Are there reviewers out there who enjoyed BvS, MoS and Suicide Squad?

Are there reviewers out there who enjoyed BvS, MoS and Suicide Squad?

I really enjoyed these films but it seems like they were hated by a lot of reviewers. Looking for reviewers that have likeminded taste to me

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=26vgMGS3INA
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/globalism
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Angryjoe likes MoS, parts of BvS and he praised Suicide Squad
youtube.com/watch?v=26vgMGS3INA

I personally loved Suicide Squad to bits. Way better than BvS

I'll need to see what else he recommends. Really just looking for a reviewer that shares my taste so I can kinda trust if they'll recommend films I liked

Don't worry brother, you won't need review shills when you've got your contrarian circle jerks on Sup Forums!

Praise Snyder!

Nah don't be a fag man, I'm just looking for a reviewer that shares my taste. Call me contrarian or whatever, but I enjoyed these films.

same user.

There aren't many professional critics who feel that way because they're primarily nu males, feminists, and SJW"s who get triggered by Snyder's vision, but Armond White gave all three films positive reviews.

MoS was better than BvS but BvS was by no means bad
Suicide Squad was like a darker GotG imo. Though the characters were more human

>but Armond White gave all three films positive reviews
Can he be trusted or is he just contrarian?

Stop looking for that.

It's a shitty road to go down that'll only lead to disappointment and confusion when you don't agree with them over something.

Especially considering liking BvS is objectively wrong on every level.

duh

He's a bona fide patrician.

So what do you do for movie recommendations? Do you refuse to watch something unless it's got a 70% on RT or something?

At one point I manned the fuck up and started watching everything, as I'm not a huge pussy.

>objectively wrong
>doesn't know what the word "objective" means.

So you just enjoy having your time wasted? What a fucking idiot.

I was thinking about making an AltRight Reviews site. And I definitely enjoyed all three.

I only need like 500.000 pageviews a month to be a RT reviewer.

Sounds easy

Life is a waste of time then you die.

stormfront already exists though

Deep.

>AltRight
>Stormfront

Lol? Why do left fags do this? It's like they can't argue a point so they either reduce it to a singular point they can make fun of, or use false equivalence to achieve the same. By that merit, I could say any leftist is akin to a dirty hippy.

I'm not a reviewer but I liked BvS even though I feel it squandered its potential a lot.

I fucking hated everything about Suicide Squad. Literally everything. The Doom 3 lightning, the shit actors, the rape me lore and fuck it was so god damn bad.

>Liberals lack argumentative skills and can only either make fun of things or try to equate feelings with evidence
In other news, water is wet

and then who drowned a guy in a bar because he was mean

Armond White, but he's a critic

>BvS was by no means bad
Im sorry that you are retarded,

>i'm altright
>but I'm not racist tho

then you're not altright. You're just a cunt.

Another damage control thread

yes liking bad direction and shitty scripts is wrong.
Do you have a nice energetic voice that is not too energetic?

>If you are not a traditional conservative you are racist
>if you don't agree with me you are racist

Most reviewers don't exclusively watch comic book movies and the occasional summer blockbuster, that tends to lead to having actual standards.

the "altright" is literally built upon racists though. So I'm not sure what what you're trying to argue here. That you're altaltright?

>the "altright" is literally built upon racists though
Source this.

>Opposition to globalism
>This is racist

Shut up user

Sounds like you get all your opinions from liberal media user. Funny how liberals call anyone that doesn't agree with their world view either "racist", "ignorant" or "uninformed", when ironically, they're the most racist, ignorant and uninformed of the political spectrum.

>opposition to globalism

The chances you have a functional definition of globalism is just about zero if you're opposed to it and consider yourself conservative.

give me your definition of globalism

Show your working here, because I'm definitely sure you have no idea what you're talking about.

Globalism is the practice of corporate entities establishing production where labor is profoundly cheap, taking steps to ensure labor remains profoundly cheap in those areas, and shipping the products of said areas halfway around the world to first world consumers.

You, most likely, have some muddled definition of multiculturalism as your concept of globalism.

keeping labor cheap often involves opening up borders and flooding the marker with new labor so multiculturalism is a part of it

>Using a definition from the 1930s
Worst kind of person to argue with.

Modern day definition of Globalism.

>Globalism is the belief the process of international integration arising from the interchange of world views, products, ideas, and other aspects of culture

You utter fag.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/globalism

>a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence
Yes. I can see why the conservative right would be objecting to that.

Literally link where you got that, because that's bullshit.

So that's a yes to your concept of "globalism" being a muddled definition of multiculturalism. And being opposed to multiculturalism, somehow, isn't fundamentally racist.

If labor was cheap everywhere, then there would no longer be any way to profit from globalism.

