Saw it. (No spoilers except the one thing tagged below.) Fun, likable, but probably not going to be the classic the original is. This is a quasi-re-imagining, not a reboot or a sequel. Someone said this is Earth-2 Ghostbusters. That's about right. Doesn't feel as paranormal as the original. The opening sequence--totally different from but reminiscent of the library scene in the original--is genuinely scary, and I wish more of the movie was like it. You'll smile when you hear the original theme start up. Kate McKinnon is unexpectedly fun to watch. Not everything she says or does is funny, but almost all of it is unpredictable. And she has a great bad-ass sequence late in the film that was for me the highlight of the movie's action bits. 5 of the surviving original cast have cameos; Harold Ramis also gets an appearance. For the most part, these cameos are fan service that don't add much to the film. Several reviewers have stated this film is better in the parts where they're *not* trying to evoke the original, and I agree. Two emotional threads in the film (the relationship between McCarthy and Wiig's characters, and the Ghostbusters being regarded as frauds) should have been more strongly developed, so their resolutions had more impact. Much has been made of Chris Hemsworth as the receptionist, a feminist flip-side to the eye candy roles frequently played by women, but I didn't find him or the character particularly amusing. It doesn't help that he's a moron, which I usually don't like as characters. Make sure to stay til the end of the credits, where a single word portends a sequel: Serviceable summer entertainment, and, if you have a Ghostbusters itch, this'll probably scratch it adequately. 6.5/10
That's about what I'm expecting. The next few weeks are crowded, movie-wise, but I hope to fit this in.
Look, I just don't write nitpicky reviews. I find them tedious. If a movie entertains, and you leave the theater happy, the film did its job, and the nitpicky shit can fall by the wayside. Conversely, if a film is actively bad, like Jem, or ID4:R, it'll punch you in the face and balls, and you won't NEED to nitpick it, it'll be right out there where you can't miss it. I save HOW good or bad for my 1-10 score.
I didn't agree with him, but at least he was respectful, and not catty like some reviewers I've seen.
You really are too much! So convinced it can't be any good, now Dicky's review can only be about saving face?
I liked it. It was fun. Kept me entertained for two hours. Had some nice special effects eye candy. Kate McKinnon was funny.
No, almost all the audience reviews I've listen to on places like youtube have the general consensus that it's not terribly bad, but not stunningly good (not unlike Paladin's review above actually). Mediocre is a word that has been used a lot. When I look at all those reviews and then look at Dicky's behaviour, you can see he was determined to like it come what may. Every shred of news bout it, thread bumped! Every poster released - perfect! Every song released - wonderful! Every piece of merchandise - fantastic! Every casting choice - top notch! Any remote level of criticism - totally unfounded and from backwards haters. Movie comes out - surprise, surprise, we get get a review that is entire "loved it, it was perfect"!! There are three types of people that existed in the build up of the movie. Those who were objective. Those who were determined to hate it at all costs and are still saying it's the worst thing of all time even now, and finally those who thought that were waving the flag for women or the franchise and therefore had to see this be successful come what may in an effort to fight the haters. No prizes for guessing which one Dicky was. If he had occasionally spoken of things about the new movie that he wasn't so sure of, while approving of what he liked, I would have given him the benefit of the doubt even if he ultimately posted a glowing review. But the constantly gushing over the movie before he'd even seen it, the insulting of anyone with any remote level of criticism and the posting of call out threads in the Red Room, shows he was determined to like this at all costs even before he'd seen it. That is unless you think he was going to sheepishly come on here afterwards and say "sorry guys, you were right to be cautious, it was okay but it had problems" after telling the rest of us that we were a bunch of cunts.
Pretty sure I would have gotten a warning for that in Media Central....*checks control panel for warnings* yeah, nope. Now, if you followed along with my blog, I gave the finger and an eyeroll to the whole SJW vs MRA aspect to it. I even alluded to it in my review. I made no bones about that I want the GB franchise to be successful, flat out said so in those words, and make no apologies for that. Why should I? I don't want any movie to fail, that's a petty ugly way to be. The whole "Twilight", thing perplexed me, but I wished no ill will upon it. All right, I got a little giggle when ID4:Resurgence face-planted, because it baffles me that Roland Emmerich keeps getting work, and he keeps dusting himself off, and thinks he's Speilberg. It's like a Bugs Bunny cartoon, its strangely endearing. There's no hate there. Pretty sure I posted most of them without comment except for the Japanese one. Not true. I dug "good girls", liked the Fallout Boy remix okay, thought the Walk The Moon cover was average and playing it safe, and said so at the time, and I didn't bother posting the G-Eazy and Zayn tracks, cuz they felt like album filler, which the soundtracks of GB1 and GB2 had too. I posted the whole track list without comment. The DMX, Debarge, Muddy Magnolias, and original Ray Parker song were/are already available, so they needed no comment, and the rest hadn't been released yet. I did love the score, others have praised it, I'm not a lone nut on that. You didn't like it? Oh well. Mmmm...nope. Glad it all exists though. The main cast? Yeah, for me, they nailed it. Sorry, I won't lie about that. I'v heard your ideas on casting, and don't think they would have worked as well. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, and never once told you otherwise. Sorry, you're flat out making stuff up now. You're entitled to opinions, not falsehoods. My rep of Paladin's review, and response to the Boogie review alone give lie to this claim. Anyway, it's fascinating that you get so bent out of joint about this. At any point along the way, you could have avoided this thread, or put me on ignore, and thus blanked it out of existence entirely. I mean, if it was bothering you that badly. I just wanted to keep a record of this film from concept to release. Like the Star Wars and Superman threads. If I was the only one posting in it, I wouldn't have cared, frankly. That's the part you seem to keep losing your shit over "he kept bumping it!! He kept bumping it!!". Yeah, so? Why give a fuck? If gul had been the only one to give a shit, then it would have been for gul. If he didn't give a shit, it would have been for me. So what? As it was, gul, Paladin, Shooter, and Anna seemed to care. All right, good, glad to have 'em aboard. And you certainly seemed to care. Fine and dandy. You seemed to think you were some thorn in my side. If it was to make me stop, it failed miserably, and was always going to. If it was to hinder my progress, it failed miserably, and was always going to. If it was to make me look foolish to boost your ego, do your worst, internet power games are lame. I used to take part in them, it got old, and as I've aged, I see how pointless it is. This thread was only for my enjoyment, nothing more. If that got under your skin, that's really fucking weird, and all on you. Anyway, it was a success. The journey towards this film both here and on my blog was a blast. If it had been a 2 star film, I got my fun out of it anyway. Long live Ghostbusters, and may the franchise continue. If it doesn't, I now live in a word with three Ghostbusters films instead of two. That's awesome. Ain't nothing bad about that.
