Man, this looks very bad for RT. If they don’t course correct on this, they are going to lie any remaining trust or faith.
RT looking almost as bad as RT.
Take the rest of the week off after that one.
Someone at RT is in the epstine files.
How can you even have a documentary about possibly the most uninteresting person on earth? I’m not sure that I’ve even heard her speak before. A documentary about my neighbor would be more intriguing.
what is the deal with your neighbour?
Rotten tomatoes has always been shit, always gonna be shit
Its actually wild seeing the critic reviews sitting at 8% with the “verified user” score at 99%.
Usually they pay off both groups lol.
I came to that conclusion after paying money to see Brad pitt in F1 following 97% scores.
They took the exact plot of Stallone’s Driven, to date the worst movie ever made about racing, or anything else.
Hollywood manages to successfully astroturf reviews most films for at lest a couple weeks after release.
I like Driven. It is definitely a cheesy movie but it is actually more believable in some ways. No way any driver just steps into a modern F1 car and starts winning.
Uh…oh nevermind. Netflix ruined F1.
Driven was originally supposed to be an F1 movie, but when Bernie Ecclestone got wind of that stupid plot he kicked Stallone out of Europe.
90% swing between critics and public? WTF? Has there ever been a movie with so many fake reviews?
For obvious propaganda pieces like this, that’s how “Verified Audience” reviews will always be. In order to be counted you need to have purchased a ticket through one of RT’s partners, so it’s self-selecting. No sane person is going to buy a ticket to this bribe masquerading as a documentary, so it’s only insane Republicans being counted towards that score.
You can select “All Audience” if you want to see everyone. It’s at 29%, even after Republicans’ review boosting campaign.
Yup. Giving it a positive review is basically saying “I support Trump” since nothing involving him could ever be bad in any way to them, and of course 99% of the people who actually paid to see it will be Trump supporters.
Given everything we’ve learned in the last few years, the chances are extremely high that at least half those purchased tickets don’t correspond with a living person actually sitting in a cinema seat.
Sure.
The users commenting appear in the overwhelming majority to be first-time posters, for whom Melania is their first review.
Critiques in the “all audience reviews” section tend to derive from accounts with a deeper prior engagement on the site, and include assessments such as “I thought it would have been based on her actual life, good and bad. There was no emotion, drama or depth. It’s just a bad reality show,” and “Hot garbage. Don’t waste your time or money.”
Gee, that doesn’t scream bots at all. /s
They had a round table of reporters who watched the movie talking about it on npr. One guy said he stood up before the movie and asked anyone in the audience who was not a reporter to raise their hands and two people did. Later he was asked if it was propoganda and he was like. It was more like an informercial. He also pointed out they had a scene of trumps inaugural which does not line up with actual video of his inaugural.
Just read the reviews compared to a normal reviewed movie like toy story 2.
“I I really enjoy this sequel” - 3.5 Stars Good B
Good B is a harsh critic for sure. But nothing like that for Melania. What are the chances two humans use double exclamation marks right after each other? How many people use hyphens? 50% of people like in the 4 sample size for Melania?
Either bots or poor people from developing countries are paid to make positive comments of the movie.
You do not get non-native speakers writing “perfect” reviews.
It could be AI responsives submitted by hand.
What if she’s Krasnov’s handler and this tripe is to ensure she looks vapid and uninteresting when the feds remember their mandate?
It’s only so that Narcissist pedo think she’s doing great. They show him 99 and put the thumb over the 9 %.
dead internet theory
Sometimes it’s fun to not have given a shit about movies for several decades.
RT critic score always was shite, they would push expensive shit projects in the 90+% range constantly.
The audience score usually has been more reliable but as this instance shows, it’s super easy to manipulate as well.
IMDB scores are much more reliable
My dude, critics just value different things than everyday audiences. When you watch movies for a living you become jaded and value uniqueness more than anything. General audiences care a whole lot less about uniqueness and just want something entertaining. That’s why you get off the wall stuff with high critic ratings but low audience ratings, or fairly generic but entertaining stuff with low critic ratings but high audience ratings.
Just know how to read the scores and RT is still the most useful around. Critic score are uniqueness, cinematography, and potentially storytelling. Critics also like drama much more than the average person. Audience scores are for entertainment value. But you also need to take the scores in context of genres you like. If you love scifi and a movie has a 50% audience score, you’ll probably enjoy it plenty. If you hate scifi it’s probably not for you at all.
This is the most useful comment I read in a long time.
How is IMDb much more reliable? I’d argue that’s even easier to manipulate as you don’t need to buy a ticket to leave a review. Review bombing (in either direction) is pretty rampant on IMDB.
Pretty much anything that reaches a critical mass now gets manipulated. Web 2.0 saw to that.
