BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Emotion, and Appeal to Authority, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 15.4% saturation with 94 hits. Analysis detected 690 faulty-reasoning hits from 609 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠41% (15,822 of 26,791 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 59.10% of the article peer group.

Movies are the sum of their parts, but those parts are also the sum of themselves. 
As my cinephilia continues to evolve, I find myself focusing on different things about the films I see. 
Sometimes it’s the filmmaker, sometimes the history, less often the story, but that can be important in some instances. 
This past week, I found myself focusing on even smaller details, both in films I had and hadn’t seen before. 
Most satisfying in this regard was the final cut of Michael Mann’s <em>Manhunter</em> (1986), a new 4K restoration of which screened at the Music Box Theatre. 
What intrigued me upon this viewing was the costumery and set design, specifically as they apply to the serial killer, Francis Dolarhyde (played by the recently deceased Tom Noonan), who lives in an apartment decked out in space posters—somehow tastefully—and wears cool patterned shirts. 
Mann's films are full of snazzy details like these, aglow with the grime of humanity but also with its faintest traces, the ones that most literally illuminate a person's being, even as the films dredge the darkest depths. 
Speaking of “aglow,” that’s more literally manifested in John Boorman’s <em>Excalibur</em> (1981), which I saw at the Alamo Drafthouse. 
Based on Thomas Malory's <em>Le Morte d'Arthur</em>, the original compilation of Arthurian legends, the film is as beautiful as it is bizarre. 
Appropriate to the nature of its material, the very stuff of legend, much of the film appears to glow. 
I found myself aligned with Pauline Kael’s assessment; not being overly familiar with the film before seeing it, I’ve relied on her to help process it. 
As she wrote in her <em>New Yorker</em> review about <em>Excalibur</em>’s ethereal mise-en-scùne, “The imagery is impassioned, and it has a hypnotic quality. 
You feel that there's something going on under the narrative; you're very much aware of shine and glitter, of hair and skin—the imagery has a tactile life of its own.” 
The same about tactility could be said of David Cronenberg's <em>The Fly</em> (1986), though in a much more gruesome manner. 
It screened at the Siskel Film Center as part of Mubi Fest. 
I'd last seen it as a child and think I may have blocked out how disturbing it was—and still is, almost shockingly so. 
This is less peripheral than the other examples of details by which I was entranced this past week, and significant for that reason. 
Normally, gore from films almost 40 years old wouldn't shock me, as it's typically stylized and not as realistic as in today’s horror movies. 
Somehow, even though the gore announces its own artifice—Seth's boil-laden skin looks like an exceptionally scary Halloween mask one might purchase today—it's still profoundly sickening. 
Lastly, upon seeing Lucrecia Martel's documentary <em>Nuestra Tierra</em> (2025) at Facets, I was struck by her use of drone shots to depict the Argentine land at the center of the struggle between the Indigenous Chuschagasta community and non-Indigenous speculators trying to force them off it. 
The drone shots capture the breadth of the terrain, the device also acting as an evenhanded interloper, observing the conflict (both the land dispute and a murder trial) in the coyly distanced way characteristic of Martel's style. 
In addition to the above, though not related in a specific way, I also went to watch Looney Tunes cartoons at the Music Box; the theatre screens them annually in conjunction with the Southport Art Fest. 
I look forward to it every year—the experience is almost painfully wholesome, with families bringing their kids to laugh at the same characters we’ve all been laughing at for the past several decades. 
And that’s all, folks. 
I mean—until next time, moviegoers. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.3%Kat Sachs: 3.3%Chicago Reader: 1.9%Confirmation Bias4.3%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Kat Sachs: 1.3%Chicago Reader: 2.2%Availability Heuristic3.8%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.5%Chicago Reader: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 1.3%Chicago Reader: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.6%Chicago Reader: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Kat Sachs: 1.4%Chicago Reader: 2.8%Framing Effect3.1%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.5%Chicago Reader: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.4%Kat Sachs: 1.4%Chicago Reader: 1.8%Optimism Bias5.4%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 2.8%Chicago Reader: 0.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Kat Sachs: 2.8%Chicago Reader: 4.5%Negativity Bias3.3%This article: 3.9%Kat Sachs: 0.4%Chicago Reader: 0.5%Self-Serving Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 2.9%Chicago Reader: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Kat Sachs: 0.8%Chicago Reader: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias7.4%This article: 6.2%Kat Sachs: 1.1%Chicago Reader: 3.9%Halo Effect6.2%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.1%Kat Sachs: 1.9%Chicago Reader: 0.6%Recency Bias7.1%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.3%Chicago Reader: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.5%Kat Sachs: 3.3%Chicago Reader: 1.7%Appeal to Authority8.5%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.4%Chicago Reader: 0.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.5%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.9%Kat Sachs: 4.1%Chicago Reader: 3.4%Hasty Generalization3.9%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.0%Kat Sachs: 4.2%Chicago Reader: 3.4%Appeal to Emotion11.0%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.6%Chicago Reader: 1.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 3.1%Kat Sachs: 0.3%Chicago Reader: 0.3%Composition/Division3.1%This article: 15.4%Kat Sachs: 7.2%Chicago Reader: 2.2%Anecdotal15.4%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.1%Kat Sachs: 1.2%Chicago Reader: 1.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.1%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.6%Kat Sachs: 2.3%Chicago Reader: 0.8%Unattributed Quote3.6%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.2%Chicago Reader: 0.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 12.8%Kat Sachs: 7.4%Chicago Reader: 9.5%Biased Writer Voice12.8%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kat Sachs: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Kat Sachs: 0.4%Chicago Reader: 2.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S
4.3%

609 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker3.6%attributed speech587writer words
Selected voice

Paulin(e) Kael

100%flagged-word coverage
22 attributed words100% of attributed speech63% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Paulin(e) Kael: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-13.3 ptsWriter: 13.3%Paulin(e) Kael: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -4.4 ptsWriter: 4.4%Paulin(e) Kael: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading

Loading

Loading

Loading


Analysis

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