Reviewer Bias

From iGeek
(Redirected from Reviewers)
Jump to: navigation, search

If there's any doubt that movie reviewers have an absurd liberal bias, here's a few examples of how far off from their viewers they are. I make a game about using the point spread between audience score and tomatometer (reviewers) as a measure of liberal bias in rotten tomatoes reviewer pool versus the audience score (it also works on metacritic). The bigger the review/audience spread with reviewers against the film, the more I want to see it (and it seldom disappoints) -- and the bigger the spread by reviewers, the more I'm going to hate the film. If it gives the far left reviewers a wedgie, that means it's probably entertaining and historically accurate. If the reviewers love it, and give it an academy award, and it's presenting any real life person or event, then it's probably highly fictionalized tripe that will irritate the crap out of me.

Reviewers throwing shade vs audience appreciation:

RottenDON.png Death of a Nation (2018) - A -90% (0/90): with no reviewer liking anything about it, yet 90% of viewers felt it was a good documentary. Which proves the truth about reviewers obvious bias, more than anything about the movie itself.
RottenRLB.png Rambo: Last Blood (2019) - A -57 point spread spread between the Reviewers (Critics) and Viewers (Audience) on this one: 29% of critics liked it, while 86% of the audience did. That's always a flag to me, to go watch a film. It was good enough (for a Rambo film), but it wasn't art.
Rotten13.png 13 Hours: The secret soldiers in Benghazi - A -33% point spread: 50% of reviewer likes, while viewers gave it 83% -- an entertaining mostly true-to-life story about how the Obama/Clinton administration left Americans to die.
RottenO.png 2016 Obama's America - A got a whopping -48% spread (25/73)
RottenAHF.jpg Angel Has Fallen (2019) - A -56% spread (38/94) on a simple action film that has all the usual anti-Corporation, anti-Military tropes... with a black President on top? Those racists. The movie was as cliché as they come. The bad guys weren't Muslim Extremists, and it seemed politically correct / sanitized for your protection. Maybe they just hate action films? I went back and looked at the other two in the series, and they thought those stank too. But the Audience scores were lower, so not much of a differential.
Atlas Shrugged Trilogy -59% (10/69) and -57% (4/61) and -41% (0/41) -- While not a great adaptation of Ayn Rand, movie critics hate anything that advocates for individual liberty and responsibility, or criticizes collectivism.
The Climate Hustle (2016) - A late rebuttal to Inconvenient Truth got a -72% spread (0/72), where the reviewers just boycotted and never bothered to review it at all. Granted this was one of those one-time events, but they often manage to find time to review them if they're liberal enough.
America: Imagine the World Without her (2014) - This got an impressive -76% spread (8/84).
Gemini Man (2019) - Reviewers panned it 26%, while viewers gave it a strong 84%, a 58 point spread. Reviewers usually reserve that kind of hate for something with good morals, something that triggers snowflakes, or the movie didn't play a conservative as the villain -- this didn't really have any of that.
Hillary's America (2016) - Crushed it, with -77% spread (4/81). Rotten Tomatoes spiked this review as well. They entered the film as "new" the week before it was released (thus there were no reviews or places to see it), then the week it opened, it wasn't listed as "movies opening this week", and you had to search to find it.
RottenJoker.png Joker (2019) - Reviewers usually like deep, and thoughtful, and impactful, or for the art (well filmed, acted, directed). This is all of those, but it also might make some lefties think about the consequences of their nihilism, and I think that's why lefty reviews gave it a 70%, while the viewers gave it a 92% -- a 22 point spread. I'm split. On impact it was good. On entertainment? I didn't like it. But don't regret seeing it.
The Shack (2017) - A religious movie that doesn't trash religion? It got -64% spread (24/84). It was actually worse in early reviews. Don't put the false God of Christ over the one true God of leftist Statism/Collectivism. Reviewers hate any religiosity that questions their own.
FatHeadRT.png Fat Head (2009) - A movie that debunked Super Size Me (2004). If there were any reviewers with integrity and journalistic ethics (that had rated Super Size Me highly), you think they'd want to review this and correct the record. But alas, it got a 0/77%: while viewers thought it was a better movie. (77% versus 72% for Super Size Me), not a single reviewer had interest in the truth, or correcting the record.
ShootingMMRT.png The Un American - Rotten Tomatoes didn't even add a record for it. The earlier Shooting Michael Moore had no reviewer ratings and 17% viewer, but it's indexed in a way that's hard to find. So a -17% spread (0/17), but I feel that's only because they screwed up the ability to find the record at all.
RottenUnplanned.png Unplanned (2019) - A dramatization of a true story about an Abortion Clinic Director, who defected to the other side after watching a 13 week fetus, squirm to get away from the abortionists cannula. Reviewers gave it a 53% because of their political agenda, while 93% of the audience thought it was a worthy film: a 40 point spread. I think that reflects more on the reviewers inability to separate their agenda from the story, I know I was definitely on the viewers side.
RottenRJ.jpg Richard Jewell (2019) - This got a 74/96 split between viewers/reviewers (A -22 point spread). The reviewers didn't like that it made the far left media (their patrons) look bad for railroading a guy and doing a bad job (which was proven by multiple lawsuits they lost), and the viewers obviously liked the sincerity of the story.
RottenMID.jpg Midway (2019) - This got a 44/92 split between reviewers/viewers (-48 point spread). The reviewers didn't like it because it was a bit of a traditional pro-American WWII film, and anti-American post-modern snowflakes hate that patriotism or America doing anything right. But viewers enjoyed the film anyways.

