by a Gay Jewish Man, bro. The point of her being dressed as a gorilla was to show how people viewed Jewish peoples in Germany at the time. And the whole song is this man defending his relationship with a Jewish girl who at the time would’ve been seen as sub human. Plz watch whatever you’re gonna review first, christ
I’ve seen this movie several times. I’m a rather big Fosse fan. I completely understand the analogy. But it is NOT something kids should see much less recreate. I think u have misunderstood the context in which I brought this up. But thanks for reading.
Just say you’re homophobic and move on.
LOL That would require I was afraid of homosexuals, which I am not. I do, however, think you are revealing a bias against people who openly condemn the sexual objectification of children. Actually, there is nothing in the blog which indicates my sexual preferences one way or another. I only discuss the monumental inappropriateness of making a movie that justifies, even for a joke, sexual behavior of ANY kind by CHILDREN. I also throughout the article object to ALL of the sexual behavior which is justified, encouraged, rationalized and ignored by the adults who should be guiding, monitoring and mentoring these young people. I stand by my VERY STRONG OBJECTION to the performance – even to the REFERENCE of the performance, by children of the grostequely sexual Cabaret – which requires of the performers a display of a LARGE variety of sexual behaviors including – menage a troi, bisexuality, heterosexual promiscuity, and beastiality. Are you saying you approve of any of those because, as I object to ALL of those overt behaviors being displayed by or encouraged for children the ONLY one you point out is your perceived prejudice against homosexuality. To write a story which includes the titilative performance of any sexual behaviors by children is an offense against all civilized thought. And I do not care that the actors were of age – they were PRETENDING to be under age. I strongly condemn ALL sexual exploitation – faux or real – of children. Regardless of one’s sexual orientation, I would think that anyone who wishes to protect children from this obvious evil would condemn that too.
Miss, I don’t think you know what bisexuality is. it refers to liking girls and boys, but doesn’t refer to cheating. get a life and stop condemning great movies for being gay! Honestly, MORE movies should be gay.
While we may disagree, thanks for reading my post!
Even so, as you already know and have stated, the legal age of consent is 17 in Georgia, and the actors are adults, passing any age of consent anywhere in America as far as I know. They are also, once more, not depicted to show any sort of sexually explicit scenes between the characters. There are parts where they admit their feelings for each other and they kiss at the end, but there are many other famous romcoms featuring high school students in which similar circumstances occur. This does not condone pedophilia, as it is gross and incredibly wrong, it just shows that this movie in particular is not a case of it.
I’d be interested in your input on some of my other posts. Hope you keep reading.
It couldn’t be more clear that you are just uptight about the very mild sexual content in Love, Simon because it is between two men. Yes, MEN. These actors are 18+ and let’s not pretend that all teenagers wait to have sex. And regarding Call Me By Your Name, these actors are 18+ as well and maybe if you had actually watched the movie you would realize that the older character in the film did not ‘take advantage of this boy’s raging hormonal state to use him as a sex toy’. The ignorance in this blog you’ve written is so blatantly obvious that it just shows maybe you shouldn’t be spreading so much insensible hate about topics you know absolutely nothing about.
First, thanks for reading my blog and for your thoughtful comments. But, as I have pointed out, it doesn’t matter if the actor males were 30. I find it disturbing and alarming that the filmmakers were portraying underage CHILDREN in a gratuitously sexualized nature. And even forgetting the unhealthy unchallenged same sex attraction cyber pursuit, the play the children did in the movie – which (excuse the pun) DRAMATICALLY differed from Oliver! in the book was obviously a grotesque sexualization of children. Have you seen Cabaret? It’s a vision of a debauched Hell in which the inhabitants of the rising Nazi Germany participated, celebrating bestiality, anti-semetism, promiscuity, and orgy. And THIS is the choice play they had actors playing children perform. It’s equivalent to dressing a prostitute like a child. These filmmakers’ agenda was to contribute to the continuing efforts to desensitize our culture to the use of children as sex objects. Defending these kinds of movies contributes to that blatantly evil agenda.
In my experience, having actually READ both books rather than just reading bits and pieces and assuming the rest, I have found both of these books to be extremely well written. For both of these books, it really depends on the circumstance and you can’t say that no one should read them just because of your beliefs or maturity levels, religious or otherwise.
