Reviews Are In For Convicted Felon Dinesh D’Souza’s Anti-Hillary Film, And They’re HILARIOUS (SCREENSHOTS)

Recently, fans of DC Comics’ “Suicide Squad” started a petition to shut down review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes after the site collected negative reviews of the latest superhero film. Sure, the reviews were written by people who had actually seen the film, and of course their opinions were solely based on clips made available on preview reels, but they were angry. You can pretty much expect conservatives to jump on that bandwagon soon enough once they see what critics think of convicted felon and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza’s latest “embarrassment to propaganda films.”

The film, which has taken in less than a quarter-million dollars since its July 15 release, boasts an 84% rating from conservatives who eagerly lap up whatever D’Souza sh*ts onto a screen, but actual reviewers found it hard to stomach, giving it a four percent on the “Tomatometer.” Of 23 total reviews, only one was positive.

“This thing is madness,” raves Arizona Republic’s Bill Goodykoontz. The Los Angeles Times’ Michael Rechtshaffen notes that the film “doesn’t even qualify as effectively executed propaganda.” The AV Club’s Vadim Rizov describes Hillary’s America as “A series of conspiratorial talking points familiar to Breitbart-oriented readers, but reshuffled in a new, startlingly illogical order,” and the Chicago Daily Herald’s Dann Gire calls it “an embarrassment to propaganda films.”

2016-08-04_20-42-52 2016-08-04_20-43-27

To put it plainly, “Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates” averages 38 percent from critics. Now let’s look at some of the user reviews:

2016-08-04_20-49-07 2016-08-04_21-00-28 2016-08-04_20-59-00 2016-08-04_20-52-52 2016-08-04_20-51-16 2016-08-04_20-49-31

Note that the guy who said Rotten Tomatoes, which simply aggregates reviews, “got this WAY wrong” has not seen the film. While the Right, desperate to justify their support of Trump or their hatred of Hillary Clinton, will give raving reviews to a film TheWrap’s Sam Adams points out is “not intended to convince or to provoke thought, but to confirm the biases its intended audience already holds,” the rest of us see it as yet another pathetic attempt by someone who can’t be trusted to respect campaign finance laws to attack Democrats in an election year.

Featured image via screengrab