A situation where the critics give a film 35%, and the people who actually watched it gave it an 80%?
This is academic on my part: I’m [not*] planning to go see “2016: Obama’s America.” No exploding starships, and all that. But the film seems to be doing well in places like Ohio and Colorado, which means that I’m raising an eyebrow at the implied disconnect there.
[*This is my second significant typo of the day. Maybe I should go take a nap.]
Given that the reviewers are liberal and most of the viewers are probably more right-leaning, I’m not the least bit surprised by that.
I’d argue that it is normal for an overtly conservative movie marketed primarily to conservatives would show that disconnect. I bet American Carol would show that same disconnect (maybe not to that extreme)
Of course the critics are going to hate it; they are (stereotypically) in the bag for Obama just like most everyone else in the entertainment/”journalism” complex. Picking up the local free liberal rag paper yesterday, I saw the short-form review, which basically says that the movie is based on an unfounded sophistry that gets some facts wrong.
Of course people who paid money to watch it are going to like it (I saw it last weekend). They are looking for an explanation into Obama’s frame of mind that does not involve him being a Skrull (shape-shifting alien race that tried to conquer the Marvel universe’s Earth back in ’08. Using a slogan of “Change”, even). The movie provides that.
Side note (Grammar Nazi style): I assume you meant you were not going to see it?
LEM: My second oopsie of the day.