Snow White film review bombed on IMDb after Rachel Zegler ‘smear campaign'
Snow White has been review bombed so much that it's listed as one of the worst films of all time on IMDb.
The film received negative reviews, with the majority of critics highlighting lead star Rachel Zegler, 23, as one of the few positives in an otherwise weak live-action Disney remake.
But in recent weeks, the film has faced heightened vitriol, with many heavily criticising Zegler's off-screen personality in what has been deemed a 'smear campaign' against the 23-year-old West Side Story actor.
At the time of writing, the film has a score of just 1.5 out of 10 on review aggregate site IMDb, which, it's worth noting, permits free voting for unverified users. This positions Snow White as being worse than noted turkeys including Cats, Gigli and Battlefield Earth, with 91.1 per cent of reviewers opting to rank the film one out of 10.
For comparison, Snow White fares better on Rotten Tomatoes, a site that requires user verification in order to review. Here, it has an audience score of 74 per cent, which would rank as a 7.4 out of 10 on IMDb.
The review bombing arrives months after Zegler shared pro-Palestine and anti-Donald Trump posts in the run-up to the film's release.
When the star shared the first official Snow White trailer on X in August 2023, she thanked her fans for their support, before adding in a separate post: 'And always remember, free Palestine.' It's been reported that she refused to delete the post after being asked to by the film's producer as well as Disney bosses.
Elsewhere, after the results of the US presidential election were declared, Zegler posted: 'F*** Donald Trump' and 'May Trump supporters never know peace'.
Platt reportedly pulled Zegler aside at the time and explained that she was signalling to a chunk of America that the forthcoming Disney film was not for them.
This is not the first time a Disney project has been review bombed by trolls.
Star Wars series The Acolyte, which starred Black actor Amandla Stenberg, started off with a higher rating before being specifically targeted, causing the show to become the lowest-rated Star Wars project in the history of the franchise. Stenberg cited the 'vitriolic' response to the show as the reason for Disney's decision to cancel it months later.
According to Deadline, the 2023 live action remake of The Little Mermaid 's Moviepilot score dipped to a 0.7 out of 10 rating. IMDb put a warning on the movie's page reading: 'Our rating mechanism has detected unusual voting activity on this title.'
Meanwhile, when the first female-led Marvel movie Captain Marvel opened in cinemas in 2019, trolls review bombed it to the extent that its Rotten Tomatoes 'Want to See' score fell to 28 per cent. Rotten Tomatoes then changed their website so that audiences couldn't submit reviews until a film or show came out.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
2 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
Disney+ viewers could be slapped with whopping £1,000 fine if they tune into huge new sports boost – don't take the risk
Sports fans should be cautious of TV Licensing rules BAD STREAM Disney+ viewers could be slapped with whopping £1,000 fine if they tune into huge new sports boost – don't take the risk DISNEY+ viewers should be wary of an upcoming boost in sports content that could land them a £1,000 fine just for watching. Earlier this week, the streaming giant announced it had won the broadcasting rights for the UEFA Women's Champions League across Europe for the next five years. Advertisement 2 The UEFA Women's Champions League trophy Credit: Getty 2 Being caught without a TV Licence can result in a hefty £1,000 fine Credit: PA Photos It means that from October, fans will be able to watch every match live through their Disney+ subscription - at no extra cost. However, sports fans should be cautious of TV Licensing rules. Households require a TV Licence to watch live content - even through a streaming platform like Disney+. And being caught without a TV Licence can result in a hefty £1,000 fine. Advertisement On-demand content - shows you can watch at any given moment - don't require the extra fee. It only applies if you tune into live shows and matches. In the days when streaming services hosted exclusively on-demand content, they were safe to use without a TV Licence. But with an increasing number of streamers picking up live TV content, particularly in the realm of sports, the chances of households breaking TV licensing rules has jumped. Advertisement Households were given similar warning last year, when Netflix took over rights to WWE with live broadcasts taking place on the app more than ever before. TV Licensing previously reiterated the rules to The Sun in November ahead of Netflix's Jake Paul vs Mike Tyson live fight. "A TV Licence is needed to watch live content on streaming services, watch or record a TV programme on any channel and when using BBC iPlayer," a rep said at the time. "Further information is available on the TV Licensing website or via the customer services team, who can help with any queries." Advertisement The TV Licence fee was recently increased by £5, jumping from £169.50 previously to £174.50 since April 1.
