Manohla Dargis:
>Sliding into theaters on a river of slime and an endless supply of good vibes, the new, cheerfully silly "Ghostbusters" is that rarest of big-studio offerings - a movie that is a lot of enjoyable, disposable fun
What did she mean by this?
nytimes.com
Other urls found in this thread:
strawpoll.me
hollywoodreporter.com
twitter.com
>"Girls rule, women are funny, get over it."
>"It’s at once satisfyingly familiar and satisfyingly different, kind of like a new production of “Macbeth” or a Christopher Nolan rethink of Batman."
>"Part of what makes “Ghostbusters” enjoyable is that it allows women to be as simply and uncomplicatedly funny as men."
> "And enjoy it while you can because this doesn’t happen often, even in summer, which is supposed to be our season of collective moviegoing happiness. The season when everyone jumps onboard (whee!) and agrees that, yes, this great goof is exactly what you were thinking when you wondered why they didn’t make summer movies like they used to.">
This is satire, right guy? r-right???
>Otherwise, the redo is pretty much what you might expect from Paul Feig, one of the best things to happen to American big-screen comedy since Harold Ramis.
This has to be a joke
Who is this woman and why is she writing movie reviews for the largest paper in the country?
I guess Sony just paid everyone off, right fa/tv/irgins?
TOTALLY UNBIASED WITHOUT AN AGENDA
So which is it
strawpoll.me
please vote
BECAUSE THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY MONEY COULD HAVE BOUGHT THE WORDS OF A NEW YORK TIMES CRITIC
I have to watch it just to see if the critics are full of shit, but I am not going to give Sony a dime. If it's as good as some of these reviews say, maybe I'll toss money at a theater, but they have simply not sold this to me at all. It looks like a shitty cash grab.
Judging by this woman's look, I'm guessing she's a lonely, middle-aged feminist-type who has been brainwashed to unironically like this crap. I don't think they needed to buy this one off.
camrip when?
You don't need to pay off feminists to shill their own products.
Note that the 60% who will never see it will shitpost about how any who likes it must be paid off anyway
>literally into the trash
the point of the poll was to see how many of the people here will actually give money to go watch it.
so far its 5 out of 44, and lots of people here flock to see the latest capeshit on opening night
>ITT: MAD BABYMEN GENERAL
Roastie detected.
>>>/tumblr/
It's not money. It's just feminism
hollywoodreporter.com
The unfunny mess that hits theaters Friday, like a big goopy splat of ectoplasm, will no doubt make those naysayers feel vindicated. But the fact is that an estrogen-infused makeover, particularly one with such a comedically gifted cast, was a promising idea. Sadly, that's where the inventiveness ended.
Why is Eddie Redmayne wearing a dress
mad babbyman deteced
>>>/redit/
YFW you never cared about the film but wanted to see the ensuing butthurt.
guess how many cats the womanbaby critic has
I'm gonna give a conservative answer of 3.
>Hey Literallywho Movie Critic, give Ghostbusters the best review possible please
>But Mr. Sheklestein, I can't do that, I have something called journalistic integrity
>Lucky for you Literallywho, Sony has authorized me to give a large sum of money to write it
>Eh im still not sure about this
>How about this, we'll also give you gifts, VIP tickets to Hollywood premieres and events, exclusivitiy with our PR celebrity interviews for future projects, AND you'll curry some favor with the Hollywood elite. You wont be a LitterallyWho anymore!
>Sign me up!
Yeah no thanks, good reviews wont trump bad word of mouth. I think the people will speak for this movie, not Sony's damage control squad.
>Manohla Dargis:
Hollywood execs know exactly how to play the brain dead liberal SJWs and get them all worked up.
wasn't it just a decade ago these SJWs and Feminists were fighting AGAINST corporate greed and hollywood CEOs?
Now liberals are being used by Hollywood to pan their shitty movies... and the liberals have no self awareness that they're being used.
Since when are women underrepresented in films? It's not like it's 1950. Why are they so fucking mad at men? I don't get it.
I have never heard a liberal say a bad thing about Apple, Starbucks, or Chipotle.
All money-grubbing corporations that will do anything to extract every last dollar from their mostly liberal, feminist, SJW customers.
