How the Woke Left Destroyed Rotten Tomatoes

Baiting The Left Media 54 Comments

I just finished watching The Great Raid.  It’s not a perfect movie but was enjoyable.  I’d definitely give it a 7 to 7.5 out of 10.

Yet according to the critics, it was only has a 38% rating.  This low rating is definitively not true, so why did so many critics pan it?  One reason: Woke Leftism.

Most critics subscribe to the teachings of this religious cult.  As such, everything they think and say must go through the filter of wokeism.   They are soy boys and unhappy Karens.  They literally had to rate this movie poorly because it dared show the reality of the evil and sadistic nature of Japanese soldiers during WW2.  Woke critics aren’t allowed to like such a movie because to do so would, in their minds, show them criticizing Asian people, which is a huge no go zone.  Conveniently, they ignore the plight of Filipinos, who suffered terribly under the Japanese oppressors.  So they group Filipinos together with white people just like they do the same with Israelis.

It’s truly sad, and actually pathetic, to see so many woke, often white critics destroy their credibility and profession.  Interestingly enough, none of them ever seems to give up their jobs so that an underprivileged minority could replace them.  After all, their virtue signaling does have its limits.

54 Replies to “How the Woke Left Destroyed Rotten Tomatoes”

  1. Gave up on Rotten Tomatoes a long time ago. The ratings by other than the professionals are usually ok, but the as mentioned, the “professional reviewers” ratings are useless woke garbage.

    1. *
      don’t get me started on japan… google “unit 731”… i dare you…

      “But Unit 731 didn’t prevent epidemics—it spread them. Nazi medical experiments on concentration camp prisoners, performed by monsters such as Josef Mengele, have been thoroughly documented. Less well known are the experiments that Japan performed on adult male Chinese prisoners of war and political prisoners, as well as women and children. The captives were injected with diseases such as cholera and gonorrhea, or chained to stakes while aircraft dropped plague bombs.”

      here’s a sentence you don’t wanna hear over dinner…

      “There was also the vivisection.”

      *

  3. I think in general you’re making a right argument but I am not sure about this example. I have watched The Great Raid when I came out and had huge hopes for it. I love war movies, I am fascinated by WWII history and military history in general. I was excited to see a quasi historical film based on a true, and little known event. And yet it failed. Just completely fell flat. It didn’t deliver. It wasn’t a three hour douche commercial like Dunkirk. It wasn’t a Hollywood superhero war film like Pearl Harbor or U-571. And still it failed.

    1. I agree. I watched in on some TV channel several years ago and, yes, it was underwhelming.

  4. I just check the popcorn ratio, and if the popcorn is way higher than the tomatoes rating, I know at least that I am not going to feel like I paid to be lectured. Supposedly “The Tomorrow War” is one of those movies that fans liked a lot more than critics. I haven’t watched it yet, but based on the popcorn ratio, I will give it a chance.

  5. “They literally had to rate this movie poorly because it dared show the reality of the evil and sadistic nature of Japanese soldiers during WW2.”

    But of course when it comes to Asian students and education all bets are off.

  6. Forget reviews by Rotten Tomatos. Check out “The Critical Drinker” instead on Youtube. His “Drinker Recommends” playlist gives you movies that are sure to entertain. Mauler is good too, if you can sit through a review that is longer than the actual movie…

    1. The Critical Drinker is a gem.

      The same naysayers who decry this movie also don’t have the intestinal fortitude to say what a “tragedy” the bombs were in downtown Seoul.

      So there’s that.

    2. One of my favorites too, I have linked a couple of his videos here over the years.

      Rotten Tomatoes is now a garbage site, they are totally woke politically and have about the same credibility as CNN. Some of the stories of them blocking or disappearing negative reviews primarily in the name of defending wokeness have become legendary.

    3. Using the Critical Drinker or the Longman for movie advice is like getting cooking tips from Tonald.

      Also, Kick Jay.

  7. “…so why did so many critics pan it?” Miramax (Harvey Weinstein) distributer perhaps? Who knows.

    Watched the trailer and put a hold on it at my local library; I am my own movie critic. Rotten Tomatoes has never been on my radar.