Just saw it. It was... okay. My biggest problem was the main cast. I just didn't like the characters very much. I found them mostly irritating and unfunny, with the exception of Kristen Wiig. She seemed to get that they were in an actual movie instead of just a short SNL bit. It was nice to see her as a heroine, rather than as one of her more annoying SNL characters (like Gilly). McCarthy was still obnoxious (although not as bad as in Bridesmaids and The Heat), Leslie Jones was loud, and Kate McKinnon was eccentric in a bizarre and not charming way. And she got stuck with all the excessive technobabble. And I should mention that I am probably one of the few people that didn't like Bridesmaids. I actually quit watching half way thru. Not really into bathroom humor. This has nothing to do with them being women. I think they are all great on SNL and very funny in shorter skits. But like many movies starring SNL actors, the same jokes over and over again start to get played out over a 2 hour movie. It felt like much of the movie focused on the Hemsworth character. Many of the jokes in the film were about how hunky he was or how dumb he was. It was funny at first but then started to drag on. I actually did like the ending. The characters finally came together as a team to fight off the ghost invasion. They are unlikely heroes and underdogs and I did start to root for them in the end but I think they could have just toned the characters down a bit before then. It didn't seem like they cared much about saving the city, as they were mostly just caught up in their own self interests. At least Wiig had a funny scene trying to warn everyone else in the city that something big was about to go down, with a nice call back to the scene where Rick Moranis is banging on the windows of the restaurant. They were all mostly hyper exaggerated versions of the original characters. McCarthy is excited about the paranormal like Ray. McKinnon is the nerdy one like Egon. Leslie Jones is the everyman like Winston. And Wiig had the movie's central character arc like Bill Murray in the original... although their personalities and character arcs are very different. I honestly just found the original characters more charming and more likeable. And I felt like there was more of a connection not just between the characters but also with the City itself. New York really came alive in that movie. But I guess the big question is why is this movie even necessary? (Yes of course to make the studio money but besides that...) In my opinion reboots fall into a few categories. Sometimes you want to take another stab at a property that just didn't work the first time around. Like Dredd. Or maybe the property was successful in the past and you want to put a new spin on it. Like Batman Begins or the Star Trek reboot. But then you have reboots that try to remake a beloved classic. That seems like a losing battle. You'll never be as good as the original. Why try to remake something scene for scene when the original is still available to watch anytime? This was the failure of Star Trek Into Darkness. And it's also the same problem with Ghostbusters (although nothing as blatant as the 'Khaaaaan!' moment) It sticks fairly close to the original without really adding much except to act as a launching pad for another cinematic universe. I don't see myself ever watching this again. And I don't think I'll be watching the sequels or spinoffs. I was a fan of the original movies and the cartoon but I think I'm pretty much done with it at this point. It could be a good movie for kids though. They probably wouldn't get the original Ghostbusters. They wouldn't get the jokes and they'd find the special effects jarring and awful. So this movie is good for capturing a new generation of fans. I saw a little girl dancing in the theatre to the end credits and that was kind of sweet. This is really for them and I have no problem with that. But I don't think there is much here for older fans. Everything this movie does was already done better once before. As an aside, I just noticed that Donald Trump makes a cameo in the music video for Bobby Brown's 'On Our Own' (the theme song for Ghostbusters 2)!
Ivan Reitman is playing his cards close to the vest on details, but says the thing he's working on would bridge the two universes.
Tried to see it this weekend, but was out voted by the rest of the family, so we saw Finding Dory instead. That was... okay, but I suspect I'd have enjoyed Ghostbusters more. With the crowded slate of upcoming movies, I probably have now missed my Ghostbusters window. But on the plus side, this thread kept me informed and entertained!
I went against my better judgement and saw it. It was as horrible as the trailers made it out to be. The cameos were stupid and useless. Cristian Wiig's character was the only worthwhile character. Chris Hemsworth's character, sorry, but people aren't that stupid in real life. @Diacanu, I really don't see how you could like this movie. I honestly wish I hadn't paid to see this movie, it wasn't entertaining and juat as bad as all of the other 80s remakes. I do not recommend this movie, solid F for me. ETA: GB2 is a much better film than this.
Nope, I really didn't like this movie. It has nothing to do with the all female cast, it was just really terrible. The most it got out of me was a chuckle at a subtle joke Cristian Wiig made at the very start of the movie. I don't even remember the joke now.
Wow you really are pathetic. One person doesn't like this movie and you get butthurt and defensive. Pathetic troll is pathetic.
He's actually being pretty funny about the whole thing, but there's the possibility that you're so young it's going right over your head.
