The Invisible Man
The Way Back
Never Rarely Sometimes Always
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
Got more questions about news letters?
Already have an account? Log in here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
No user info supplied.
I have a Ph.d. from NYU, a fairly liberal university, and I have taught for over 40 years at the university level. The 0% rating from the critics says more about them than about the movie. Granted only one of them is a critic at a reputable newspaper but a 0%??. This leads me to believe it was totally dependent on their own biases and political ideology. I have had both conservative and liberal students and a good teacher will grade them on their ability to make a convincing argument. If a student is incapable of seeing a balanced point of view, they would seldom get a decent grade. Dinesh D'Souza is a brilliant scholar, who graduated phi beta kappa from Dartmouth, in addition to an impressive list of books and films. He documents his point of view well. The only part of the movie that I found a bit slow and move forced was his interview with Richard Spencer. That being said it is hard to see how anyone could call the movie full of lies. My academic specialty lies in the 20th century language, literature and culture and for the most part his analysis is right on. Some of the audience criticism was that anyone with a knowledge of history would not learn much from this movie. If that were true how could 100% of the critics listed here on Rotten tomatoes have such a poor knowledge of 19th and 20th century history?
Out of curiosity I looked to see how the Rotten Tomato critics rated liberal documentaries such as Michael Moore's Sicko or Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth. Moore was a college dropout and he has a very poor knowledge of what socialism really is but he gets a 92% rating in spite of a bevy of inaccuracies. An inconvenient truth has been in court battles in Britain because many of the claims that were made were either disputed or shown to be inaccurate so it was often shown with a disclaimer. Rotten Tomatoes critics gave it a 93% even though when the movie came out in 2006 the film's distributor stated that if the world scientists followed in the movie were correct we would have only ten years to avert a major catastrophe. Yet here we are 12 years later. Kind of makes you wonder about the quality of these critics. That is why though I always go to Rotten tomatoest I only look at the audience ratings because in general they seem to be much more accurate (probably due to including people from a variety of viewpoints). The only film that deserves a 0 is one that hasn't been made and this film is way above average. I thoroughly enjoyed it.