Rotten to the Core? Inside the Bunker 15 Scandal That Shook Film Criticism
In September 2023, the film world was rocked by revelations that a little-known marketing firm may have been quietly rewriting the rules of critical consensus. Bunker 15, a publicity company specializing in indie film promotion, was accused of manipulating Rotten Tomatoes scores by quietly paying small-time critics for positive reviews — regardless of the critic’s actual opinion.
The expose, published by Vulture, painted a troubling picture: a cottage industry of “review seeding,” where obscure freelance critics were allegedly compensated to publish favorable takes in order to nudge a film’s Rotten Tomatoes rating over the crucial 60% “Fresh” threshold. While the practice might seem minor, in the high-stakes world of film marketing, a few percentage points can mean the difference between box office success and digital obscurity.
A Rotten Business
The heart of the controversy centers on how Rotten Tomatoes, the widely used review aggregator, determines a film’s “Fresh” or “Rotten” score. Each review from an approved critic is classified as positive or negative, and the film’s score is the percentage of positive reviews. This binary simplification has long been criticized for flattening nuance, but the Bunker 15 case took that critique to a new level — showing how easily the system could be gamed.
In one glaring example, the 2018 indie drama Ophelia initially received poor reviews and was trending “Rotten.” According to Vulture, Bunker 15 then began contacting lesser-known critics, offering small payments in exchange for positive writeups. Some of those critics even disclosed that they didn’t like the film — but were encouraged to frame their reviews positively or simply mark them as “Fresh” on Rotten Tomatoes regardless. After a wave of these reviews hit the site, the film’s score climbed past the 60% mark, allowing it to be marketed as “Certified Fresh.”
The Critics Speak
The expose included quotes from several freelance reviewers who admitted they were approached by Bunker 15 with payment offers. Some were upfront about being uncomfortable with the arrangement but went along anyway due to financial constraints or a lack of industry leverage. Others defended their work, saying that the payments were simply “stipends” for time and effort, not bribes.
Yet the most damning detail was that some critics were reportedly asked to change a review from “Rotten” to “Fresh” — an act that crosses a bright ethical line. As one unnamed reviewer told Vulture: “They said, ‘If you can change it to Fresh, it would really help us.’ That felt icky.”
Rotten Tomatoes Responds
In the aftermath, Rotten Tomatoes released a public statement emphasizing their “zero tolerance” policy for score manipulation. The platform removed several of the reviews associated with the scandal and stated that it would reassess how it vets critics for inclusion on the site. Whether those efforts will be enough to restore trust remains to be seen.
For years, critics and filmmakers have debated the power Rotten Tomatoes holds over perception, distribution, and studio decision-making. This incident lays bare just how fragile the system really is — and how easily it can be warped when marketing goals take precedence over journalistic integrity.
A Larger Problem
The Bunker 15 drama isn’t just about one rogue PR firm. It’s a symptom of a larger issue: the industrialization of opinion. In an era when algorithms and star ratings dictate taste, the line between editorial and advertorial has never been thinner.
The scandal serves as a cautionary tale — not just for Rotten Tomatoes, but for everyone in the film ecosystem. As studios, marketers, and critics navigate the increasingly gamified landscape of media, the question lingers: can true criticism survive in a system that rewards manipulation?
