72 Dangerous Animals: Latin America (2017) | How Woke Is It?

Our VerdictNot Woke

72 Dangerous Animals: Latin America2017

In a free society the right to critique art is essential and protected speech. These reviews reflect personal opinions and not statements of fact.

What We Think

A nearly pure nature documentary, “72 Dangerous Animals: Latin America” avoids woke trappings entirely. The only danger you’ll encounter here is of the tooth, claw, or fang variety.

Score Breakdown

Compromised:Narrative Integrity

Not Woke

What is this?

The show is a straightforward wildlife documentary focused on animal facts and danger levels. There's little emphasis on identity factors, representation politics, or ideological themes, the animals are the stars here, not the narrative.

Compromised:Cultural Foundations

Not Woke

What is this?

There is no real engagement with themes like gender roles, religion, or family here. The focus remains strictly on natural history and animal behavior, so there's no evidence of subversion or revisionism.

Compromised:Ideological Monoculture

Not Woke

What is this?

The documentary doesn't espouse or mock worldviews; it simply presents animal facts in an accessible way for all audiences. It doesn’t push a particular ideological angle or villainize alternatives.

User Reviews

No user reviews received yet.

Please leave a review and let the world know what you think.
Your review will be kept completely anonymous.

Your Review

Comments

Users Also Viewed

Movie poster for 72 Dangerous Animals: Australia

Movie poster for 72 Dangerous Places to Live

Movie poster for Sex: An Unnatural History

Movie poster for Fearless: The Inside Story of the AFLW

Movie poster for Vitamania: The Sense and Nonsense of Vitamins

Movie poster for Sea Lions: Life By a Whisker

Movie poster for Yarrow: The Virtues of Monochrome

Disclaimer: In a free society the right to critique art is essential and protected as a form of free speech and freedom of expression. The reviews and commentary on this site represent personal opinions and interpretations. They are not statements of fact and should not be taken as factual claims about any individual, company, or creative work.