The Sun
2 hours ago
- The Sun
Disney+ viewers could be slapped with whopping £1,000 fine if they tune into huge new sports boost – don't take the risk
DISNEY+ viewers should be wary of an upcoming boost in sports content that could land them a £1,000 fine just for watching. Earlier this week, the streaming giant announced it had won the broadcasting rights for the UEFA Women's Champions League across Europe for the next five years. 2 It means that from October, fans will be able to watch every match live through their Disney+ subscription - at no extra cost. However, sports fans should be cautious of TV Licensing rules. Households require a TV Licence to watch live content - even through a streaming platform like Disney+. And being caught without a TV Licence can result in a hefty £1,000 fine. On-demand content - shows you can watch at any given moment - don't require the extra fee. It only applies if you tune into live shows and matches. In the days when streaming services hosted exclusively on-demand content, they were safe to use without a TV Licence. But with an increasing number of streamers picking up live TV content, particularly in the realm of sports, the chances of households breaking TV licensing rules has jumped. Households were given similar warning last year, when Netflix took over rights to WWE with live broadcasts taking place on the app more than ever before. TV Licensing previously reiterated the rules to The Sun in November ahead of Netflix's Jake Paul vs Mike Tyson live fight. "A TV Licence is needed to watch live content on streaming services, watch or record a TV programme on any channel and when using BBC iPlayer," a rep said at the time. "Further information is available on the TV Licensing website or via the customer services team, who can help with any queries." The TV Licence fee was recently increased by £5, jumping from £169.50 previously to £174.50 since April 1. What are the TV Licence rules? Jamie Harris, Assistant Technology and Science Editor at The Sun, explains: A TV Licence currently costs £169.50. Some people mistakenly believe that you only need a TV Licence if you have a TV or watch BBC channels. You aren't breaking the law if you own a TV without a licence, as long as it's not hooked up to an aerial or other live broadcasting equipment - so you can use it with your PS5 for gaming for example. The basic principle is, that if you are accessing any live broadcast from any channel, whether it be through a TV or online, you must have a TV Licence. If you are recording a live broadcast to watch later, you also need a TV Licence. Watching on-demand content does not require a TV Licence - except if you're watching BBC iPlayer. Image credit: Alamy
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
Why Ncuti Gatwa's Doctor Who flopped
The Doctor has just been exterminated – but not by Daleks. This time, it was by the BBC. After mounting speculation that leading actor Ncuti Gatwa was leaving Doctor Who, Saturday's series finale saw him regenerate into the Time Lord's next incarnation sooner than planned. Fan favourite Billie Piper returned to inherit the starring role, having previously starred as companion Rose Tyler. Such a surprise plot twist still can't paper over the cracks. Gatwa becomes the first Doctor to depart without a prior announcement in the show's 62-year history. Piper is the first to be unveiled on-screen, rather than trumpeted in advance. It smacks of desperate decision-making and an ignominious end for a 15th Doctor who once promised so much. This was supposed to be a brave new era for the venerable sci-fi saga. Respected showrunner Russell T Davies – who masterminded the show's blockbuster reboot 20 years ago – returned to take the reins ahead of the show's 60th anniversary. Streaming giant Disney+ pumped in plentiful cash to boost the budget. One of the hottest young actors around inherited the sonic screwdriver. Whovians were abuzz with anticipation. Early signs were positive, but the expected resurgence didn't come to pass. Ratings have nosedived, averaging 5 million for Jodie Whittaker's last series but a mere 3 million for Gatwa's latest. It's predicted that Disney won't renew its deal to bankroll the series. Rumours are rife that production will be paused for the first time since the cult show went off-air between 1989 and 2005 after a previously unbroken 26-year run. Gatwa's Tardis tenure has been a flop of inter-galactic proportions, putting Doctor Who firmly back in the doldrums. What went wrong? For a start, his portrayal has missed the mark. Gatwa's time traveller has been the most emotional yet – prone to tears and petulant outbursts. He lacks the authority and gravitas to convince as an old soul who has lived for thousands of years and seen it all. It's not about the actor's age (Peter Davison and Matt Smith were younger), it's about screen presence. With bright colours, CBBC-worthy plots (space babies! singing goblins! a bogeyman made of snot!) and his tendency to use the word 'babes', this Doctor feels overly kid-focused. Disney-fied, if you like. He has been too passive, frequently outwitted by foes and failing to impress until the last moment. Off-screen, Gatwa has appeared hesitant to embrace the ambassadorial side of the role, rarely taking