Jim Caviezel's Sound Of Freedom beats opening figures of Indiana Jones

[Loiosh]

Concession accepted.

Pretty sad, kind of reflection of your dumpster fire leaders.

 

[skold]

It's isn't conservatives pushing gender affirmation care or drag queen story time with demented perverts, that's on you guys.

And what murders are you referring to?

Edit: Don't ignore the Qanon music you mentioned a while back. I'd still like to see Trump walking out to it.

Proportionally, there are far more right wing kiddie diddlers than drag queen ones. So really, we should be keeping kids away from conservatives.

 

[Mack Yancy]

Proportionally, there are far more right wing kiddie diddlers than drag queen ones. So really, we should be keeping kids away from conservatives.

Thats a stat and @Super_Nintendo doesn't like stats.

 

[AWilder]

IDK who posted it but i recall someone posting that this would happen.

 

[nicapica]

IDK who posted it but i recall someone posting that this would happen.

I totally believe the victims. Tim Ballard has a real sleazy vibe. Wouldn’t be shocked if it goes deeper.

 

[tenniswhiz]

It’s on Amazon Prime now. I watched it.
I didn’t find anything political about it.
It was a decent movie, worth watching.

 

[Roop Holstry]

As if this morning on Rotten Tomatoes.

Critics: 76
Audience: 99

Update:

critics: 57
audience: 99


Predictable. You can tell some of the critics made up their mind before even watching it.

 

[Loiosh]

I saw that this is on Prime and I tried to force myself to watch it (I really like Caviezel) but I just couldn't do it.

 

[Helden]

Update:

critics: 57
audience: 99


Predictable. You can tell some of the critics made up their mind before even watching it.

Its more than likely the "audience" didn't watch it, but spammed it with 5 star because of their own partisan political biases. It happens all the time:

We not actually going to pretend "God is not dead" was some great movie, are we?
Here are other examples of the same thing, where conservatives rush out to spam 5 star reviews for their political side

The only people watching those movies, are those who were going to give it 5-star rating regardless of whether they are good or not.

Spoiler

Best movie to come out in the last 3 years??? Yeah dont think so "ray s"

 

[jefferz]

Its more than likely the "audience" didn't watch it, but spammed it with 5 star because of their own partisan political biases. It happens all the time:

We not actually going to pretend "God is not dead" was some great movie, are we?
Here are other examples of the same thing, where conservatives rush out to spam 5 star reviews for their political side

The only people watching those movies, are those who were going to give it 5-star rating regardless of whether they are good or not.

Spoiler

Best movie to come out in the last 3 years??? Yeah dont think so "ray s"

Other movies that have close to the same audience score are Hang Em High (73%), Fists of Fury (73%), and Batman Returns (73%).
There's no way people put God's Not Dead above those movies.

 

[Roop Holstry]

Its more than likely the "audience" didn't watch it, but spammed it with 5 star because of their own partisan political biases. It happens all the time:

We not actually going to pretend "God is not dead" was some great movie, are we?
Here are other examples of the same thing, where conservatives rush out to spam 5 star reviews for their political side

The only people watching those movies, are those who were going to give it 5-star rating regardless of whether they are good or not.

Spoiler

Best movie to come out in the last 3 years??? Yeah dont think so "ray s"

There’s definitely bias on both sides of the political spectrum. I made my opinion based on a lot of the reviews starting off political. It’s really dumb how people can be so partisan in their movie review

 

[Mr Holmes]

I saw that this is on Prime and I tried to force myself to watch it (I really like Caviezel) but I just couldn't do it.

I saw on prime too. It wasn't that bad, its just a low budget movie with a predictable ending. 6.9 out of 10.

 

[Madmick]

I'm suggesting a bunch of the people acting like they've never heard of the movement are fucking liars downplaying how many deluded idiots on the right believe that kind of shit.

I don't give 2 shits about you or what you believe, but the reality is that you are dead wrong.

A Quarter of Republicans Believe Central Views of QAnon Conspiracy Movement

https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...ve-central-views-of-qanon-conspiracy-movement

This is one of those stupid, disingenuous attempts by journalists to manufacture headlines that satisfy their personal, partisan agenda.

As you can see, 9% of Democrats and 14% of Independents agree with those "core tenets" of QAnon. What are these "core tenets", you wonder? Do these themselves construe conspiracy theories? Let's take a look.