As globalism requires a large contingent of consumers with a large amount of disposable income in order to ensure high profit yields.

>So that's a yes to your concept of "globalism" being a muddled definition of multiculturalism. And being opposed to multiculturalism, somehow, isn't fundamentally racist.
That's a point you made and that I don't agree with. Globalism, as you described it, is not how the word is used in the modern day. You're arguing this point because you're incapable of arguing the point as it stands.
>And being opposed to multiculturalism, somehow, isn't fundamentally racist.
Yes, being opposed to multiculturalism isn't racist. Show your working here.

Multiculturalism, in practice, is a codename for "anti-white", which is itself very racist

So its doublethink. Great.

Your definition of "globalism" is wrong. What double think?

>If labor was cheap everywhere, then there would no longer be any way to profit from globalism.
opening up borders does not make labor cheap everywhere. it directs people from poor countries to countries were the businesses are.

Your definition of globalism is functionally identical to multiculturalism. Since there is no good reason to have two terms that mean the exact same thing, it stands to reason your concept of globalism was created in attempt to muddle the concept of globalization with multiculturalism in order to obfuscate the actual meaning of globalization to ensure people remain confused and to prevent corporate entities from being seen as parasitic in nature.

The doublethink comes into play in the sense that being opposed to multiculturalism can only manifest by attempting to claim one (read: your) race/culture is superior to others thus must be kept separate from others. There is literally no way to argue this isn't racist.

But enough from me, why not espouse some of your views? If you even have them? As all you've done so far is weakly attempt to claim other views are wrong.

and putting poor people where the businesses are (read: wealthy regions) would reduce the wealth of said region and increase the wealth of said people. This is the opposite of what globalism actually is. As globalism is all about ensuring the wealthy regions stay wealthy and the poor regions stay poor.

>The doublethink comes into play in the sense that being opposed to multiculturalism can only manifest by attempting to claim one (read: your) race/culture is superior to others thus must be kept separate from others
No.

That is a complete crap, and you know it. You're trying to bring race in to what is functionally an opposition to mass immigration, completely ignoring the financial ramifications of doing so, because seemingly that's the only way you can win your argument. Globalism is the belief that international integration can occur with the interchange of world views from other cultures, completely ignoring that the way most western countries work doesn't take notice of race or gender. This has no bearing on whether or not one specific race is "superior" to the other. Would Japan all of a sudden be a better country with mass American immigration? Unlikely. Would China all of a sudden be a better country with mass American immigration? Highly unlikely. This is because the way their country works isn't dependent on race or gender.

You absolute fucking retard.

>region and increase the wealth of said people
no, it would give toy cheap labor and more consumers.The original people would take a financial hit but you don't care about the original people, only the numbers and unless you are selling golden buttplugs than the original people will still be buying your product even if they are overall poorer than they used to be

>its not about race!
>all examples are entirely about race

... I don't know what I was expecting. It really is doublethink.

If it helps you understand my position, I'm apolitical.

The problem with your understanding of globalism is nothing is produced locally, anywhere.

>It's all about race!
>Detail an explanation saying that race isn't a driving factor but what IS a driving factor is the financial aspect
>I-it's all about race!

Just fuck off, retard.

>If it helps you understand my position, I'm apolitical.
You argue like a libcuck m8

>This is because the way their country works isn't dependent on race or gender.
its dependent on culture and culture is often dictated by the ruling race,age and gender.That is why in some parts of africa people can't start a bread shop because their shitty uncle takes 90% of the product for the rest of the extended family
>doesn't take notice of race or gender.
there are literally quotas.BBC even has race based hiring policy

if nothing is ever produced locally in any country than where does all the stuff come from? also you are wrong as numerous farms,construction companies, etc show

>>This is because the way their country works isn't dependent on race or gender.
>its dependent on culture and culture is often dictated by the ruling race,age and gender.That is why in some parts of africa people can't start a bread shop because their shitty uncle takes 90% of the product for the rest of the extended family
And again, what would injecting another culture do other than disrupt this?
>>doesn't take notice of race or gender.
>there are literally quotas.BBC even has race based hiring policy
...which is why backing a anti-globalism candidates/parties is the way to move past this.

>That is why in some parts of africa people can't start a bread shop because their shitty uncle takes 90% of the product for the rest of the extended family

Yeah, we should DEFINITELY invade them and tell them they're living wrong. White culture = best culture.

Forbes's reviews like it.

>And again, what would injecting another culture do other than disrupt this?
short tearm profits are too good to ignore, especially if your company has no loyalty to a country and can simply move on to the next one till the chaos settles down

How'd they feel about MoS and BvS?

Why are you putting words in my mouth?

Because you're a retard.

...

All good. Just google their reviews.
Certainly my position.