The gatekeepers of movie reviews want us to believe that the new documentary featuring Dr. Anthony Fauci wasn’t all that bad.
As it turns out, they’re even willing to lie about how audiences are responding to what looks like a failure among all age demographics.
According to IMDb, the movie “Fauci” is “a glimpse into infectious disease specialist, Dr. Anthony Fauci who has led the U.S. fight against every epidemic the country has faced from AIDS to SARS to Ebola, and the ongoing COVID-19.”
Originally, IMDb listed the score for “Fauci” as a horrendous 1.6 out of 10.
Now, the site lists the movie’s rating as a much more respectable 5.8 out of 10.
The components of the overall score, however, remain the same as before.
So, presumably, the site believes its users are so stupid that they are unable to figure out the average of the following numbers — 1.0, 1.4, 1.4 and 1.7 — somehow add up to 5.8.
— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) October 12, 2021
In other words, IMDb appears to have artificially inflated the movie’s rating — and it didn’t do a very good job in covering up its deception.
On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has a pitiful audience score of 2 percent.
In the review section of the website, users made it known why they despised the movie.
“Very disappointing film. I was excited to see a movie that captures one of the biggest names on the popular culture landscape over the last 2 years. Instead what I got felt like a propaganda piece or a fan tribute. Very troubling way to present a documentary/film,” one user named “Jason M” wrote.
“It should have taken a more balanced look at his life and work. Instead it felt like a marketing puff piece which is not what anyone wants from a documentary. Lets hope this was a blip and it’s not the future of documentaries.”
Another reviewer who spoke about watching the movie with an open mind was similarly let down.
“I had already known that this documentary was not well received by many, but I watched with an open mind to learn as much as I could about Fauci. If this documentary had a different purpose, or a different title, I would probably be more forgiving,” a user named “Chris E” wrote.
“What do I mean? Well, this was supposed to be a documentary about a public figure. Not a biography, but a documentary about a man’s career, no? Covering the many years of service of this man with no mention of any controversy is troubling. It did not mention the wins AND the losses, it just painted him as a dedicated, yet under appreciated man.”
“I wanted to learn as much as I could, so I could formulate an more fact based opinion on Fauci. I can’t use this documentary because it was really just a puff piece. It was very one sided. I prefer a documentary that covers all sides; the positives, the negatives, and everything in-between.”
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.