Measuring QAnon Beliefs
To attempt to understand both the scope and the makeup of the QAnon movement, PRRI fielded a set of three questions in four different surveys over the course of 2021, measuring agreement or disagreement (completely agree, mostly agree, mostly disagree, or completely disagree) with foundational QAnon beliefs:[3]

1. The government, media, and financial worlds in the U.S. are controlled by a group of Satan-worshipping pedophiles who run a global child sex-trafficking operation.
2. There is a storm coming soon that will sweep away the elites in power and restore the rightful leaders.
3. Because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.

As you can see, they only offer four possible response engagements, and none is neutral. #1 clearly conforms to what anyone would accept as a conspiracy theory, and that's about the only trending weirdness I've noticed in recent years that I would associate with this mostly obscure, irrelevant QAnon story that has been deliberately blown out of proportion by a largely leftist media.

But #2 and #3? They have nothing to do with conspiracy theories. #2 is so impossibly vague that responses to it offer no insight at all into what someone might feel about QAnon or Pizzagate. There's no correlation there whatsoever. It's a stupid, terribly constructed poll.

If you had the capacity to step outside your confirmation bias, for a moment, you would have seen that before posting this. You're gullible.

 

[Madmick]

Its more than likely the "audience" didn't watch it, but spammed it with 5 star because of their own partisan political biases. It happens all the time:

We not actually going to pretend "God is not dead" was some great movie, are we?
Here are other examples of the same thing, where conservatives rush out to spam 5 star reviews for their political side

The only people watching those movies, are those who were going to give it 5-star rating regardless of whether they are good or not.

Spoiler

Best movie to come out in the last 3 years??? Yeah dont think so "ray s"

It's more likely that the only people who choose to watch those films are more likely to like them. I must say I find it odd that you appear to instinctually trust the "critics" more than the people. You mean the controlled, purchased, collective opinion of the major movie studios and media companies? If there is any group that is artificially partisan as a measured vote, it's the critics, not the people. RottenTomatoes and Metacritic have been shit for a solid decade. As soon as the mainstream truly discovered them, they became worthless, because those companies took powerful measures to artificially influence the numbers in their interest. This has been documented ad nauseum online. I miss so much when they were a godsend in the 00's.

Additionally, over the past decade, we've seen this "review bombing" nonsense exposed time and again. Remember when they did it with the second and third recent Star Wars movies? Remember when they did it with Captain Marvel? Remember when they did it with the all-female Ghostbusters remake? Peter Pan and Wendy? They told you those movies were actually great movies, and only a bunch of incels were "spamming" negative reviews without actually watching the movie.

Tell me, now that society has had a handful of years to chew on those movies, and gain a bit of distance...how'd that narrative hold up? How well have those movies stood such a modest test of time? How well regarded are they?

And you'd trust the critics. LOL.

 

[Spounman]

I watched it yesterday. It's sad and Jim Caviezel is a good actor.

 

[Helden]

more likely that the only people who choose to watch those films are more likely to like them. I must say I find it odd that you appear to instinctually trust the "critics" more than the people. You mean the controlled, purchased, collective opinion of the major movie studios and media companies? If there is any group that is artificially partisan as a measured vote, it's the critics, not the people. RottenTomatoes and Metacritic have been shit for a solid decad

I trust the critics more because regular people are dumbasses

 

[CatchnShoot]

I trust the critics more because regular people are dumbasses

C'mon now, you've got one of the worst actors eva as your Av...

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

I trust the critics more because regular people are dumbasses

It’s just part of your authoritarian daddy complex.

 

[Helden]

C'mon now, you've got one of the worst actors eva as your Av...

Yeah, thats the joke

 

[Madmick]

I trust the critics more because regular people are dumbasses

You sort of exemplify your own opinion of "regular people" when you say this...because only someone deeply ignorant and gullible would value the opinion of a group that has become demonstrably co-opted by the wealthiest media corporations.

FYI, RT and MC began adding critics years ago to "diversify" the critics they counted who had no legitimate critical experience to validate their esteem as "critics" at all. This was to satisfy the partisan criticisms of those who largely subscribe to philosophies like CRT. No publication pedigree, no cinema studies degree, no apprenticeship writing under a senior critic at a major journalistic body, no work history in the film industry, no work history on shared projects with film historians or other experts, no experience traveling to film festivals or to other venues interviewing and interacting with the people who actually make films. Nothing but an internet blog where they wrote personal reviews like an open personal diary.

In other words, many of the people counted on those sites as critics are just dumbass regular people. The only difference is they're far more likely to be receiving donations to say something nice about Disney's latest megaproject.