Danger 5 (2012) | How Woke Is It?

Our VerdictNot Woke

15%

Danger 52012

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

"Danger 5" is a spoof-heavy, equal-opportunity offender with little actual woke messaging. Its irreverence toward all cultural and ideological sources keeps its woke score low compared to modern Hollywood fare.

Score Breakdown

Compromised:Narrative Integrity

Not Woke

What is this?

"Danger 5" is a deliberate parody of old pulp action and spy genres. It doesn’t prioritize identity politics; characters are zany caricatures rather than vessels for modern ideological messaging. Diversity is present, but it's played for absurdity rather than preaching, so narrative integrity remains largely intact.

Compromised:Cultural Foundations

Mildly Woke

What is this?

The show pokes fun at everything in an over-the-top manner, including traditional values, but the treatment is so tongue-in-cheek and ironic that it’s hard to claim genuine undermining. Masculinity and 1960s gender tropes are lampooned but not pathologized.

Compromised:Ideological Monoculture

Not Woke

What is this?

There’s no heavy-handed ideological messaging. The satire is universal, lampooning all sides. Traditional, alternative, and absurd perspectives are humorously exaggerated for effect, with no real villainization of any specific worldview.

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 Hamish and Andy's Gap Year

The Hamster Wheel

Movie poster for Julia Zemiro's Home Delivery

Movie poster for We Can Be Heroes: Finding the Australian of the Year

12%

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.