A new documentary “Fauci” from National Geographic lionizing political commentator and Biden regime medical advisor Anthony Fauci opened to an abysmal reception from viewers on the Internet Movie Database (IMDB). The initial reviews gave the puff piece a 2 out of 10 rating on the Amazon-owned website.
That’s when the IMBD website stepped in and artificially altered the ratings for the film. The website now shows the film scoring a 5.8 rating. This is just the latest example of how the elites are constantly lying to you.
The movie is also panned on YouTube.
They are trying to make this megalomaniac a hero.
Sorry, we’re not buying it.
Just the News reported:
“Fauci,” from NatGeo and Magnolia Pictures, hit select theaters Sept. 10 before getting a Disney+ release earlier this month. The documentary lets disparate figures like President George W. Bush, U2’s Bono and Bill Gates praise the infectious disease specialist.
The studios failed to make the documentary’s box office figures available to film industry sites or JustTheNews.com. The vast majority of studios, large and small, routinely share that data, as NatGeo and Magnolia have done on previous releases.
Movie fans then noticed RottenTomatoes.com, arguably the biggest review aggregator site on the web, didn’t initially feature any “audience” reviews of the film.
Mainstream film critics saluted “Fauci,” although most admitted the film served up a hagiography of the 80-year-old bureaucrat. Once audiences started weighing in on the film at Rotten Tomatoes, though, the results were withering. Professional critics gave “Fauci” a 92% “fresh” score, while audiences gave it just a 2% — or “rotten” — rating.
A similar pattern emerged at IMDB.com, a major film and TV reference destination. “Fauci’s” audience rating, on a scale from 1-10, hovered around 1.8. This week, however, the site altered its review algorithm. Now, the audience review tally is a more robust 5.8.
A quick glimpse at the review breakdown, provided by the site, shows the overwhelming number of audience critics gave the film a one-star rating.
The site now features this explanation:
“NOTE: Our rating mechanism has detected unusual voting activity on this title. To preserve the reliability of our rating system, an alternate weighting calculation has been applied.”