Review: Our Hero, Balthazar ⁠68%

By Kyle Logan⁠89%

7/15/2026, 2:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Optimism Bias, and Ad Hominem, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 72.1% saturation with 204 hits. Analysis detected 691 faulty-reasoning hits from 283 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 60.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠68% (7,207 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 67.10% of the article peer group.

This may just be the year of the school shooter comedy. 
Hot on the heels of another dark comedy I won’t name, <em>Our Hero, Balthazar</em> serves up big laughs in a film ostensibly centered on the murder of young people. 
The premise is simple enough: Balthazar (Jaeden Martell) attempts to befriend would-be school shooter Solomon (Asa Butterfield) so that he won’t go through with the killing. 
Balthazar isn’t actually a good guy, though. 
He’s an ultrawealthy Manhattanite who regularly fakes tears for likes and only becomes interested in gun violence to impress a girl. 
By contrast, Solomon, outside his online threats, is almost too genuine in his real-life interactions. 
But rather than just being an uncomplicated, misunderstood sweetheart, Solomon is a creep, too; he’s talked to a coworker about which anime characters he thinks are hot and (more egregiously) the porn his father starred in. 
Together, Martell and Butterfield build upon the already strong writing from cowriter-director Oscar Boyson and cowriter Ricky Camilleri to create a contrast of humor and dangerous tension. 
The central duo is aided by a similarly brilliant supporting cast. 
Most interestingly, former heartthrobs Noah Centineo and Avan Jogia make a case for adding their names to the illustrious pretty-boy–to–character-actor pipeline if they follow the paths set out for them here. 
The film also looks great courtesy of cinematographer Christopher Messina and features a distinct score from James William Blades that I can only attempt to describe as sounding like abrasive electronic wind chimes. 
All these qualities save <em>Our Hero, Balthazar </em>from becoming an empty provocation and deliver what may just be a future cult classic. <em>R, 96 min.</em> 
<em><a href="https://facets.org/programs/our-hero-balthazar/">Screening Thu 7/23, 7 PM, Facets</a></em> 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 1.4%Chicago Reader: 2.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 2.0%Chicago Reader: 2.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 5.3%Kyle Logan: 2.9%Chicago Reader: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic5.3%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 5.4%Chicago Reader: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 10.2%Kyle Logan: 4.5%Chicago Reader: 3.3%Framing Effect10.2%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 1.4%Chicago Reader: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 8.8%Kyle Logan: 2.1%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect8.8%This article: 12.7%Kyle Logan: 1.9%Chicago Reader: 3.0%Optimism Bias12.7%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 0.4%Chicago Reader: 0.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 44.5%Kyle Logan: 9.1%Chicago Reader: 4.9%Negativity Bias44.5%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Kyle Logan: 2.2%Chicago Reader: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error7.4%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 11.0%Kyle Logan: 3.1%Chicago Reader: 1.0%In-Group Bias11.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 9.5%Kyle Logan: 6.2%Chicago Reader: 6.9%Halo Effect9.5%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 1.9%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.9%Kyle Logan: 1.9%Chicago Reader: 0.5%Recency Bias3.9%This article: 11.7%Kyle Logan: 2.7%Chicago Reader: 0.5%Primacy Effect11.7%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 12.7%Kyle Logan: 1.9%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Ad Hominem12.7%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 1.9%Chicago Reader: 1.3%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 3.2%Chicago Reader: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.9%Kyle Logan: 2.5%Chicago Reader: 4.6%Hasty Generalization3.9%This article: 10.2%Kyle Logan: 1.5%Chicago Reader: 0.1%Red Herring10.2%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 1.8%Chicago Reader: 3.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 2.0%Chicago Reader: 1.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 8.8%Kyle Logan: 2.9%Chicago Reader: 2.1%Anecdotal8.8%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 1.4%Chicago Reader: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 2.4%Chicago Reader: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 2.1%Chicago Reader: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 2.1%Chicago Reader: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 72.1%Kyle Logan: 42.5%Chicago Reader: 12.2%Biased Writer Voice72.1%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 1.4%Chicago Reader: 1.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Logan: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 11.3%Kyle Logan: 1.9%Chicago Reader: 3.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…11.3%

283 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker2.5%attributed speech276writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageFacets • 7 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Facets

100%flagged-word coverage
7 attributed words100% of attributed speech89% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +90.9 ptsWriter: 9.1%Facets: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-73.9 ptsWriter: 73.9%Facets: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.