One particularly brutal review came from Nick Hilton, film critic for the Independent, who said that the first lady came off in the film as “a preening, scowling void of pure nothingness” who leads a “vulgar, gilded lifestyle.”
Hilton added that the film is so terrible that it fails even at being effective propaganda and is likely to be remembered as “a striking artifact… of a time when Americans willingly subordinated themselves to a political and economic oligopoly.”
I think we can officially conclude 2026 is The Year Of The Scowling Void Of Pure Nothingness
That’s also an accurate description of narcissism—a void of nothingness. Those people only live on the outside, because they don’t exist within themselves
It was just a 75mil payment from Amazon to trump. Movie was just the means to do the transaction.
The film industry is just one massive money laundering scheme.
Coincidentally, Ratner just got greenlit for Rush Hour 4, which had been in development hell since 2018.
Jackie Chan is the best. Must be a little long in the tooth now.
He’s a tool of the CCP.
Idk how you figure that. He is an actor, of course he’s going to have relations to his home country.
He’s always been a scummy fuck. He’s good with kicks and punches, sure, and he figures heavily in the Panama papers. He’s connected.
Even so, they had a massive budget, a competent director, and they didn’t manage to produce something that paints her in a good light.
Oh he’s competent alright.
Don’t get me wrong, he’s scum, but he’s an experienced director with several well-received movies under his belt. Both can be true.
Funny way to spell complicit
Stupid way to ignore that guy’s point.
The best way to launder money is to have a front that is legit. This way it pass the smell test if you just plug your nose a little.
I would assume bribes work the same way.
Malicious compliance?
That head would look great on a pike outside the city walls.
ew her nails
Ew her
Lizard fingers
$75m bribe*
The 28 was just the advertising part iirc.
No. the 28M was for her per reporting. They still had to make the movie and advertise it.
Why did they have to advertise it?
Made God breath through his nose a little harder than usual.
What does that mean? I remember something on it’s always sunny about that. I presume it’s a smiting.
You know. Like that, almost laugh thing you do when something is just. Barely, funny enough.
Personally. I’m hoping when we fly these wax wings all the way to the sun and everything works out so great that a true artist and historian team up to make a mockumentary about the “Melania” production.
You have to sell the con or else someone might catch on.
Who makes a movie and then doesn’t advertise it? Only fake movie and this is definitely not a fake movie. 😉😉
Bribe taxes
I hate that our country has become so fascist that this dumb bitch’s movie failing feels like a victory.
This is shocking 😲 /s!
Honestly I am shaken, if something this good could fail what is the meaning of anything?
I love that this quote applies to both the movie and the actual person.
i assume some kind of hollywood accounting where they can write the unprofitable movie off their taxes
This is half of it. The other half is the $30M bribe rendered to the Trump family, effectively laundered under the guise of making a documentary. They’ll make their money back coming and going.
At least Eva Braun was interesting.
Mel brooks should do a Producers about Maga. Too soon?
We’ll finally get to see “Hitler on ICE”
Can someone explain to me how this movie has a 99% user rating on rotten tomatoes?
Beep boop.
The only people that would go see this are Trump cultists, who are going to approve of it regardless of quality
Because the only people who’d ever see it are either members of the cult or reviewers being paid to see it.
1% of the audience being reviewers and the rest deciding that it’s amazing before seeing it and not changing their mind when proven wrong sounds pretty plausible 🤷
They might be filtering out the deluge of bad reviews as anomaly or political.
Selection/volunteer bias, no one who would give it a bad review would pay to see it
The old story. Churches and other MAGA groups are buying blocks of seats. It’s playing to “sold out” empty houses.
These dumb shits don’t get it. It was never supposed to be good. It was a bribe. Even wasting a second watching it to do a review is a waste of human effort.
No, insulting is absolutely worthwhile, do you think their goal was to get universal scorn?
Currently on Rotten Tomatoes:
%11 Critics
%99 AudienceWhat’s the point in review-bombing when it’s so obvious?
It’s not review bombing if it actually sucks
Remember when people tried to frame her as a victim? What stank of a person.
Nick Hilton… said that the first lady came off in the film as “a preening, scowling void of pure nothingness” who leads a “vulgar, gilded lifestyle.”
He’s saying it’s accurate then?
Why would movie critics go to see a money laundering attempt?
They don’t pay to go see it. They get paid to see it.
Because it’s their job? They can’t just watch what they like.
It’s a movie critics job to launder money?
No, the director is laundering money. The movie critic is the one stuck watching the crappy movies.
To dunk on it obvs
