Reviews are in!

...

...

>archive.is/xYmoJ
Eric (((Eisenberg)))
>archive.is/Xrrxm
Sandy (((Schaefer)))

Oy vey!

It's like critics that actually earn a living wage from their jobs are harder to buy off.

Also my favorite part of the article:

Real, 100% non biased reviews = the ones I agree with

Guy must be pretty butthurt about this movie.

...

Totally unlike people who prepared themselves to hate the movie years in advance, were raging since it was announced as an all-female ghostbusters as well making racist jokes all the time.

These will sure give a fair, completely non-biased review.

Remind me of dragon Age 2. Most Reviews called it MEH but it had gays in it!

journalists = shitposters

Most critics liked the movie, get over it. And why do you care so much about this anyway? Is that painful knowing some people don't share your opinion?

Damn, that was surprisingly pretty un-PC for him. I can't imagine him doing a skit like that in the current year.

only one who seems triggered is you

>(((it was funny in our minds)))

...

...

You nigga better justify the 10 bucks sony paid you

Sony GET OUT

Thanks based trips, always with the truth

...

Believe it or not. Back when angry Joe was skinny. He use to be good at his job.

Do people actually watch this man? I'm one minute in and he's annoying as fuck. Who watches this shit?

...

There's only one trustworthy critic these days.

...

The Shills Are In!

M-M-MAXIMUM DAMAGE CONTROL

Underrated post.

>>>/gamergatehq/

I can't wait for when Faraci inevitably dies.

I knew my nigga harambe would pull it through.

6/10 FEMINISM WON

ayy

4.8 on imdb

63/100 on metacritic with like 10 positive reviews and no negative due to embargo, but they still gave it a positive synopsis already

same on RT

Can't wait when this burns.

Anyone with a brain can see this is the case

furiousfanboys.com/2016/07/sony-may-produced-positive-ghostbusters-review-youtube/

Just a ___.

Sony has a history of pulling stuff like this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Manning_(fictitious_writer)

...

I don't think the "positive" reviews were paid (other than that one which clearly is) though there may be some organization to it given the repetition of certain phrases like "laughed all throughout".

I think the majority of the positive reviews are purely ideological. They turned this into a political issue so that those who share their politics would have no choice but to give it a positive review. It's garbage like every other remake, but making it a feminist movie means any self-identified feminists *have* to like it regardless of whether or not it' actually good. Feminism/progressivism is a religion. The movie could be two straight hours of the cast stomping on Paul Feig's nuts while he rubs his nipples and goes "mmmmm muh patriarchy" and they'd still give it glowing reviews, because admitting it has flaws means admitting their ideology has flaws. It's the same way religious people I've known with typically very good taste in movies will swear up and down "God's Not Dead" is a great movie and totally realistic depiction. It's what they believe, it preaches their world view, and it shows them as the victors, it MUST be good.

I wouldn't doubt that it's a little bit of both. Some were paid and some are saying it's good purely because they want to be good progressives.

there are like 20 reviews out yet