Ironic, isn't it?
Saw it at Youtube HQ. The trailer was bad but the movie is a blast, everyone around me laughed hard all the time. Solid 9/10 and definitely the best comedy of this summer.
Fuck off with this shitty copypasta. This is at least the tenth time I've seen it today.
You sound upset. When in bad mood I usually turn on my Playstation Vita and play for countless hours. You should try.
Hahaha what the fuck am I reading
And people here actually say that the Sup Forums cross-posting is a myth...
...
>tfw if the score was low i could push patrician posting and say that plebs don't get it
>tfw if the score was high i can post Sup Forums, Sup Forums, etc blown out
it's gonna be great
My nigga. I never cared about this movie but all the buttblasted neckbeards crying over it is so exciting.
also GB (1984) isn't that good T-bh
>New York Times
come on now
when people post "Sup Forums btfo" we know you're not serious, you're on Sup Forums too, there are no SJW here
What is like to be a turbo-pleb? I can only imagine, considering how patrician my tastes are...
I bet you've never seen any films by Kubrick, Tarkovsky, or Malick. Lmao at your life.
>disposable fun
>rare
That's literally every blockbuster.
>mfw SJWs are gonna demand James' head for not seeing it now
Guys, I'm scared for him.
>Now liberals are being used by Hollywood to pan their shitty movies... and the liberals have no self awareness that they're being used.
All so some fat white male CEO and his white male Executive buddies can get rich...
Men +1000
Women -20
>he considers entry level pleb shit like qbrick, tark and malick patrician even in a meme sense
LOL
>All so some fat white male CEO and his white male Executive buddies can get rich...
I'M GOING TO SEE THIS MOVE 5X JUST TO SHOW THOSE MEN!!!!!!
arrrrgggggwareblewarbleblarg....
Just saw this film today. Solid 8/10. Not the kind of movie for the marvel crowd however.
I wonder
Did they use ANY ghost traps?
movies getting their own version of the video game review scale, huh?
someone posted this on twitter
>ghostbuster review: ."The message of female empowerment is more important then the faulty third act/climax. 8/10"
is this an actual review? I can't find it anywhere, looked on meta and RT.
>he doesn't understand shitposting
LOL
What was the rape scene like? I heard they went too far with it.
>i-i--iwas just shitposting
>i-i--ican't read
CONTINUED
BARREL
OF
LAUGHTER
Whatever result it got, butthurt is hilarious.
>Apple
You don't have a choice when the alternative is even worse.
Android is just so bad.
Can someone please list a bunch of other movies the New York times listed with a score below Ghostbusters?
no u
That comeback is so Sup Forums.
what the fuck? Is he legitimately doing some sort of experiment or is he just torturing a spider?
>within the framework of my narrative, you have been given two choices to make: either everyone is "just paid off" or they aren't. What? You don't want to pick any of those? ha ha, tough luck, kiddo.jpg
WOMEN CAN BE FUNNY TOO: the movie
Hes harvesting its silk on a spool. Spider silk is actually quite versatile and strong, hell they want it for kevlar vests
Some would say that it's Sup Forums as fuck
Ghostbusters 2016 - 74%
Independence Day: Resurgence - 31%
Warcraft - 29%
The Boss - 22%
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies - 42%
Terminator Genisys - 26%
Ted 2 - 46%
Insurgent - 29%
Jupiter Ascending - 26%
Wild Wild West (1999) - 19%
Armageddon (1998) - 39%
The Amazing Spiderman 2 - 53%
Ender's Game - 60%
Man of Steel - 55%
Magic Mike - 80%
I just picked random ones I recognized, all from the New York Times critic that gave this Ghostbusters 74%.
>Man of Steel - 55%
This never ceases to flabbergast me.
Whats astounding is that the sequel is ANOTHER rehash of the first but this time using Zuul and Gozer. I mean its not like they could have used The Boogeyman, Samhain, Cthulhu, or some other weird thing
Before this movie I thought comedians and comedic movies were funny, regardless of the genders.
I see now, I was just being somehow misogynist.
Is this like when they vote the retarded girl as homecoming queen so everyone can feel all warm and fuzzy?
