The Chinese Communist Party’s main theme movie “Cloud Judge”, which cost 120 million yuan, has only attracted one viewer in the first 10 days since its release on March 6, 2025, contributing a box office revenue of 20 yuan. Some netizens commented that this box office “disaster” is not only a black humor in the Chinese film industry but also a sharp satire on the judicial ecology of the CCP.
“Cloud Judge” premiered in mainland China on March 6, 2025. This film, touted as the first in China to focus on minority ethnic judges, was promoted in advance as telling the story of Huang Denglin, a Yi ethnic judge in Guangxi who uses the law and ethnic customs to resolve disputes of various kinds and facilitate a cross-ethnic marriage between two young minority individuals.
Chinese media reported that director He Jianjun spent five years meticulously polishing the film, aiming to showcase the story of judges resolving disputes in a complex linguistic environment. However, one day after the release of the movie, the box office data showed zero earnings. Such a bleak start inevitably raises curiosity about what went wrong with this film.
Data from the platform “Maoyan” showed that 296 people had marked “want to watch” before the film’s release, but as of March 16, only one person had actually gone to the cinema, contributing a total of 20 yuan in box office revenue over 10 days since March 6.
Despite being labeled as the worst film of 2025, the mouthpiece of the CCP, “People’s Daily Online,” claimed on March 12th: “Cloud Judge” has been a great success, winning awards such as ‘Best Ethnic Cultural Film’ at the Singapore International Film Festival, special screenings at the Pingyao International Film Festival, and the 2024 China Rural Revitalization-themed film.”
In reality, “Cloud Judge”, which had a special screening at the Pingyao International Film Festival, faced a collapse in reputation. Audience reviews criticized the superficial plot of the film, lack of depth, failure to demonstrate the complexity and challenges of a judge’s mediation work, and the stiff interaction between the judge and the public, which lacked authenticity and instead gave an air of condescension.
Some viewers mocked, saying they had never seen such an ugly movie, and some even left midway through the screening. A netizen on an overseas platform (formerly Twitter) even sarcastically suggested to the director of the film, “Perhaps you should be awarded the ‘2025 Best Judicial Anti-Corruption Award in China,’ for using a movie to expose the huge gap between judicial propaganda and reality. This wave of ‘viral anti-corruption’ can be considered a textbook-level case.”