on the extramural duties that are part and parcel of being the Doctor. The clearest indication came in May, when he belatedly backed out of being the UK jury's spokesperson for the Eurovision Song Contest. As one of the BBC's highest profile faces, his last-minute withdrawal is said to have angered bosses. It's rumoured that a row erupted after he allegedly refused to take part when Israel made it to the final. The official line was that he'd dropped out due to 'unforeseen circumstances', but it's been seen as the final straw. There is a feeling that Gatwa never fully fell in love with Doctor Who in the way that his predecessors did, never taking on the plethora of extra-mural duties and personal appearances that other former leads embraced. David Tennant and Peter Capaldi were already life-long fans who dreamed of one day playing their boyhood hero. Whittaker and Matt Smith both became passionate devotees during their stints, won over by the franchise's treasured status and loyal fanbase. By contrast, Gatwa seems to belong in the same category as one-series wonder Christopher Eccleston – appearing to be a reluctant Doctor, never entirely comfortable in the role. Guesting on a themed edition of Mastermind shortly before his series debuted in 2005, Eccleston pointedly replied, when being introduced as Doctor Who, 'Well, for now'. When Gatwa was cast in 2022, he said: 'This role and show means so much to so many around the world, including myself.' However, those fans have largely been let down. In addition, Gatwa was reportedly not universally popular on set in Cardiff, where the series has been filmed since Davies took over. Rumours circulated about difficult behaviour during production. 'I think he has sights beyond [Doctor Who]… I think it was a stepping stone for him, rather than wanting to do it,' an insider claims. 'Nobody particularly knows him.' Having tasted Hollywood in the Barbie movie and Steven Spielberg's Masters of the Air, Gatwa's ambitions appear to have always stretched further than Tiger Bay. Neither does he have the mainstream recognisability of previous incumbents. Gatwa could probably walk down the street relatively unnoticed. It's partly his prior CV – his breakthrough part was a supporting turn in Netflix teen drama Sex Education – and partly down to his Doctor lacking a signature on-screen look. Changing costume (and even hairstyle) for each adventure has been a mistake. From Tom Baker's scarf to Matt Smith's bow tie, the best Doctors had a sartorial trademark. Gatwa's Doctor never settled on one. Lastly and most crucially, Gatwa has been ill-served by the scripts. Davies might be one of our most decorated screenwriters, but when it comes to the Whoniverse, he's lost his golden touch. Overcomplicated storylines have paid off poorly. Rip-roaring thrills have been in short supply. Self-reflexive writing and fourth-wall breaks, with meta-references to the show's own fanbase and the villainous Mrs Flood (Anita Dobson) whispering asides to camera, are symptoms of a show increasingly in thrall to its own lore and impenetrable for newer viewers. Davies has deliberately swerved classic monsters this time around. Daleks and Cybermen haven't appeared during his current stint. Instead, we've been underwhelmed by the baffling return of obscure old enemies – The Rani, Omega, Sutekh, the Toymaker – who mean nothing to most viewers. The show has entered the realm of fan fiction, rather than primetime entertainment with broad appeal. Anybody who hasn't been watching for decades won't have a clue what's going on. Scripts have forgotten ye olde maxim of 'show not tell', with too much proselytising and expositional dialogue. Naysayers believe Davies has focused far too much on identity politics and culture wars issues, rather than family-friendly fun. Plots have featured incels and imperialism, coercive control and conspiracy theorists, non-binary aliens and discussions of pronouns. Crowbarring such topics into a teatime show has sparked a backlash, with the series being dubbed ' Doctor Woke '. At times, watching it has felt like being thwacked around the head with a progressive pamphlet. Doctor Who hasn't just lost its way. It has lost much of its audience. Overnight ratings have plummeted to 1.6 million, down a whopping 10 million from their 1970s heyday. The Tennant era recaptured those glory days, averaging 8.3 million and often hitting 10 million. Even with catch-up viewing taken into account, recent figures have struggled to reach 4 million. Uncertainty about the show's future has increasingly crept into coverage, resulting in a depressing death spiral. You can't blame Disney for wanting to cut its losses after a reported £100 million investment. Gatwa lasted a mere 18 episodes, putting him behind only Eccleston as the shortest-serving full-time Doctor ever. Did he depart of his own accord or was he pushed? Three months ago, tabloids claimed he had 'quit' to pursue other projects and would be written out. A generous reading is that Piper's return was a well-kept secret. A more cynical one says it's a desperate last roll of the dice. Either way, with Gatwa now exiting the Tardis and Davies's crowd-pleasing touch deserting him, the 62-year-old show is in critical condition. Somebody call a Doctor.
