To be fair, I just want to add that Ghostbusters 2 is criminally underrated and was slammed by critics at the time because it was being held up against the original and even now people do the same thing.
Ghostbusters 2 is not a bad movie, the writing was good, the acting was good, the comedy was good, I mean it wasn't as good as the original but it wasn't far behind it in my opinion.
This movie isn't terrible either, but it isn't anywhere near Ghostbusters 2 and I am not even saying that from a biased point of view, that's just my opinion, I watched this movie then went home and watched GB2 for comparison and it just isn't anywhere near as good as GB2, the writing in GB2 is above and beyond anything this movie achieved.
That being said, this movie is average like I expected, it's not "shit tier" and it's not "god tier" anybody who is sitting on either of them extremes is not being sincere or has not watched a lot of really bad movies or really good ones.
I just wish people could separate themselves from a side and be honest here, just be honest, look past your own inclinations and be sincere, if you either love or hate this movie after doing so then fair enough.
I just watched Ghostbusters 2 before I saw this movie (for the first time since I was a kid). I thought it was extremely mediocre, not funny, boring, and the only parts I enjoyed was the parts with Rick Moranis. This new movie I found dragged at times but was amusing and an ok movie. I would rank it above Ghostbusters 2 and I might watch it again someday, but I will never watch Ghostbusters 2 again.
What is really impressive with the very positive reviews is, how many completely ignore the problems with the craft and screenwriting and the plot.
The editing is beyond terrible and that is not a subjective point, this is just a fact. And that leads directly to plot and how several stories just lead nowhere were never resolved or did not make any sense at all. This is also not something that is subjective, it is something everybody can see. And there is the screenwriting which RLM also pointed out and also was completely ignored. I was in an early premier here in Europe and they showed the Wiig Murray scene and you actually could people hear moaning how stupid that was.
All of this was not even mentioned in a lot of reviews. Of course people think than that those reviews are either shills or paid, because of you ignore something so obvious something is wrong. A good movie is not just fun, which still is very subjective, there is more to it and if you can not write about that as a movie critic, because you can not be bothered, you have the wrong job. Even the Top Gear people had to talk about the problems with certain cars and that is an entertainment show and was always about feelings. If the gearbox is crap, they told people that, even if they liked the car. But if you ignore it, because it does not fit your narrative, your work as a critic is pretty much worthless.
There are Academy Awards for editing, screenwriting and several of the craft aspects of movies. Most people think they are not that important, but this is the point, which make the difference between a great a mediocre and a bad movie. And in all these categories this movie falls flat. In pure craft the original Ghostbusters is light years away from this one and even the second one is still way beyond this reboot. Of course if you just argue with fun, you will never have to have a conversation because it is totally subjective. But than again you also have to accept that your work as a movie critic is moving to youtube people like angry Joe who have 10-100 time the views as the so called respectable movie journalists.
I phrased that very poorly, but this is just not a well crafted movie. And if it weren't for the politics involved, it would have about a 50-60% RT / MC score.
There is also a very sharp disconnect between the early critic reviews that formed the 'fresh' rating and the Youtubers who put it in the mediocre range. What I was aiming for, was the "need" to like it based on the dislike campaign, but the movie itself doesn't do the work to deserve that credit.
It's not different from other remakes like Robocop (some cute ideas, forgettable movie), Total Recall (ditto), Halloween (eh), The Fog (didn't see it, don't care), and would be forgotten just as quickly, if it wasn't for the gender bullshit. I also think Robocop and Total Recall did more to get their credit, even if the moviegoers stayed home for those too.
That's what I meant, but obviously lost in the semantics.
It's a joke from the RLM review on it. And also what the movie feels like.
I don't know why people are defensive about this one. It's not funny (or a proper action movie, since the original was both). It feels cobbled together. There is barely a threat worth mentioning. The only actual scene is when they discover what the guy has been doing, and then that immediate cuts to goofing off in the car to another driving shot. It's all over the place.
I would not even bother ranking this above or below ID4-2. They both don't feel like movies, and for some reason we're defending non-movies now? That thread about Batman v Superman where Nerdwriter actually makes a good argument for why the Snyder movies don't work (which isn't: "he see only costumes", see Marc Kermode) and people immediately defending it is really pissing me off. That movie is fucking garbage. This movie is fucking garbage. Stop defending garbage.
I phrased that very poorly, but this is just not a well crafted movie. And if it weren't for the politics involved, it would have about a 50-60% RT / MC score.
