The film’s politics are very progressive/liberal so I can imagine that deterring some viewers but PTA adds a lot of nuance and subversion throughout that make it more of an examination of radicalism than a straight trumpeting of it. As mentioned in another comment the radical characters often disagree and are shown taking very different strategies that then produce very different outcomes.
For those of you who are on the fence wrt watching this movie, the politics and the revolutionaries simply form the backdrop for the story. The movie is ultimately a chase-thriller and the cinematic pleasure on screen is just incredible. If you are a fan of superbly shot and staged set-pieces, this movie is for you.
Critic reviews mean nothing, because they form a clique which moves simultaneously.
But if you want to throw the old "there's some good ones", go ahead.
* Leonardo DiCaprio plays a character named Bob, and
* Shayna McHayle plays a character named Junglepussy
~ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt30144839/fullcredits/
It'd be a poor review that glossed over a films choice and representations of characters, this one's on the director and writer, not the reviewer.
Mind you it's her stage name, but she typically isn't robbing a bank on stage (her most iconic song is about healthy food at Trader Joes.)
PTA wasn't forced to use the name, but it wreaks of PTA loving the chance to use it while having cover from obvious it is (as you demonstrated)
Regardless, I think it’s a fair observation that French 75 is cartoonish at times. This is not a movie about how great revolutionaries are, although it is a movie about how necessary they are. PTA also certainly makes some odd choices around minority characters.
Certainly not the review lambasting PTA for presenting Black women in every negative stereotype possible to show that violence is bad?
Certainly not the movie that has a Black woman named Jungle Pussy (I don't care it's her stagename, she's not robbing banks on stage) shouting about how she defines Black Power while screeching and waving a gun on a bank counter, until her Black female accomplice shoots the Black guard.
Certainly not the movie where said accomplice then abandons her child (again) and places her in mortal danger while getting most of her accomplices killed.
A betrayal only made possible she cheated on her partner and was fucked and impregnated by an influential enough white man a few scenes earlier.
PTA is sick. There's a reason a Black woman has had 4 of his kids and he still won't marry her.
In general, reading books and watching film, I have no issue with singular characters; black women rap, some have songs such as WAP, other support Trump in earnest, some are matriarchs that usher in social change for the better, others can end up as welfare queens with crack babies, real life has a rich spectrum.
The review above has some strong opinions about PTA's character mix and representations and I'd really have to watch the film through to form an opinion as to whether this is odd for no reason, sloppy, an unconscious tell of the directors world view or a deliberate bit of skewing that forms part of whatever message he wishes to convey.
Like many, I try not to get too deep into a rabbit hole of second guessing books and films, first impressions are often the ones that count most.
The skin chosen for Teyana's character is her pregnant and bare bellied.
I think the character traits were what they were because the story doesn't work otherwise. I don't think it was PTA's express intention to showcase negative black stereotypes.
You're more intent defending PTA than trying to speak to the actual review's sentiment, so I assume there's some personal hangup there.
You're not a bad person for liking flawed media, but making flawed arguments to try and blank Black people and their reception crosses into it for sure.
In any case, if the movie irked you that much, I don't think there's anything I can say to change that. Peace out.