  8. The only thing I didn’t like/understand about the movie was the White nurse. All the American civilians who were in the Philippines after the fall of Corregidor were detained in a camp–much like what the US and Canada did here to the Japanese at the outbreak of the war. They were definitely not allowed to walk around the city and mingle with the Filipinos. And that pretty, blonde nurse–the Japanese guards would have been visiting her regularly–she would’ve pumped out two or three kids by the time the war ended.

  9. I rated the movie low 7 out of 10. I wanted the sadistic camp commander to not get off so easily. My hope was for Bratt’s character to hang him upside down and cut him in half with his own sword. Then it would have been a 10.

  10. “the evil and sadistic nature of Japanese soldiers during WW2”

    Are there any movies out there about the evil and sadistic nature of Soviet soldiers during WW2?

      1. Only seen that once.

        Good movie.

        Actually purely from a props point of view a lot of Russian war movies are not afraid of spending the budget. I stubble across from time to time and they deal with the fact they need an authentic looking 1920s era armoured car by building one from scratch.

    3. Nothing in the way of movies. They could have made Red Dawn look like a Saturday morning kids’ cartoon.
      Only the odd written account of the brutal rapes. Even freed death camp survivors were not spared. Women set free found themselves victims of sadistic rape by Soviet soldiers the vey next day.
      There are accounts of German husbands cutting their wives’ throats they were driven so insane from the Soviet brutality.
      Biggest mistake Eisenhower made. He should have let Parton carry out his plan.

      2. It wasn’t sadistic. It was different species. They considered rape as normal, as a routine way to relieve themselves. They did not consider their victims as human. There wasn’t more cruelty in the act then there is a wolf taking down a deer and ripping its throat out while the victim scream in agony. The wolf doesn’t care, it is devoid of empathy for its victim. People don’t understand the russian animal and erroneously continue ascribing human qualities to it.

        1. My mother told stories about how the Red Army behaved after it came to Berlin.

          1. Like feral animals. They behaved exactly the same way when they invaded Poland in 1939. The behavior in conquered Germany in 45 was not some nightmarish revenge for the undeniable cruelty inflicted upon them by Germans in the preceding years, it was simply russians being russian.

            Also in 1945 just like in 1939 they were mesmerized by flushing indoor toilets and had no idea how to use them. It was common for officer’s wives to wash their hair in there when the officer was assigned to occupation duty post war.

  11. 38% eh? With a RT score like that, I can guarantee there were NO gay themes, NO Christian-bashing, and absolutely positively NO Transgender Triumphs of the Gender-bending genre.

    I look for movies on RT that have the GREATEST SPLIT between Audience Score and Critic Score. That formulae has never let me down. I have always loved those films. Because those films usually speak of Universal human TRUTHS.

  12. I often question the ratings on IMDB.com.

    Whenever, say, Turner Classic Movies schedules a film I haven’t seen before, I often look it up on that site. I generally ignore the overall rating and look at the reviews. If the negative comments are particularly scathing, I usually give that flick a wide berth as, in my experience, those reviews are quite accurate. In many cases, they’re more entertaining than the movie itself.

    1. Problem with most audience based reviewing system is that people who fan squee over a book/movie/vaccine booster are the sort of people who are going to then good off and write “this was amazing! I loved every moment of it! Best thing ever!!! Only haters could hate this 10/10!”
      People who hated it usually just want to disengage and leave, although I have hate read a few books just to see how bad they were going to get.
      Deep reflected reviews are rare because the engagement levels are just not there to go and give something a carefully argued 6/10.

      So, personally speaking if I want to get a feel I will go seek out the bad audience reviews and work out if they have well structured arguments or not. Steam… actually Steam isn’t bad. Steam reviews often break down the technical issues and talk about the long term play styles. I feel I can trust Steam to give me a good overview

      Goodreads I only dip into when I hated a book and want to know if it was just me or other people picked up on the same issues. Go straight to the 1 and 2 star reviews and leave the 5 star to the emotionally fragile who are just so pleased one of the characters uses them/they and don’t care that the rest of the novel makes no sense and the hippos the ‘lead character’s’ ride have more personality and backstory. (and if you can pick which book I am talking about… YES I STILL HATE IT)

      But yeah, generally for every five 10s you are likely to get one 1. Find that ‘1/10’ review and read that one and you will usually get a reasonable idea what to expect.