For Call Me By Your Name, the content may be a little explicit for some, but if you look past that, it is not a story of only sex, but love and loss directed very much so towards the more mature audience. It is two humans having sex, with a bit of an age gap than what is usually portrayed in Hollywood, but it is not at all similar or comparative to animal mating; beastiality.
For Simon vs. the Homosapien Agenda, it is not similar to the movie at all, and if you had the chance to actually read the whole book, it is a story of two young men of the same age who fall in love over email. This is a more modern love story, but none the less, a great one. Speaking again for the mature audience, I found nothing about it to be inappropriate for 13+ year olds, and think it would actually educate them and expand their horizons. Overall, both books are very well written and deserve to be read by a wide range of people! For anyone interested, I would definitely recommend.
Thank you for reading the blog and for your thoughtful comments.
You make my point in part. The book is different in Love, Simon from the movie and that is one of the big issues I have. I have repeated this a number of times but no one seems to pick up on it. In the book the play the children, and I emphasize children because whether the actors are children or not they are portraying children, the play the children are performing is Oliver in the book. In the movie they replaced Oliver! with Cabaret – one of the vilest, raunchiest, sexually explicit plays short of an open pornographic vaudeville hardcore performance that has ever been filmed. To ask children, even faux children to perform this is sexually exploitive of children
To ask children, even faux children to perform something that sexually explicit and grotesque puts the motivations and the intent of the entire film into serious question if not squarely and undoubtedly into intentional sexual exploitation of children
Admittedly I have not seen Blockers or the aforementioned first movie but I have however seen Love, Simon. With all do respect you cannot review a movie without having seen it. Which is why I’m not objecting to your review on the other two movies, because I have not seen them. However, Love,Simon was as far as one can get from child pornography. Simon and Blue are BOTH at the age of consent, and yet you make it clear Simon turns down a relationship with a close friend of his. Though if you look closely, you will find this friend of his is FEMALE. Simon is a gay male and is not attracted to females. Much like MANY men and women in our society today. Being gay is not a sexual fetish it’s just how one was born. In nature there are homosexual couples, it happens more often than you would think. This story is about a young man who is having a hard time telling his family and friends about his sexuality which believe me, it’s scary. He then meets someone ON A SCHOOL CHAT so he therefore knows it’s a fellow student and most likely someone in his grade. He becomes close to Blue and falls in love with their personality and sense of humor. In the end yes Simon and Blue kiss but that is all that is ever seen. We show heterosexual teenagers kissing all the time on TV, so where’s the problem? I just ask for you to view the movie first if you’re going to slap some title on it or judge it first.
First thanks for reading my review and writing a thoughtful response.
Fair enough but my overall issue is the focus on sexualuzation of ANY kind of youth hetero or homosexual. The big plot point has him finding someone who has the same sexual proclivities as himself. There is little other reason for him to target this other person online. You say he was attracted to them for their sense of humor and commonality. What if when he met them it turned out the person was a girl? According to the character setup he would have turned her down and that would be strictly based on a sexual propensity.
It seems to me the agenda of the writers is revealed in the fact that they changed the play the children were to perform from the innocuous Oliver which features in the original source material book to the grotesquely raunchy, anti-Semitic and offensive Cabaret. There was no reason to make this change unless the author wanted you to focus on the children not as characters but as sexual objects.
A couple of people have pointed out that the children were of age because of the state they were in, or that the actors themselves were of age. It doesn’t really matter if the sexual attraction towards children is pretend, or legal or not. Pedophilia is the sexual attraction towards children. Whether it is acted out in fantasy with adults or whether it is legal does not change the fact that it is pedophelia.
Thank you again for your input.
While the change from Oliver to Carabet is puzzling for sure, there is no depiction of the plot during the course of the movie. Also, I feel as if you do not understand that the point of this movie is not to invoke sexual desire in adults, but to represent an often oppressed minority. If an adult feels attracted to the actors depicted as teenagers, that is their fault.
