Film critics with find excuses to love crap that support their leftist PoV.
~ Aristotle Sabouni
Created: 2021-11-28 |
You could rationally, write off a few of these as coincidence. But that we have so many examples of them fawning over error-ridden garbage that just happens to fit a far left world view, seems to hint at a bias.
| Tatometer | Summary |
|---|---|
 |
An Inconvenient Truth - A +15% point spread: 93% of reviewer likes, while viewers gave it 78%. And those were some dumb leftist viewers. An Al Gore based fictionalized pseudo-science propaganda film that scientists like Lizden said, "got more wrong than right", was debunked and chastised by the British government in the Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills case where there were 9 major errors or cases of "alarmism and exaggeration in support of political theses". So it was given not one, but two Academy Awards. |
 |
Born on the 4th of July - +14% point spread: 90% of reviewer likes, while viewers gave it a cooler 76%. This was another anti-American Oliver Stone film: American patriot kills civilians and a comrade in Vietnam, is paralyzed, and goes on post-war PTSD depression spiral until he learns to speak out against the war and his humanity is restored. |
 |
Captain Marvel (2019) - Woke/Censorship wars hit this one. It started with 97/17 reviewer/viewer, because reviewers blindly love anything with a vagina and anti-male patriarchy, and the anti-Woke trolls were tanking the reviews. Rotten Tomatoes started censoring/manipulating results. In the end, even filtered it got 79/45 (-34% spread), and there's nothing the gender bending did to help the story or promote the film. But I still thought it was an OK film, and the viewer score was a bit unfair. |
 |
Fahrenheit 911 - A +14% point spread: 83% of reviewer likes, while viewers gave it a cooler 69%. And those were gullible viewers. This was a Michael Moore hit piece based loosely on some true events, taken out of context and editing that would make Joseph Goebbels proud. There are websites dedicated to debunking Moore's disinformation. |
 |
Fauci - 9 out of 10 leftist reviewer agree, the truth isn't as important as the narrative. Since Fauci supports Marxist mandates and narratives (as long as he remains the highest paid bureaucrat in History), then they will heap praise and fictional renditions of history. The spread of 85%/2% between reviewers and viewers reminds us that just because leftist reviewers like it, doesn't mean audiences will. |
 |
Ocean's 8 - This got a 69/46 split between reviewers/viewers. The reviewers liked the fact that it replaced big screen men with big screen women. But the viewers were bored with the story/acting/complexity (or disliked the gender switch). I sided more with the reviewers, as it wasn't much more horrible than Ocean's 11, 12, 13 for me. But I wasn't a huge fan of any of them. |
 |
Once upon a time in Hollywood - There was a 15 point spread spread between the Reviewers (Critics) and Viewers (Audience) on this one: 85% of critics liked it, while 70% of the audience did. This one was because Tarantino has a certain arty style that is good filmography, but the plot, history, action were weak. It was slow and long, but good characters, dialog, acting, and directing. If you care about characters and style, it was a win. If you cared about plot and historical accuracy, it was a stinker. And that screams where Reviewers biases are. |
 |
Star Trek: Discovery - This gets a huge spread of 86% of Critics love the wokeness, while the audience score is 36% (50 point spread). (Season 4 was worse 92/20). Some of the episodes are OK. But mostly all ties to the Star Trek universe are names borrowed, with little relationship to the technology or canon. Thus it's won tons of awards for it's groundbreaking mushroom trip. Woke Warriors have to ruin everything, and they got their hooks into Star Trek, CBS and Paramount. |
 |
Steve Jobs - Once again, a fictionalized version of a real-life story, by an ultra-Liberal director, seems to appeal to reviewers more than Audiences. This +13 (86/73) review wasn't as blatant about the reviewers getting way ahead of the viewers, but the bias is still showing. |
 |
Super Size Me - Sensationalized (and later disproven) documentary had a +20 (92/72) review spread. Reviwers loved it (it fit a far left narrative), audiences were a bit more neutral. This would likely be greater, if they knew the backstory and frauds. It was also more the critics job to be skeptical and fact check the claims, instead of cheerleading. |
 |
The Final Year (2017) - Because it was boring material, poorly edited, dodged all significant failures of the Obama Administration, and missed the biggest story of a generation (abuse of power, spying on his opposition, lying about it), Reviewers gave it an 84 versus viewers finding it a boring 49 on Rotten Tomatoes. And if you read why reviewers didn't give it a higher reviewer score? It wasn't biased left enough. Viewers weren't yet in the know on how bad Obama admin had been, or their score would have been lower. |
 |
W. - A +17% point spread: 59% of reviewer likes, while viewers gave it 42%. This was an Oliver Stone fictionalized delusion that had nothing to do with history, but trashed Bush during his administration to try to help swing an election towards the Democrats. |
🔗 More
| |
Tags: Film Critics/all
