Film about Karl Rove "Truth" is being trashed at IMBD and Rotten Tomatoes (before opening)

[Stuart G]

Last edited Mon Oct 12, 2015, 09:57 PM - Edit history (1)

I looked to see what the ratings were at these sites, very low, and trashed on purpose.. Now the film isn't even out yet, which means that users who haven't seen it, are trashing it ahead of time. If the film is completely trashed there, it might have fewer viewers if it had a fair rating. If you have an account at either one of these sites, help this film out. Just go there and give it a chance.. Rove as another post says is very mad about what is being said about this film.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027254740

Therefore, his people are out to destroy the user ratings of the film, it before anyone sees it..
Very low user ratings may keep some people from from going to the film. Therefore, Rove dummies are going to these sites and rating them low, without even seeing the film.. (4.9 out of 10 at IMBD is very low for that site.).
IMBD LINK: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3859076/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Rotten Tomatoes. (note this one is very low, 2.2 of five, that would strongly affect the rating, after it opens on Friday..that site seems to be very popular with young movie goers)..Note, the critics have already been very favorable ..their number is 77 at Tomatoes) at that site, it states that over 1500 people have rated it, and it isn't even in theaters yet.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/truth_2015/

.Let us at least give the film a fair chance..

[orpupilofnature57]

1. Kkkarl is the epitome of rewarded criminals, every aspect of his success is deceit.

[Stuart G]

2. And he is trying to destroy this fim, which tells the truth, before anyone sees it.

He and his ilk don't miss a trick, do they?.
.Keep in mind, this incident forced Dan Rather out of his job. It is very ugly.

[UTUSN]

3. Yeah, KKKarl & Chris WALLACE went all **** on Dan RATHER

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. Rotten tomatoes gives it 77, and "want to see" = 90%

and it has some good reviews, so I do not get the point of mis-representing it in the OP.

[Stuart G]

5. This is before the opening..it is not mis-representing (does not include users)..When the film opens

they take the user reviews, and combine them with the reviews of critics..therefore..the 2.2 number will reflect user reviews..

Currently user reviews are at 2.2 out of 5....
__________________________________________


Average Rating: 2.2/5

User Ratings: 1,514

_____________________________________________

If user reviews are very poor, it detracts from critical reviews...implying that those who saw the movie did not like it..With a 2.2 number that will indicate viewers hate the film...That is a very low number..So, when the movie opens there will be separate item called "audience reviews"

For example the movie Pan..got very poor user reviews...called "audience reviews" after movie is opened. That is the popcorn box is knocked down..Also note
Pan got 3.3 out of 5.. from audience, the audience reviews of "Truth" are already much lower at 2.2
You can see that example of Pan..at this link:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/pan_2015/

Again, this 2.2 of Truth, is before the movie opens, so when it opens on Friday, it will automatically have a very low audience rating. Much lower than Pan. After opening people who go to that site, will see the audience does not like the film,(it hates the film) and some will say the critics suck, they don't know what they are talking about, and the audience does know, and the film will get a totally negative reputation..(unfair of course)..therefore, trashing the film..

[dixiegrrrrl]

10. If I am hearing you correctly, you are concerned people will miss out on the film

because of pre-opening reviews?????

Seems the reviews once a film is showing would be more reflective of true audience feeling.

I went back and checked it via several sites.
Will probably want to to see it, given Robert Redford is involved.


FWIW....a lot of people make up their own minds and do not rely too heavily on reviews. I have found some pretty good movies by ignoring reviews.
Lol.......I remember "My Dinner with Andre" reviewed badly because .." all they do is talk. Boring".

And I was very reluctant to see The Wolf of Wall Street, cause the book turned me off, but, the movie had one of the funniest scenes I have ever viewed, worth the watch alone. Who knew De Caprio could be a comedian?

[Warpy]

6. Rotten Tomatoes gave it 80% per their reviewers. That's a reasonably high rating.

The public (who haven't seen it yet) brought it down to 77%, meaning Rove and his evil elves have been very busy.

I suppose IMDB's rating will change when people actually watch the movie. They really need to tighten up their rating system, prevent movies that haven't been released yet being trashed by ignorant saps with axes to grind.

[Archae]

7. You think it could be because it's simply a lousy movie?

All the events in this movie happened about 10-15 years ago.
And the writer/director/producer is going to take "artistic license" (translation: make shit up) about what happened.

Oliver Stone did this with "JFK."
In "JFK," Kennedy was killed, and Garrison put Clay Shaw on trial for the killing.
The rest was pure bullshit.

So how much of this movie is pure bullshit?

[rhett o rick]

8. It's IMDB. They don't judge on the political importance but on how popular

it is with the reviewers.

[cui bono]

9. Rotten Tomatoes critics have it at 77% and 90% of users want to see it.

What's so bad about that? I never even noticed the 2.2/5 before. Had to look for that because you mentioned it.

All I care about is the Top Critics ratings. What the general public thinks about movies mean nothing to me. They're the ones making Transformers #1 at the box office.

[trumad]

11. 77 percent from reviewers isn't bad.

[lame54]

12. Sounds like a flawed system at Rotten Tomatoes