There is also a very sharp disconnect between the early critic reviews that formed the 'fresh' rating and the Youtubers who put it in the mediocre range. What I was aiming for, was the "need" to like it based on the dislike campaign, but the movie itself doesn't do the work to deserve that credit.
It's not different from other remakes like Robocop (some cute ideas, forgettable movie), Total Recall (ditto), Halloween (eh), The Fog (didn't see it, don't care), and would be forgotten just as quickly, if it wasn't for the gender bullshit. I also think Robocop and Total Recall did more to get their credit, even if the moviegoers stayed home for those too.
That's what I meant, but obviously lost in the semantics.
Ha ha I totally missed that. If anything the original was more of a romantic comedy (it's not a rom com either) than an action movie given that at least a quarter if not a third is Venkman trying to woo Dana.
Movie had basically 1.5 action sequences. The hotel and the roof and neither were super actiony.
It's a classic comedy but it's not an action comedy.
To be fair, I just want to add that Ghostbusters 2 is criminally underrated and was slammed by critics at the time because it was being held up against the original and even now people do the same thing.
Ghostbusters 2 is not a bad movie, the writing was good, the acting was good, the comedy was good, I mean it wasn't as good as the original but it wasn't far behind it in my opinion.
This movie isn't terrible either, but it isn't anywhere near Ghostbusters 2 and I am not even saying that from a biased point of view, that's just my opinion, I watched this movie then went home and watched GB2 for comparison and it just isn't anywhere near as good as GB2, the writing in GB2 is above and beyond anything this movie achieved.
That being said, this movie is average like I expected, it's not "shit tier" and it's not "god tier" anybody who is sitting on either of them extremes is not being sincere or has not watched a lot of really bad movies or really good ones.
I just wish people could separate themselves from a side and be honest here, just be honest, look past your own inclinations and be sincere, if you either love or hate this movie after doing so then fair enough.
I am one of those who really is over the whole reboot culture in Hollywood, as I think too many unnecessary movies have been made. I'm also not sure of any reboot that has really done that well, financially. (Maybe Star Trek? I don't know.)
I found the movie to be inoffensive, and actually chuckled a bit. I like Wiig and McCarthy together, so I enjoyed them. Honestly, McKinnon and Jones surprised me. They both were legitimately funny.
But, in the end, I thought the movie was just that: unnecessary. The villain was garbage-tier, and the finale paled in comparison to the original movie's (which I find really odd).
Someone on here said "there was no tension" and I think he/she is right. The movie just moves along, from one scene/set piece to another. There's really no development.
I'll be interested to see it in 3D, though, since people have said it actually kind of pushes 3D.
They do some legit creative stuff with pieces of scene, props, slime, proton stream, breaking the letterboxing. It's pretty cool and worth it if you at least had a good time more or less at the movie.
It's not going to make you love it if you didn't like it but if you enjoyed it it makes for a different experience.
Humour is such a subjective thing that acting surprised others like it or trying to factually state that it's 'not funny' is really pointless since they clearly did find it funny, and you know they did.
The movie certainly had problems but I think you either bought in to the characters and laughed with them or they didnt connect in which case you're left with a mediocre to bad plot and some sketchy editing.
What is really impressive with the very positive reviews is, how many completely ignore the problems with the craft and screenwriting and the plot.
The editing is beyond terrible and that is not a subjective point, this is just a fact. And that leads directly to plot and how several stories just lead nowhere were never resolved or did not make any sense at all. This is also not something that is subjective, it is something everybody can see. And there is the screenwriting which RLM also pointed out and also was completely ignored. I was in an early premier here in Europe and they showed the Wiig Murray scene and you actually could people hear moaning how stupid that was.
All of this was not even mentioned in a lot of reviews. Of course people think than that those reviews are either shills or paid, because of you ignore something so obvious something is wrong. A good movie is not just fun, which still is very subjective, there is more to it and if you can not write about that as a movie critic, because you can not be bothered, you have the wrong job. Even the Top Gear people had to talk about the problems with certain cars and that is an entertainment show and was always about feelings. If the gearbox is crap, they told people that, even if they liked the car. But if you ignore it, because it does not fit your narrative, your work as a critic is pretty much worthless.
