The movie Carrie altered the character from the book, who was as much a brutal abuser as she was a religious wacko. Hollywood producers don't just shrug and say "Well, it was in the book, so we HAVE to make her a religious wacko." They played up those elements in the movie, and they had every right to remove them if they wanted. They made the movie, they can't go crying "But it was in the book!" when they made the conscious decision to retain those elements while removing others (the newspaper accounts and the post-fire investigation, for example, are simply eliminated, as are many character moments).
Reds was as described--I don't see why this is groupthink. Communism was lionized in that movie, and it was a Hollywood movie. Where's the groupthink?
The Footloose preacher is also as described--he's a cliched character who "outlaws dancing". That's not groupthink, that's the way it is in the movie. An "awww, he's really a nice guy" add-on explaining his behavior doesn't change the behavior. Do people think of that character as a hero or a slobbering cliche of a preacher?
The person quoted doesn't say fighting the system is bad; he merely points out that the system, and big business, are ALWAYS shown as evil. That's a good or bad thing, but it's true--are 99% of movies about how GOOD the US system is?