By Noel S. Williams

When it comes to movie critics, there’s a trend away from professionally trained aficionados toward everyday keyboard warriors. From the likes of Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, with their thumbs up/thumbs down gig, to YouTube trolls and Rotten Tomatoes (RT) reviewers.

When it comes to the movie “Melania,” the rating discrepancy between so-called RT reviewers and the regular audience has never been wider. The much higher regular audience score is based on over 100 verified ratings. They’re probably more dependable than the mislabeled “top critics”“ on RT who often represent elitist-cum-leftist publications.

They are not "top” but more like bottom-dwelling movie misanthropes who are unable to assess creative endeavors free of their perverted political proclivities. It’s a bifurcation that’s often repeated with conservatively themed works — i.e., the critics are out of touch with those who grace “flyover” country. The profession is in decline. Let’s hope Artificial Intelligence provides the coup de grâce, for it is the pompous “top critics” who are more likely to suffer hallucinations than ever-improving AI.

In the meantime, it may be wise to heed the views of the “verified audience” over sanctimonious critics. It comes down to crowdsourcing. Where a plethora of independent individual inputs from varied walks of life are compiled into a greater whole, the elusive “truth” becomes slightly more attainable. The vibrant marketplace of ideas and viewpoints flourishes with more participation, especially from salt-of-the-earth MAGA constituents with common sense.

When contrasted to the assimilated views of the wider audience, the callous critics are a contrarian indicator. They may have refined a fancy vocabulary, but, as exemplified by “Melania,” they are disconnected from the audience. To wit: Many of us are getting all dolled up like the cat’s whiskers for a delightful “Melania” movie night out on the town. Indeed, ticket sales are very robust, achieving the best start for a documentary in about 14 years. It warms the cockles of one’s heart, though overly critical reviewers may not know about that.

Given the collective intelligence of the wider, verified RT audience (i.e., not interloping, mischievous bots), who needs pretentious critics with their fancy allusions? With all our techno-gadgets at home, we have all the viewing entertainment one could wish for (and some we wish never saw the light of day) available through streaming and on-demand offerings. This will only accelerate if — if — Netflix is able to consummate its purchase of Warner Brothers.

Generally too Pleasantville-ish for me, I recently opted for a Hallmark movie as I was looking for something inoffensive to induce sleep as “my head grew heavy and my sight grew dim” (from Eagle’s “Hotel California”). Rather, it turned out to be quite offensive and kept me up. For example, there was a scene where a lovely and comely woman helped some useless and hapless chap replace the chain on his bike. Huh? That seems backwards. I don’t even think she got greasy hands in the process; nevertheless, I suspect an effete critic would have given it “thumbs up” in this leftist-lurching movie milieu.

I gave it the “off” button, but Netflix has something even better in its online menu, further undermining the “top critics” relevance. It’s called the “not for me” rating option, which allows users to train the recommendation algorithms. Algos, when trained by innumerable user responses, may offer a more trustworthy summarization than paid reviewers who ping-pong in posh circles. They are “not for me.”

“Melania” is an extreme example; however, the discrepancy between critics and fans ratings of all movies is wide. Thumbs up for the fans; thumbs down for the hypocritical critics.