The problem, as I see it, is that “lionizing” such behaviors contributes to the desensitization of our culture to such heinous behavior. It’s not enough to merely assign the blame – as you correctly place on the shoulders of the adult predators – but placing children as sexual targets in any circumstances is evil and should be depicted as such – regardless of hetero or homosexual. Lolita – both versions – and Pretty Baby are old “groundbreaking” examples of movies which gave a “wink and nod” using comedy and the excuse of a perverse “love” as reasons why these abominable relationships should be accepted or excused – or even blaming it on the sexual allure of the child! Movies like these contribute to the endangerment of children physically, emotionally and spiritually in real life. It’s not a wonder that child abuse and molestation have increased exponentially in the last 50 years.
It is the obligation of responsible adults to point out and thwart such encouragement of child exploitation where and when we can.
All do respect, but legally these “children” are not children. The pen name that the anonymous classmate uses, Blue, is a traditionally male name. Plus, if it were to have been a girl, then she would’ve probably said she were a lesbian and neither would be attracted to each other. And you say that the only reason they would have changed the musical would be to portray them as sexual toys. But it was most likely changed because of either copyright laws. And, knowing high school theater, the drama teacher would have clearly altered the sexual parts to be much more innocent. For example, when my high school put on a production of Be More Chill, they changed all mentions of sex to kissing or going on a date. And I see you are denying the blatant homophobia in your passage. “…only the most deeply entrenched in blindly held propaganda would deny that homosexuality is a biologic disadvantage…” seems like a pretty homophobic statement. And before you say you aren’t afraid of gay people, homophobia is disliking gay people for no valid reason, and no, religion isn’t a valid reason. Also, Simon does not have sexual fantasies about Blue. In the book, he falls in love with him “from the inside out.” He gets to know Blue through email. It doesn’t specify this in the movie and only indirectly specifies this in the book, but it insinuates that only students of Creekwood High School, the school Simon attends, have the password of the blog. Plus, in the book, the first email shows evidence that they go to the same school.
FIRST – Thanks for reading my post! Homophobia by definition is a fear of – something. That’s what phobia means, so throwing around THAT term is not appropriate to the situation. Neither do I dislike people with same sex attractions. I have a number of friends who are homosexual but I am concerned for their wellbeing in a dysfunctional relationship – just as I am for friends who engage in other dysfunctional sexual activities from promiscuity to serial divorces. Their lifestyles will only bring them emotional and often physical harm as well as, ultimately, loneliness in the long run, as they pass up opportunities for normal and more fulfilling relationships which can provide emotional dimensions they can’t now see and the possibility of biologic children. I am very fond of my sweet friends and I feel bad for them actually – but there is a saying: experience is a hard teacher but some will have no other. It’s like watching someone head for a cliff in slow motion but no one will listen to the warnings. But phobia – no. I’m phobic about heights and dentists but not gay people.
Love, Simon is a ground breaker for all. You ought to be one of the stupidest people I’ve seen on the internet and I’ve seen my fair share. First of all the entire cast is 19+ (excluding Tathila Bateman as Nora) so no they are not children. Secondly, you are talking about them as if they are all 7 year olds, you are the type of shitty helicopter parents who drive their kids away. I’m sorry but teenagers are teenagers and some drink, have sex and masturbate. It’s part of growing up and no drinking is not a good thing but if you are well educated about sex then you are fine. You are a mom, you obviously want your kids to be what you want. But I am a teen and I can tell you we are not going to be what you want. We are going to live our true selfs. You are a paranoid and narcissistic person with VERY medieval ways of thinking. Let LGBT kids/teens/Adults LIVE and LOVE. The only problem here is your hyper sexualizing of “TEENAGERS” nothing about their musical was sexual, you made it seem that way so it can fit in with your shit blog and to help validate your “Feelings”. Educate yourself. Please. Don’t come back @ me unless you’ve checked yourself, and read this entire thing. You wanna know why youth like me is so driven away by older people? Because this, allll this. This up tight, always find a fault in things, stuck in the past thinking is what drives us away. We are growing up with the world, you are staying in the past world.
