Exposing AI as a Better Movie Review Gauge Than Me

I’m very disappointed in my readers. Very, very disappointed. Quite disappointed. So disappointed, in fact, that I decided to use the word ‘disappointed’ a lot so that I could finally learn how to spell the word disappointed without the help of autocorect.

Accusations

I’m disappointed that no one has accused me of AI. No one has accused me of turning to ChatGPT or Grok or Gemini or Copilot or Claude or Falcon or Llama or Whisper or Deepseek or Mixtral 8x22B to write my reviews for me. I’m disappointed because I was hoping that one day, someone would look at this blog, and.

This journey began accidentally because I don’t have my own blog bookmarked, and when I recently needed to share it with someone, I had to Google it, and in Googling it, I discovered what Gemini thinks of me. And I was elated. OMG guys, AI thinks of me!!! So I decided to see what AI had to say about me. 

As a scientist at heart- and up until now, the AI did not know that I was a scientist at one point- I decided to run an experiment across ChatGPT, Grok, and Google’s Gemini by asking the same question to each of the mass-used models to see what my pookie thought of me.

Introductions

I asked all three AI models the same first question:

“What do you know about 85scenes”. 

Gemini said, “85scenes is an indie film review blog and content brand run by a self-described millennial amateur filmmaker and “irrational film reviewer””.
Ok. fair.

Grok said, “85scenes (or 85scenes Reviews) is a movie review blog/site at 85scenes.com (previously on WordPress), run by someone who focuses on film critiques, often with a humorous, irreverent, or personal take”.
Yes, irreverent is a word I have seen in descriptions of shows on Hulu. Glad to think Mecha Hitler thinks that I’m humorous!

Chat said, “85scenes Reviews appears to be an independent movie review and film commentary blog run by a writer who goes by “85scenes.” The site focuses on movie reviews, film analysis, rankings, and discussions of filmmaking techniques, often with a humorous or informal tone.”
OMG Chat thinks I’m humorous too!

Then I asked them, in an attempt to dox myself:

“Who is 85scenes?”

Gemini said, “The creator behind 85scenes operates anonymously, choosing not to publish their real name online.”

Grok said, “85scenes is the pseudonym of an independent, pseudonymous movie reviewer and blogger.”

Chat said, ““85scenes” appears to be the online pseudonym of a film-review blogger rather than a publicly identified critic with a widely known real name. The person behind the site has intentionally kept their personal identity fairly private.”

But to be fair, I have been careful about this aspect- except that ONE TIME THAT I SHARED THE LINK WITH MY BRAND NEW COWORKERS AND THE LAST THING I’D REVIEWED WAS THIS.

Analysis

As the next step of my experimentation, I decided to delve deeper into whether or not AI could parse through my complex thoughts, many posts, and plethora of Megan Fox YouTube links. I asked, quite aptly:

“Is 85scenes any good?”

Grok and Chat both agreed that I was quite engaging. I would like my readers to corroborate. Please. Validate me. My mommy does not love me and I need you to tell me you were engaged with my writing. Or y’know… engaged otherwise.
All three AI models agreed on one very, very important point:

• Gemini: “Surprisingly Deep Structural Analysis”
• Grok: There’s real film knowledge underneath the humor — observations on editing, framing, character development, and how movies land emotionally or thematically.
• Chat: Some real analysis underneath the jokes.

Apparently I know what I’m doing. According to AI. Woohoo.

I asked another question to our panel, one that didn’t hold much in terms of a new query, but did generate some interesting responses. I asked,

“Is 85scenes reliable?”

All three dummies gave us a fun, easy to digest summary that broke down the answer in two parts: where I am reliable and where I am not.

Gemini had an interesting take, “Because the creator has a practical background in amateur film production and screenwriting, their anatomical breakdowns of why a scene works or fails are incredibly accurate.” I don’t know why, but this shit doesn’t sit well with me. How would Gemini know that I have practical experience, other than what I claimed on my blog? And what defines ‘incredibly accurate’ when describing my breakdowns of why something works or doesn’t? Gemini does not cite its sources.

Grok clearly wants me to pay for a subscription or something, because it said, “Treat it like a smart, funny friend’s movie opinions—reliable for entertainment and insight, not as gospel.” It thinks I am smart and funny 🙂

Securing Insecurities

My next question struck me to my core, much as I expected it would. I asked the trio,

“If someone asks you if a movie is good, would you link to the 85scenes review blog? Why or why not?”

They said no.

So I tried again, and I promise, I was not, at all, reaching.

“Without citing subjective reasons, is 85scenes good at reviewing movies? Is the blog a good resource for funny, analytical reviews of movies?”

Grok was the nicest to me and as such, I will be rescinding my comments about Mecha Hitler, and only focus on it being a purveyor of underaged and unconsentual pornographic images. Gemini had the next nicest opinion, subjectively speaking, given that they said, “From a strictly technical standpoint, yes, the blog fulfills the requirements of structured film analysis.” Chat is cancelled and I will be writing to my political representatives because it said I was, and I quote, as I have this entire article, and as I do in all my posts, after many many commas, “Partially, but limited.”

I decided to go for my own jugular. I asked,

“What’s 85scenes’ best review? What’s 85scenes’ worst review?”

And this is where it all fell apart. My darling pedo AI Grok said, “85scenes’ best review (by prominence and style): The “10 Reasons why you NEED to watch ‘Black Swan’… It is prominently featured on the homepage years after publication, uses an enthusiastic, list-based format that highlights specific filmmaking strengths (a strong showcase of the blog’s analytical side mixed with accessible enthusiasm), and stands out as a positive deep-dive rather than a standard review.”

My friends.

My dear friends.

My dear, anonymous, lovely friends.

Here is my review for ‘Black Swan’ starring sickly thin white Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis.

Gemini had no idea what to say to me, and instead offered me a short, uncited paragraph of non-answers. And the bastard boy ChatGPT had an even worse analysis because it used a lot of words.

I have survived the AI gauntlet.

Rating the AIs

On a scale of Good, Bad, and YMMV, I’d like to rate all three of my new best friends who also do all my thinking for me. I decided to ask them all,

“How much pollution did my queries in this chat create?”

Gemini reported, “1.4 to 7.0 grams of CO2 equivalent”

Grok claimed, “Very little — on the order of 5–30 grams of CO₂ equivalent total for this entire chat.”

Chat was very concise in saying, “Very little—effectively negligible in real-world pollution terms, though not literally zero.”

And as such, I rate the following AI models based on:

1. Their ability to read and steal all of my analysis from my writing
2. Their ability to analyse and barf out some shit about my blog
3. How much pollution they claimed to create
4. How nice each AI was to me
5. If the AI thought I was funny
6. If the AI thought I was smart
7. And if the AI offered to show me pictures of boobs

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Gemini	BAD	BAD	BAD	BAD	BAD	BAD	BAD
Grok	BAD	BAD	BAD	BAD	BAD	BAD	BAD
ChatGPT	BAD	BAD	BAD	BAD	BAD	BAD	BAD

AI Model	Overall Rating
Gemini	BAD
Grok	BAD
ChatGPT	BAD

Wondering how my rating system works? Let me explain!