Now that GB has failed at the box office, reviewers who hail the film as a step forward in the battle against the racism against women are saying its due to manchildren and racists not seeing the movie.
>>81270567
I haven't seen either of them
I have seen plenty of "1 post by this ID" threads though and this will be one, so saged.
>>81270567
[citations wanted]
How long until we get petitions to force movie reviewers to raise their rating, because it deserves at least a 90% approval rating.
>>81270567
Camacho is based
>>81270567
I don't hate movie so much as I don't give a shit. Why would I waste the time, energy and money to go see something that looks utterly retarded?
>>81270567
Terry Crews is actually funny
>>81270567
the movie on the left is satire of our american society that worships stupidity. before joe winds up in the future, crews was considered the smartest man in america. the movie on the right is a serious attempt at rebooting a franchise and went to the serious extreme of "you go girl" culture mixed in because girls needs their "more representation". apples and oranges comparison. OP can eat shit.
>>81270567
Because the left one is retarded.
What.
Idocracy IS propaganda.
Every other fucking week some retard cites the film as "hurr hurr guess it's turning more and more into a documentary!"
>>81270567
Jesus christ? What moer do they want? Force everyone to see their shitty movie? wtf.
Reboots sucks, they usually fall flat. Why didnt they just make a new god damn movie fucking useless cunts
>>81270567
>Winston was just a guy who happened to be black
>Patty's entire character is built around the fact that she's a black woman, abusing black female stereotypes to get laughs
I feel like one of these is regressive
>>81270567
You talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded.
>>81274251
The funny thing is that it's actually eugenics propaganda.
"women"
>>81274381
>make all-female Ghostbusters because it's "progressive"
>half of the cast are walking stereotypes
