Your fact-checking skills rival D'Souzas.

D'Souza served jail time under Obama. He finished several years ago. Trump didn't "get him out" of anything. He simply pardoned him after-the-fact so it wouldn't be on his permanent record. It was a mostly meaningless gesture. 

Those are both fiction. There's a professional expectation that people can't simply review fiction badly because they disagree with the themes of it. 

D'Souzas films are political "documentaries". 

They are, by my reckoning, quite bad documentaries, but the 1% is quite clearly because of extreme political bias. Movie reviewers are almost entirely left-wing people. 

If they were reviewed impartially, they'd probably still get quite bad scores. But 1% is just blatant bias. It's the same kind of thing that lead to the Last Jedi getting 92% from the "professional" reviewers but only 45% from the audience. The reviewers are a group of people who all think alike.

Those are both fiction.

D'Souzas films are political "documentaries". 

They are, by my reckoning, quite bad documentaries, but the 1% is quite clearly because of extreme political bias. Movie reviewers are almost entirely left-wing people. 

There's a professional expectation that people can't simply review fiction badly because they disagree with the themes of it. 

It's the same kind of thing that lead to the Last Jedi getting 92% from the "professional" reviewers but only 45% from the audience.

The reviewers are a group of people who all think alike.

Your fact-checking skills rival D'Souzas.

D'Souza served jail time under Obama. He finished several years ago. Trump didn't "get him out" of anything. He simply pardoned him after-the-fact so it wouldn't be on his permanent record. It was a mostly meaningless gesture. 

Those are both fiction. There's a professional expectation that people can't simply review fiction badly because they disagree with the themes of it. 

D'Souzas films are political "documentaries". 

They are, by my reckoning, quite bad documentaries, but the 1% is quite clearly because of extreme political bias. Movie reviewers are almost entirely left-wing people. 

If they were reviewed impartially, they'd probably still get quite bad scores. But 1% is just blatant bias. It's the same kind of thing that lead to the Last Jedi getting 92% from the "professional" reviewers but only 45% from the audience. The reviewers are a group of people who all think alike.

When do you draw the line between fiction and documentary? D'Souza calls them "documentaries", but there's not much truth in them. He basically puts together a bunch of conspiracy theories based on absolutely no factual information and calls it a "documentary". Pretending that false information is the truth is worthy of a 1/100 in my opinion.

They're not just bad movies that won't add anything to society, they're actively harmful to society. D'Souza is blatantly spreading false information disguised as truth.

That expectation is also true for documentaries or any other form of media. But D'Souza is not saying "Trump is good, society should be more conservative", he's saying "liberalism is the same as nazism" and "the Democrat party is just a bunch of nazis" in a "documentary". He didn't receive bad scores because he supports trump, he received bad scores because he's trying to polarize society even more than it already is by spreading lies.

No, it is not. First of all, I have no idea where you got this 92% number. It has 85/100 on Metacritic and 90% on Rotten Tomatoes. Second of all, it has those scores because it is a good, well-made movie. It's a technical marvel. Fans hated it because of what it did with the Star Wars universe, but critics have to rate a movie as a standalone piece of media. The critics don't have to consider the whole cinematic universe. They're rating a movie, not the impact it has on a franchise.

This is incredibly stupid. Do you really believe that? Don't you think every movie would get either a great score or a terrible one if that was the case?

Let's analyze the 5 recent movies rated on Metacritic to see how you're wrong:

Mission Impossible: Fallout - Lowest Score: 50 / Highest Score: 100 / Range of Scores: 50 / Metascore: 86
Nico, 1988 -LS: 60 / HS: 85 / RoS: 25 / Metascore: 73
The Miseducation of Cameron Post -LS: 50 / HS: 100 / RoS: 50 / Metascore: 70
The Darkest Minds -LS: 25 / HS: 75 / RoS: 50 / Metascore: 50
The Spy Who Dumped Me - LS: 25 / HS: 75 / RoS: 50 / Metascore: 50

Critics think so differently among them that the highest score a movie gets is usually 50 points higher than the lowest scores. When you stop to really think about that, "reviewers are a group of people who all think alike" suddenly becomes an undoubtedly stupid thing to say.

Yeah sure because 100% of all journalists hate Trump and are dishonest enough to rate a movie based on political views instead of quality. Read one of the reviews, try to read one. You'll find out that the flaws of the movie surpass greatly just supporting Trump.

Ever heard of American Sniper? It's a movie that could very well be considered imperialistic and militaristic propaganda, and it was directed by Clint Eastwood, publicly a Republican. American Sniper has a Metascore of 72.

Ever heard of Elite Squad: The Enemy Within? It's a movie that glamorizes violence and is clearly right-leaning. Metascore: 71.

See how you can make a good movie defending right-oriented ideas? The thing is, Death of a Nation is not a good movie. Watch a PureFlix movie, you'll see how poorly made and poorly written they are. Those movies don't defend ideas with logical arguments, they try to brainwash people.