The internet pile-on surrounding Lesbian Space Princess gives this critique a useful question to investigate: is the movie genuinely disastrous, or has it simply become the latest convenient target for collective mockery? Rather than accepting the viral consensus, the reviewer watches the entire film and arrives at a considerably less dramatic verdict. He still finds it tedious, irritating and unsuccessful overall, but argues persuasively that the scale of the backlash bears little resemblance to the flawed yet occasionally clever movie he actually encountered.
That distinction gives the lengthy plot recap a purpose beyond simply retelling the story. Sira begins as an intensely insecure princess whose two-week relationship with Kiki collapses, then crosses the galaxy attempting to rescue her after the wonderfully literal Straight White Maleians kidnap her. Along the way, Sira encounters a bigoted sentient spaceship, the supportive musician Willow, weapons collector Blade and a physical manifestation of her own self-loathing. The reviewer identifies the central character arc clearly: Sira's ability to summon her magical labrys rises and falls with her confidence, turning the weapon into one of the film's more effective representations of her emotional state.
The commentary is particularly good at recognizing worthwhile ideas inside material the reviewer plainly dislikes. Background jokes on the Problematic Ship receive praise, as does the visual design of the Straight White Maleians and the recurring gag built around their incompetence. Willow's encouragement of Sira is treated as one of the story's few genuinely healthy relationships, while Sira's emotionally neglectful parents give the otherwise broad comedy a somewhat more nuanced dimension. Even the limited production receives measured credit, with the reviewer expressing admiration for what the filmmakers apparently achieved on the stated $600,000 budget rather than using its constraints as another excuse for ridicule.
There are equally clear reasons for his negative reaction. Musical numbers repeatedly carry exposition, and because the reviewer already dislikes that storytelling approach, those sequences become a significant obstacle for him. He also argues that the film too often states its themes directly rather than allowing characterization and action to communicate them, while jokes can continue well beyond their natural endpoint. The attempted action scenes are described as another weak spot, although he reasonably acknowledges that limited resources may have restricted what the production could accomplish.
Sira's relationships provide some of the review's more thoughtful criticism. Her growing connection with Willow initially appears to demonstrate genuine development, only for Sira to cast Willow aside when the possibility of reuniting with Kiki reappears. Kiki, meanwhile, is not criticized for refusing to resume their relationship—the reviewer explicitly recognizes that rescuing someone does not create a romantic obligation—but for abandoning Sira when she is subsequently attacked. By also criticizing Sira for eventually leaving Kiki stranded, the commentary avoids forcing either character into a simplistic hero-or-villain role and instead observes that much of the cast behaves selfishly.
The biggest weakness is that the presentation often reproduces the excess it criticizes. The synopsis is extremely long, packed with crude asides, internet references, repeated insults and tangents that sometimes bury useful observations about characterization, visual storytelling and comedy. The irreverent style unquestionably gives the commentary personality, and several running jokes work because of that commitment, but viewers primarily interested in understanding why the movie succeeds or fails may find the route to those conclusions unnecessarily circuitous. Some factual details about release history, ratings and budget are also presented without supporting evidence within the discussion, so they function as the reviewer's claims rather than independently established facts here.
Ultimately, the most valuable argument concerns the online reaction rather than the movie itself. The reviewer acknowledges that some people may simply dislike the film while questioning how many participants in the viral backlash actually watched it before declaring it catastrophically bad. He also condemns the uglier directions that parts of the trend apparently took while refusing to reduce every negative reaction to prejudice. Ending with a roughly four-or-five-out-of-ten assessment reinforces that measured position: this is presented as a disappointing and frequently boring movie with scattered creative successes, not the cultural apocalypse suggested by social-media hyperbole.
Pros
- Challenges the viral consensus by evaluating the full movie rather than relying on isolated clips and online ridicule.
- Identifies specific strengths in the background design, visual jokes, villains and connection between Sira's confidence and her magical weapon.
- Gives the filmmakers meaningful credit for their creative accomplishment despite strongly disliking the finished result.
- Offers nuanced criticism of Sira, Kiki and Willow rather than reducing their complicated behavior to simple moral categories.
- Separates personal dislike of musical storytelling from broader criticisms of exposition, pacing and execution.
Cons
- The exhaustive plot recap makes the critique substantially longer and more repetitive than its central argument requires.
- Frequent crude jokes, internet references and tangents sometimes overwhelm sharper observations about the filmmaking.
- Several factual claims about the production, release and rating are stated without supporting context in the discussion.
- The reviewer's preexisting dislike of musicals noticeably influences his response to a major component of the film, limiting how fully those sequences are evaluated on their own terms.
A viral punching bag emerges as something far less sensational: an ambitious, uneven animated comedy whose scattered clever ideas are undermined by blunt exposition, prolonged jokes and inconsistent character choices. The commentary makes that case thoughtfully beneath its deliberately chaotic humor, though its own sprawling presentation occasionally becomes almost as exhausting as the movie it describes.
