My point is that the narrative should be praised based on its quality, not the ideology of it. But the author didn't say it was a good narrative, only that it was feminist; and this was said as part of a list of praiseworthy elements. The assumption therefore, is that it deserves praise only for its ideology.

I didn't drop that, I thought it was irrelevant. I think that a movie with a strong, GOOD feminist narrative should be praised, and one with a bad feminist narrative should not. Same would go for a movie with a male empowerment narrative. The point is that it should be praised for being good, not for espousing a…

The family courts are heavily biased in favor of women. Alimony has caused many men to commit suicide, even some famous ones.

There is a flaw in the logic that a movie deserves praise because it's "feminist." What if Mad Max had a strong male empowerment narrative? Would it merit praise for that? If not, that's sexist.

Um, I think you're in the wrong discussion.

I understand that, but the author didn't say anything about it being good. It seems to me that whether or not the story is actually good is more important than the ideology behind it. But then in this day and age, maybe not.

If the movie had a crappy story that happened to be feminist wouldn't I have the right to criticize it for its crappiness? Or is any and all criticism off limits because it's feminist?

"George Miller’s Mad Max: Fury Road has been rightly praised for its vehicular stunts, its feminist narrative, and its production and costume design."

How does Mad Max's "feminist narrative" automatically merit it praise? Shouldn't we praise it based on whether or not it's, you know, good?