Konami threatened a guy for a low review score in MGS3 and threatened to get him fired.When they realized that he was the owner of the site they backed down.So why be surprised?
These kind of things are nothing new.

Meh, in my opinion, I'm not sure anyone really cares xD I think anything on the technical aspect should be revealed, but I don't think anyone has the right to know how long a cutscene is :P They usually prompt you to save before, and you can skip parts of the whole scene (at least you could in every other MGS game), Kojima usually did a pretty decent job at grouping the scenes by the information told, (I'd skip the back history on Russia occasionally). This whole debacle has blown so far out of proportion that it's pretty humorous XD

This one is about the cutscenes, from the IGN UK review:

Konami doesn't want us to talk about is the 'total length of cut-scenes'. Hopefully it won't be bending the rules to far to reveal that they represent about half of the content of the game. That, for some people, will be too much to bear. But in many ways it's a vindication of Kojima's unique interpretation of the videogame medium.

 Additionally, PTOM mentined an interesting fact about the game installation:

 http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=27656

It seems that some people are already downplaying this by talking only about the two concrete issues, instead of looking at the more important issue of Konami trying to dictate what is or isn't in the reviews.
What are you guys, Konami shills? I don't think so, so why defend companies over customers?

I <3 journalists that confuse "to" and "too". Credibility and proof-reading rocks, yo.

"anonymous"

Read, I think.

Actually Konami has put some ridiculous restrictions on reviewers, but we can't confirm what they are. In the July EGM, Metal Gear Solid 4 is in the Reviews Wrap-Up section, which is the section for games that couldn't be reviewed enough to get a score yet and will be reviewed next issue. I'll take a small quote from the four page section they gave to MGS4 in the review wrap-up.

"Metal Gear Solid 4 will hit store shelves shortly after this issue of EGM lands in your hot little hands. And four EGM/1UP editors-Matt Leone, Jeremy Parish, Andrew Pfister and Shane Bettenhausen-have already invested plenty of time in the game. So why don't we have a full review this issue? Simply put: We weren't happy with the limitations Konami wanted to impose on our comments, and rather than publish compromised reviews in the interest of being the first to rate the game, we'd rather wait until next issue, where we can be completely open and thorough with our thoughts." 

This sounds a bit foul on the part of Konami. All four editors go on to give a fair preview of what to expect with both small negatives and many positives for another 3 1/2 pages so what does everyone think the restrictions are? Could it be a certain review percentage that EGM has no intention of giving? Is it the install time and cut scene length as previously mentioned?

too many 'to's and 'too's in that sentence. It was too difficult to find the 'too' to which you were referring to. Was it a 'to' with too many 'o's? or perhaps a 'too' with too few? To some people, 'too' and 'to' is just too difficult to understand. The two 'to's are too tricky to some, without two, too, and too changing two to three.

Well, EGM, which I just read, definitely didn't review the game because of Konami's limitations. They instead have a 4-page "discussion" in their review section that seems to indicate the review score will be good anyway.

Stupid limitations on reviews from Konami, but EGM didn't give in and will wait until next issue to give a score.

Doesn't matter, though...the game is awesome =)