  13. Oh, stop it.
    Read real history, instead of passively watching the bullshit produced by, and critiqued by, the banal movie and rotten tomato industries.
    Really. The comments are cringe worthy.
    You want the adult version?
    Quit with the movies shite that you are critiquing, and read, for example, Paul Johnson, Niall Ferguson, and hell, even Winston.
    Any adults here?

    1. Read real history, instead of passively watching the bullshit produced by, and critiqued by, the banal movie and rotten tomato industries.

      What? You don’t like movies like Canadian Pacific or Cariboo Trail (both starring Randolph Scott)? Yeah, they’re both hilariously bad as far as representing Canadian history, each with their share of howlers.

      Even They Died With Their Boots On, with Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland, is rather silly in places and definitely not known for its historical accuracy.

    2. “Read real history, instead of passively watching the bullshit …”

      “Instead”?
      Why “instead”?
      Why can’t I read history books and watch movies? Who the fuck you think you are to call yourself an authority on this? What, you’ve read a couple of history books and know everything now? I bet you I’ve read more, and listened to more informed people talk on topics of interest to me. Mine is bigger than yours. So what? Where does it say that I can’t enjoy movies to boot?

      1. Read History books? What? Read the blather spewed by some author from his/her biased point of view? I’m better than both of you! I read ONLY the first person contemporaneous diary accounts of history. I don’t let some twit interpret it for me. You are all farrrrr lesser humans than I am. I am intellectually superior to everyone! I AM the MAN.

        🙂

        1. Yeah that’s a problem…. a lot of first hand accounts are often incredibly biased by authors’ lack of broader perspective. Ergo, mine is still bigger than yours. Haha.

          Seriously though, first hand accounts often create myths that take decades to untangle. Take for example Belton Cooper’s famous book “Death Traps”. A very biased, occupation perspective driven account of US tanks in WWII. Myths based on this book have been perpetuated endlessly for decades and became a part of popular culture. I bet that most people watching Fury’s duel with the Tiger, if they knew something about WWII armor, they knew that Fury had to find a weak spot to pen Tiger’s armor. No it didn’t. the 76mm on Fury was perfectly capable of going through the front armor plate on Tiger I, and if loaded with HVAP it would go through it twice and still have plenty of energy left. Makes for a cool scene though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LyWwhPiRiM

          Or for example read accounts from Flying Tigers and how they were shouting from rooftops telling novice pilots in the Pacific how to fight against the Zero but none listen with predictable consequences … the problem of course being that Flying Tigers never met a Zero.

          1. You know I was just messin. I forgot the part of that scene when the tank commander takes a tank round thru the torso. Sheesh … no wonder my wife went to bed when I streamed THAT movie.

            And it was funny how that scene depicted the ratio of “cheap” “crappy” American tanks to the “fine” “deluxe” Tigers … we produced at least 6 Sherman’s to every 1 Tiger tank, Right? Although something tells me we didn’t lose them at a ratio of 5:1.

          2. “You know I was just messin. ”

            Yes, and I tried to reply in character in my first paragraph. I guess it came out serious by accident.

            As for the serious question. Tiger I was extremely rare on the western front. Most of them fought in the east and by the time of Normandy landings Tiger it was being replaced by Tiger II aka Königstiger Tiger (Bengal Tiger erroneously referred to in western literature as King Tiger). In Western Europe US Shermans only met Tiger Is three times (!)*

            And yes, Sherman loses to German armor were roughly on par conditional on nature of engagement. The attacking side was always at a disadvantage and lost more. The largest meeting engagement on the western front (i.e. when two sides run into each other, and not when one side had an advantage of a chosen prepared defensive position) occurred at Arracourt. A force of Shermans (mostly early models mostly if not exclusively armed with short barrel 75mm guns) backed by a handful of M18 Hellcat TDs, defeated hands down a roughly equal in numbers force of Panthers.

            * Note: I said in Western Europe, not in Tunisia, Sicily or Italy. Also, I said US Shermans not Allied Shermans, and I said Shermans not all kinds of formations.