Reviewers loving fictionalized propaganda, versus dubious viewers:

CaptainMarvelRT.png Captain Marvel (2019) - Hollywood (Marvel) created their best intersectional-feminist Super-Hero (Wonder Woman was DC), and it got abysmal interest ratings before it was released, so RottenTomatoes changed their policies to block rating a movie before release. On the day of release, the far left critics give it an 80%, while the pent up viewers gave it a 34%, a +46 point spread. (That was after RT filtered out a bunch as invalid). But after seeing it? I'm on the critics side: this was one of the better Marvel films, and all the negs were likely trolls against the politics of Hollywood switcher her gender, rather than the quality of the final product. [1]
SuperSizeMeRT.png Super Size Me (2004) - Something that vilified fast food? Of course lefty reviewers are going to love it. This +20 (92/72) review spread wasn't as blatant as some: but this movie was debunked, and reviewers job is to be professional skeptics. Fat Head (2009) was one of 3 efforts that debunked Super Size Me. To date, no reviewer has offered it a review, or correction/retraction for finding out they were duped by Super Size Me.
RottenW.png W (2008) - 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.
RottenTruth.png An Inconvenient Truth - A +15% point spread: 93% of reviewer likes, while viewers gave it 78%. This was 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.
RottenF.png Fahrenheit 911 - +14% point spread: 83% of reviewer likes, while viewers gave it a cooler 69%. 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 directing Moore's disinformation.
RottenB.png 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.
RottenSJ.png Steve Jobs - +13% point spread: 86% of reviewer likes, while viewers gave it a cooler 73%. This was another fictionalized documentary. This one of Steve Jobs. The facts (historical accuracy) doesn't seem to matter to reviewers as much as snappy dialog. Superficial much?
RottenOUATIH.png Once upon a time in Hollywood - +15% point spread: 85% of reviewer likes, viewers gave it a cooler 70%. Tarantino has a certain arty style that is good filmography, but the plot, history, action were weak. If you care about characters, style and "art", it was a win. If you cared about plot and historical accuracy, it was a stinker


Do you see a pattern, or do you vote Democrat? I'm not sure what else needs to be said. Some folks I've pointed out these numbers to, will still deny that reviewers, or that they themselves are biased. Things like reality or obvious double-standards won't convince them. A few even argued with me that it was conservatives who were biased, and that's why these numbers skew the way they do. Which reminds me that the only thing a fool hates more than knowledge, is their contempt for anyone trying to give it to him.


📚 References