All I care about is the truth.
IF the UGO review was real, I would just stay quiet,
grit my teeth and deal with it. I have a thick skin
and can do that. I might get a little mopey, but life
goes on.
BUT -- the review is a lie. A fabrication. It made the
mistake of mentioning ideas that were abandoned,
scenes that were NEVER shot, and dialogue that was cut
from the script over a year ago. Therefore, the review
was pulled from the site. Not for "damage control"
reasons as some skeptics and conspiracy theorists
have claimed, but because it was proven untrue. The
person who wrote it read the same extremely outdated
draft that Moriarty did, and falsely submitted it as a
review of a rough cut.
Now ask yourself, what kind of person would go out of
their way to submit a false review, other than
someone who wants to intentionally hurt the film? The
type of person who wants you guys to have doubts and
start fighting with each other? Is this the type of
person you want to listen to?
If a news site like CNN or NYTimes published a film
review, but later discovered the critic never actually
saw the movie, you can bet they'd pull it from their
site. Not because of conspiracy reasons, or fear of
studio reprisal, but because a reputable news site
cares about the truth, and wouldn't want a false
review or a shady critic to tarnish their reputation.
Again, if that review was true, I'd stay quiet, or
maybe tell people to sit tight because it's a rough
cut, then let the film speak for itself when it's
released. But I only feel like saying something
because that review was a lie, and people deserve to
know that.
P.S.
If you still don't believe me, then watch the trailer
and count the action beats. I think you'll find more
than just two (as both reviews have claimed)...and
there are still more to come.
. 
