Original sentence: " Dann Gire of the Boston Herald called the film "an embarrassment to propaganda films", full of "mind-boggling conspiracy theories" and "fried thoughts and lapses of basic journalistic practices".Although the film was the top-grossing political documentary of 2016, grossing $13 million against a $5 million budget, most critics gave it negative reviews; review aggregation website Metacritic declared it the worst-received film of 2016.He goes on to say that the basis of the film, the "purposely misunderstood fact" that "the Republicans used to be the good guys when it came to the issue of racial equality in America" is as surprising a discovery as the Soviet Union being an ally of the United States in World War II because: "things change, and labels are semantics, and the concepts that bind a political party then might not be the same ones that bind them now.On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 4% based on 27 reviews, and an average rating of 1.7/10
Edited sentence: A lot of bias is suspected in the winning of the rewards, mainly because everyone to review and hand out the awards was a Democrat.Although the film was the top-grossing political documentary of 2016, grossing $13 million against a $5 million budget, most critics gave it negative reviews; review aggregation website Metacritic declared it the worst-received film of 2016, however, most viewers rated it 5 stars on sites like Rotten tomatoes, creating controversy on the critics bias.Dann Gire of the Boston Herald called the film "an embarrassment to propaganda films", full of "mind-boggling conspiracy theories" and "fried thoughts and lapses of basic journalistic practices".He goes on to say that the basis of the film, the "purposely misunderstood fact" that "the Republicans used to be the good guys when it came to the issue of racial equality in America" is as surprising a discovery as the Soviet Union being an ally of the United States in World War II because: "things change, and labels are semantics, and the concepts that bind a political party then might not be the same ones that bind them now", even though most of the film can be factually proved.On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 4% based on 28 reviews, and an average rating of 1.7/10, even though the audience gave it a very high 80%