By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite a barrage of negative critical reviews branding it as propaganda, the documentary *Melania* has achieved an unprecedented success at the box office, with Trump supporters flocking to theaters. This overwhelming audience enthusiasm has led to the film breaking Rotten Tomatoes records for the largest disparity between critical and audience scores, boasting a 99% Popcornmeter rating against a 5% Tomatometer score. Similar patterns of stark contrast between professional critiques and viewer reception are also evident on platforms like IMDb, where the film has triggered alerts for unusual voting activity.
Read the original article here
It seems there’s quite a stir surrounding the documentary “Melania,” specifically concerning its reception on Rotten Tomatoes. The film has managed to carve out a rather unique, and perhaps unprecedented, niche in the history of the review aggregator, achieving what is being described as the biggest critic-audience disparity ever recorded.
This colossal gap is highlighted by the stark contrast between its critical score and the audience score. While critics have overwhelmingly panned the film, evidenced by a dismal 5% on the Tomatometer, the audience score, or Popcornmeter, has soared to a remarkable 99%. This 94-percentage-point difference is truly staggering and has led to considerable discussion and skepticism.
The sheer scale of this disparity has drawn comparisons to rather dubious electoral outcomes, suggesting a level of manipulation or a lack of subtlety in how the scores have been achieved. The idea that such a vast chasm could exist based on genuine, organic audience appreciation has been met with widespread disbelief.
Many have pointed to the reviews themselves, with some describing them as excessively flattering and almost comically sycophantic. This superficial praise, coupled with the fact that many of these seemingly positive reviews come from accounts with no prior review history, has fueled suspicions of artificial inflation.
The notion that the production or its associated groups might have resorted to tactics like giving away free tickets to create the illusion of sold-out showings and then leveraging those recipients for positive reviews is a recurring theme in the commentary. This practice, if true, would certainly contribute to a skewed audience score that doesn’t reflect genuine popular sentiment.
Furthermore, the idea of automated accounts, or bots, being employed to artificially boost the audience score is a prominent theory. The cost of such a campaign is even speculated to be factored into the film’s overall production and marketing budget, painting a picture of a deliberate effort to manipulate public perception.
The fact that Rotten Tomatoes is owned by Amazon has also been brought up, suggesting that such an entity might have the means and inclination to influence audience reviews to their advantage. This raises questions about the integrity of crowd-sourced reviews on platforms that are part of larger corporate structures.
The contrast with other platforms like IMDb is also significant. On IMDb, the documentary has seen “unusual activity” warnings, with a vast majority of ratings being overwhelmingly negative, a stark departure from the near-universal praise on Rotten Tomatoes’ Popcornmeter. This discrepancy further fuels the argument that the Rotten Tomatoes audience scores are not a true reflection of viewer sentiment.
The critical reception, while low, is still seen by some as a more reliable indicator, especially when considering the sources of some of the more positive critical reviews. There’s a suggestion that certain publications, perhaps with their own political leanings or affiliations, might be responsible for skewing the critic score upwards from an even lower baseline.
The film itself has been described by some as a shallow portrayal, focusing on superficial aspects and lacking any real depth or substance. The narrative of an immigrant marrying a wealthy individual is presented as the extent of the story, and the critical framing of this narrative is far from complimentary.
This situation raises broader concerns about the impact of propaganda and the potential for manipulation through social media, tech companies, and review platforms. The effort required by some to consistently project a popular image, even through manufactured reviews, is seen as a significant issue.
The director, Brett Ratner, has also been a point of discussion, with some comments alluding to his personal history and suggesting his involvement aligns with the perceived character of the administration the film is indirectly associated with.
Ultimately, the “Melania” documentary on Rotten Tomatoes appears to have become a case study in how review scores can become a battleground, with a stark divergence between the perspectives of professional critics and what is presented as audience sentiment, leaving many to question the authenticity of the latter.