Well, thanks for reading my blog. But, like it or not, part of parents’ job description is telling their children what to do. Just because it is a common activity or way of thinking doesn’t make it right. Sex as a sport, irresponsible and/or underage drinking (since you brought it up) are very destructive behaviors. And yes, of course, I’m paranoid ESPECIALLY when it comes to protection of my children or – frankly children in general. You are obviously well versed in popular culture. You see the terrible things going on. Trying to live whatever way you want – without a moral standard or consideration of the damage certain behaviors can bring you or others – is certain to do damage. That includes adults too btw. But it behooves us who are older to offer guidance. It’s up to you, after a certain age to follow it or not. But not liking those rules does not make them invalid. Lest you think this attitude or conflict is new consider The Who, who wrote a song called My Generation which included the lyrics ” hope I die before I get old”. The lead singer Rodger Daltrey is now 74 years old. With age comes a certain perspective that it would be of benefit to at least give some thought to. This advice of course applies to any age including myself. As to the age of the actors, I still maintain that if you are portraying a child in any sexual way you are still advocating pedophilia. I don’t care if the actor is 40. And don’t dismiss medieval morality altogether. Children were considered possibly the most valuable things in their lives. This applied from royalty to peasants. The very institution of marriage between one man and one woman is in great part, from a pragmatic point of view, for the protection of the woman to give her grounds to complain if the man strays. It is also, primarily, to protect the children born of that Union. Outside of wedlock the woman has no genuine or lasting legal rights to the man or his fidelity and the children often end up being treated like pets or property to be shifted or share or moved around at the whim of the biological producers. Marriage is of course not perfect either. No Human Institution is. But it is better than the alternative because marriage provides the structure for a wholesome, sheltered and functional relationship for everyone involved. The alternative is far more vulnerable to the Anything Goes mentality which is often extremely destructive not just to the children but to the parents involved in its very unpredictability, and structurally selfish orientation.
Oh and since you obviously read a variety of points of view or you wouldn’t have read my blog, for which I thank you again, I thought perhaps you might be interested in reading this book:
Why I Don’t Call Myself Gay: How I Reclaimed My Sexual Reality and Found Peace https://www.amazon.com/dp/1621640728/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_apa_Tm6jBb4N9VWG6.
I met the author over the weekend and he seems like a very joyful person.
I discovered your blog accidentally, and just felt like dropping a quick statement.
I don’t disagree with your accusations toward Call Me by Your Name and Blockers. But I do argue your opinion on Love, Simon. The film is not about a boy wanting to “hook up” with the recently outted gay kid. Simon simply reached out to “Blue” with the intentions of finding a companion who knew exactly what he was going through, and their coresponding emails strengthened their relationship.
LGBTQ youths (especially in today’s society) tend to be afraid of discussing their sexuality due to fear of rejection or the possibility of their life changing for the negative. I do not believe this film is teaching society anymore than to be more accepting, mindful and understanding to a developing adolescent who may or may not be questioning the binary, heteronormative lifestyle their society is forcing upon them.
Also, Simon is 17 years old and living in Atlanta, Georgia. Georgia’s age of consent is 17. Just putting that out there.
Have a great day!
There is a scene where the dad is being sexual with what he thinks is his wife’s underwear..putting them in his mouth…. The wife then points out that those are his daughter’s underwear. Yea it’s super pedophile.
Well Kathy, I wouldn't go to see these movies either, probably for the same reasons you won't. But this is a film CRITICISM blog, so I'm not sure you can condemn a film if you haven't seen it (or in this case, them). How can you condemn a book you haven't read or a painting you've never scene. You're fully entitled as a person to consider these child pornography and not go see them, but condemning them without seeing them seems to be to be cheating. Actually I believe the definition of 'pornography' is literally 'writing about prostitutes'.
As I said I admitted I cannot comment on the art so to speak of the film but I can caution as to the topic to the unwary. Plus I am at Liberty I think to comment on the story when I can access it quite easily on the sites that I mentioned. You can to as many of them are free
And I gave full disclosure obviously. So if someone wishes to Discount what I have to say they are more than at Liberty to do so with credibility
Do keep in mind though that producers value movies all the time based upon the screenplay only.
All seeing the movie would do is to confirm or deny the quality of the presentation of the story or agenda. Examining the workmanship of the nail gun I do not think would improve the experience of having one’s foot shot with it