I think I'll be extra misogynistic now.
...
N ah, feminazi's will like it cause "muh gurl power" and nothing else.
There is a reason Soros likes to refer to liberals as "useful idiots"
Imagine being a critic in that screening and having to be all like "damn, Feig, you fuckin' fine, all classy with your purple suit and bowler hat. I would totally buy the bluray, both my site and another for me." when all you really want to do is have another drink in the hotel room. Like seriously imagine having to be a critic and not only sit in that theater while mccarthy flaunts her fat ass on screen, the jumpsuit barely concealing her chin going directly into her neck, and just sit there, scene after scene, quip after quip, while she works it. Not only having to tolerate her disgusting fucking gluteus maximus visage but her haughty attitude as everyone on tumblr tells her she's STILL GOT IT and DAMN, MCCARTHY STARING IN A MOVIE LIKE THAT?? because they're not the ones who have to sit there and watch her strut around in her disgusting beige jumpsuit; never before have you seen a head directly connect into someones neck before, no jaw, two chins, you didn't even know that existed before that day. You've been reviewing nothing but a healthy diet of Marvel flicks and later alleged DC films for your ENTIRE CAREER coming straight out of Buzzfeed. You've never seen anything this fucking disgusting before, and now you swear you can taste the sweat that's trickling down from her chin to her sagging tits as she waves the proton pack suggestively, smugly assured that you are enjoying the opportunity to get paid to sit there and revel in her "voluptuous (for that is what she calls herself)" figure, the figure she worked so hard for at Subway in the previous months. And then the projectionist restarts the screening because it was playing in the wrong format, and you know you could eviscerate every single Hillary voter in this room before the ushers could put you down, but you sit there and endure, because you're a fucking Buzzfeed writer. You're not going to lose your progressive points over this. Just bear it. Hide your receding hairline and bear it.
>tfw you have to wait for the first box office results
>Woman
>Jew
>Journalist
>Author of "Women and Film: A Sight and Sound Reader"
I'm shocked!
>jew york times
LMAO
M
A
O
...
Go fuck yourself
...
>these are the people you share this board with
You underage faggots can't even figure out how internet reviews work.
Those percents are from rottentomatoes, not the times.
Critics won't save this shit, f4 will make star wars $ compared to this shit
Please, please fail. Please.
I said they're from that specific critic who reviewed for the times. I didn't say they represent Times as a whole. Not even sure how you'd search that in a feasible way.
You would think SJWs would give the original more praise considering it had a villain without a discernible gender.
It's funny as fuck how MRA inbred Sup Forums justice warrior are basically religious fanatics/creationists. No matter what, they're always right. Proven wrong? Just backpedal to the next narrative-convenient explanation. All people who reason this way should be sterilized and stripped of basic rights.
yeah...i totally believe this critic isnt placing her agenda in the article and really does listen to other critiques
t. guy who doesn't know how to operate a simple device, or just uses his smartphone like an old cellphone and calls/texts with it
Stay a shill, plebeian.
They never shot Gozer in the groin......
>>I see now, I was just being somehow misogynist.
Exactly shitlord. You now see the folly in not worshipping your womanyst overlords.
That's not Sup Forums, that's Frank Underwood shitposting.
They don't have to.
When it comes to feminists propaganda like this movie, the critics will do it for free.
Its not Sup Forums
I checked and it took them 6 hours just to get one thread capped and all the others were off on page 10 with less than 20 posts. This is pure Sup Forumsedditora cancer
It's great when you see how she trashed the jungle book for being a soulless cash grab reboot yet somehow this is ok
They aimed for the flat top
yeah, saw the word I missed after posting. My bad. The originals also had strong women. The secretary was always grumpy and calling them on their shit, and Venkman's lady-friend was always onto his advances, shutting him down.
>cheerful
>comfy
>fun
this is the ambiguous wordage of a shill.
Wasn't in the sony leaks information about how they were going to do this? Pay critics and shit?
They are removing negative reviews as we speak
spread this shit around, the slider is disabled now
Anybody who isn't a feminist cocksucker could see critics giving this movie a free pass because of muh feminism.
Looks like Sup Forums was right again
it's (((Sony))
what the fuck do you think, sheep