          3. Also I liked Fury. It was a good movie. Events like in Fury happened, sure they did not happen to a single tank crew and thy were exaggerated but there was enough grounding in real life in the film that made it quite fun.

            Also to add the comment above, Tiger I and II were never common. They were indeed “deluxe” very complicated and took a lot of resources and manhours to produce. They were never standard. They served primarily in dependent battalions (both Heer and SS) elite units to be thrown into the thick of things. Not every SS Panzer division had a company (never mind a full battalion) of Tigers and only two crack Heer divisions (Grossdeutschlandand and Pnzer Lehr) had them permanently assigned. So the odds of Fury meeting a Tiger were marginal, Fury was much more likely to meet more common German vehicles like Stug III, Panzer IV or Panther. More common than those were anti tank guns and yet more common were infantry with panzerfaust. And Sherman was probably the best tank to use against soft targets, so how did it fare against a Tiger is really immaterial.

            There, more than you ever wanted to know and I had to seriously constrain myself from writing a lot more. Great book on the subject: Armored Thunderbolt by Steven Zaloga.

          4. The Sherman tank is a really great example of how much less the U.S. military cares about its troops vs. the Wehrmacht.

    1. And when a film completely trashes Christianity and the “nut jobs” who practice their faith? … Academy Award Nominee.

  16. Really no reason to even visit that site anymore anyway. Hollywood now makes hot mess unwatchable cape shit wokeist crap.

    1. The last movie I saw in a cinema was Jurassic Park in a second-run house. I made the mistake of going during the year-end holidays when the audience was largely teenyboppers. Their hoots and shrieks put me off that film for several years.

      Since that flick came out, there have been some I wish I had actually seen in a theatre, such as Apollo 13, Blackhawk Down, and the aforementioned Master and Commander.

  17. We noticed (years ago) that high ratings on Rotten Toms meant “avoid like the plague”. It is a very accurate web-site in that regard.

  18. Rotten Tomatoes has been like this for years. I’ve seen “critics” rate a movie as low as 10% while the audience score will be 80%. Nothing unusual about this and I always look at the audience to get it right.

  19. Adam Corolla had that very conversation some years ago with a regular he would have on his podcast and whose name escapes me right now…a well known music industry and movie aficionado if memory serves. Corolla wondered why the movie he produced about Paul Newman was panned by Rotten Tomatoes while the regular crowd gave it a huge rating. The guest gave the usual mealy mouthed response and tried to convince Corolla that he was being a tad conspiratorial and not to make too much of it.
    But Corolla was right: It was panned because Rotten Tomatoes didn’t like
    Adam Corolla, end of story.
    I visit Rotten Tomatoes as often as I visit Snopes which is never.

  20. Rotten Tomatoes is well known in the industry as a Pay to Play site. Its owned by Warner and Comcast. So lets just say any movie that Warner / Comcast etc has any kind of financial interest in will do unexpected well in its rating on Rotten Tomatoes. And as for movies from the competitors, like say Viacom, well..

    Thats why you see the big difference between the “critics” rating and the viewers rating. When there is such a big difference in ratings between critics and viewers its usually a straight payola situation. Except for the overtly political movies. When the “critics” just lap up any left wing propaganda no matter how risible or straight up fraudulent it is.

    Sites like IMDB have less of an issue with this so their ratings are a bit more plausible. Rotten Tomatoes is just like the Billboard Top 40 since the rise of streaming, pretty much completely Pay to Play.

  21. I pay less than no attention to critic sites. They’d long ago screwed up the Hugos and Nebulas. I’ll trust my own mind.

  23. “The Raid” was an entertaining movie, but it’s still worth questioning to what degree our modern perception of Axis conduct in WWII is more the result of wartime propaganda than factual. I’m not a fan of the “history is written by the victors” cliché, but it’s certainly instructive to note that corresponding Allied atrocities, like the horrifyingly widespread American practice of mutilating the bodies of Japanese dead and keeping the bits (or sending them home) as souvenirs is rarely rated as worthy of mention (despite it being considered socially acceptable to the point that “Life” magazine ran fluff pieces about the practice, and Franklin Roosevelt was openly gifted with a letter-opener carved from the bones of a Japanese soldier by an admiring Democratic Congressman).

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation