APOLOGIZE
The NYT review of "Ghostbusters": It's "a lot of enjoyable, disposable fun"
https://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.
>>71861456
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.
>>71861499
>The scores are inflated in fear of sjw backlash
This it it exactly. Critically bashing this movie at this point is practically career suicide.
>>71861499
Or maybe the movie is barely above mediocrity and getting rated as 6/10. Either ways it's irrelevant.
>>71861220
reviews aren't going to make me spend money to watch this.
>>71861560
They don't need your money. They need the normie hordes. And normies listen to critics religiously.
>>71861379
>>71861393
/v/ get out
>>71861673
Josh pls
>>71861622
get real.
>>71861807
Do you really think they are targeting the /tv/-neet audience?
>>71861220
>The New York Slimes
>>71861220
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
>>71861831
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
>>71861622
Its true they do. The reason BvS bombed was because the critics gave it negativity.
>>71861220
>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.
>>71861456
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
>>71861542
How is barely above mediocrity a 6/10? Maybe you people should spend more thought on your rating scales.
>>71862251
TURN OFF YOUR BRAIN FOR TWO HOURS
"Disposable" means shit.
>>71862592
Kill yourself.
>>71863089
Because 50% is middle of the road, aka average or mediocre
How fucking dumb are you?
>>71863499
That would imply that there is an equal amount of quality art and generic shit. No wonder pleb things are typically so highly rated.
>>71861220
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.
>>71863675
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.
>>71863499
uhm no. 50% is fucking failing hard. you must have gone to high school well into your twenties.
