APOLOGIZE

APOLOGIZE

The NYT review of "Ghostbusters": It's "a lot of enjoyable, disposable fun"

twitter.com/nytimes/status/752342835630923776

...

"fun" has a very wide meaning

fun is a meaningless buzzword

It's definitely disposable.

Eh, the reviews seem alright to me. The majority of people admit it's nowhere near the original's level of quality and even a lot of positive reviews say that it's flawed, has bad CGI, has misses in its comedy, etc.

Overall score is in the 60 range, which seems about right.

Nothing worth getting triggered over.

The scores are inflated in fear of sjw backlash, that, and the female reviewers and biased reviewers are rating it purposefully higher to manipulate the perception of how good the film is.

Take any score and decrease it by 2 points, and that's what the reviewer really thinks of it.

6/10=4/10

The film is confirmed shit.

das raycis

>The scores are inflated in fear of sjw backlash
This it it exactly. Critically bashing this movie at this point is practically career suicide.

Or maybe the movie is barely above mediocrity and getting rated as 6/10. Either ways it's irrelevant.

reviews aren't going to make me spend money to watch this.

They don't need your money. They need the normie hordes. And normies listen to critics religiously.

Sup Forums get out

Josh pls

get real.

Do you really think they are targeting the Sup Forums-neet audience?

>The New York Slimes

...

I agree. It looks really fun with Hemsworth's interaction with the women and how the women meet as an origin story.

I do really want to see this and judge it as a feature and not just by watching clips from trailers.

manchildren on suicide watch

Still better than BvS. DCkeks BTFO

Id imagine most here are nerds who flock to the newest capeshit in herds. This film should fit into that, but it doesn't because the studio had an agenda before the actual premise of the film.

if they did a sequel or an actual reboot, I got no doubt it would do much better in tickets

Its true they do. The reason BvS bombed was because the critics gave it negativity.

>It's "a lot of enjoyable, disposable fun"

How is that a good review?

After the shitstorm that the trailers created, journofluids paid by Sony went on full damage control and targeted men.
It somehow became a feminist movie following that.
Notice that ALL the reviews by women are positive. It's like they feel a duty towards making the movie seem good.

The original wasn't even that good.

>nytimes
>literally gotta appeal to flyover state retards
>based village voice
>its boston parading as nyc
>the reviewer gave serious consideration to it being shit on purpose

How is barely above mediocrity a 6/10? Maybe you people should spend more thought on your rating scales.

TURN OFF YOUR BRAIN FOR TWO HOURS

"Disposable" means shit.

Kill yourself.

Because 50% is middle of the road, aka average or mediocre

How fucking dumb are you?

That would imply that there is an equal amount of quality art and generic shit. No wonder pleb things are typically so highly rated.

Do the characters have any depth? From the trailer it seems that they're just the Fat One, the Nerdy One, the Lesbian One and the Black One.

I always see characters in films like this regardless of how much "depth" they have. Everything can fit into a category.

I've grown to hate the entertainment industry a lot.

Dont go see the new ghostbusters.