There are Academy Awards for editing, screenwriting and several of the craft aspects of movies. Most people think they are not that important, but this is the point, which make the difference between a great a mediocre and a bad movie. And in all these categories this movie falls flat. In pure craft the original Ghostbusters is light years away from this one and even the second one is still way beyond this reboot. Of course if you just argue with fun, you will never have to have a conversation because it is totally subjective. But than again you also have to accept that your work as a movie critic is moving to youtube people like angry Joe who have 10-100 time the views as the so called respectable movie journalists.
From a technical standpoint I thought it was atrocious. Maybe 2 good shots in the whole thing. And yeah there was zero buildup for anything. Absolutely no stakes
Even if you really enjoyed the comedy, there is nothing else to point at in this thing that isn't mediocore
One of the biggest disappointments was the side characters. Not a one was memorable
Movie's not great... by any means. The first third is sorta okay, but then it just awkwardly meanders for the entirety of the middle, stumbling towards a big dumb action climax.
Unlike the original where just about every line atleast kinda sticks and has a purpose as a joke or to reflect the characters, this was just alot of dumb improv that goes nowhere. "LET'S RAMBLE FOREVER ABOUT FUCKING WONTONS! LET'S GO ON THIS POINTLESS BIT FOR THREE MINUTES ABOUT CHRIS HEMSWORTH'S DUMB DOG WHICH IS NEVER BROUGHT UP AGAIN! LET'S MAKE THESE UNFUNNY TANGENTS ABOUT PATRICK SWAYZE MOVIES!"
THIS SHIT AIN'T FUNNY! Like the first third has some genuinely good stuff, (Patty walking into the mannequin room and just 'noping' outta there), but the second you have your characters wind up on stage at some random concert, you lose so much good will instantly.
Leslie Jones looked like the worst part going in and ended up being one of the best next to Kate McKinnon who is barely a character but just alot of fun to watch. Kristen Wigg was great at the start but then just completely disappears after a short while. Melissa McCarthy rambling on about soup for like a minute and a half wasn't entertaining, she was otherwise okay but hardly anything great.
The fan-service was just so excessive and unnecessary. No idea why Bill Murray was in it any more than that news broadcast. Then he just sorta
...dies? I think?
And no one mentions it again. Because again, this movie is paced and plotted terribly.
Then they try turning them into superheroes when the whole joke behind the core premise has always been that they're just these blue collar exterminators. Instead you have this awkward subplot about the mayor that goes nowhere? Is it just so they could badly shoehorn a "mass hysteria" reference?
Also that
dance pose
bit at the climax... like... that went nowhere.
These are talented people and I wanted this movie to be good and successful, but it just starts to fall apart the second they go onto that concert stage... I just can't.
To be fair, I just want to add that Ghostbusters 2 is criminally underrated and was slammed by critics at the time because it was being held up against the original and even now people do the same thing.
Ghostbusters 2 is not a bad movie, the writing was good, the acting was good, the comedy was good, I mean it wasn't as good as the original but it wasn't far behind it in my opinion.
This movie isn't terrible either, but it isn't anywhere near Ghostbusters 2 and I am not even saying that from a biased point of view, that's just my opinion, I watched this movie then went home and watched GB2 for comparison and it just isn't anywhere near as good as GB2, the writing in GB2 is above and beyond anything this movie achieved.
That being said, this movie is average like I expected, it's not "shit tier" and it's not "god tier" anybody who is sitting on either of them extremes is not being sincere or has not watched a lot of really bad movies or really good ones.
I just wish people could separate themselves from a side and be honest here, just be honest, look past your own inclinations and be sincere, if you either love or hate this movie after doing so then fair enough.
I was speaking purely from a generalized review standpoint, I personally adore Ghostbusters II and agree it gets really unfairly shit on. It has some bad, dumb stuff in it, but it has a lot of really hilarious bits too, and innovative ideas like Mood Slime and the Slime Blowers. I don't think "Where d'you t'ink all dis is comin' from, th' sky!?!" will ever not make me laugh.
If I'm being completely honest, all 3 Ghostbusters movies are about equal in my eyes with any edge going to the original. There are good aspects to GBII and I have a lot of fun watching it, and there are certain aspects that I think Answer the Call even does better than the original, but there are a lot of problems too. Ghostbusters is just about flawless in my eyes though, if there's anything bad I could say about it at all I'd say MAYBE it moves a little too slow and is a little too quiet but that's just how movies used to be, people today can't seem to sit still long enough for that to be effective anymore.
If I absolutely had to rank them, it'd be Ghostbusters, Answer the Call, then Ghostbusters II, but that in no way means I think GBII is a bad movie.
What is really impressive with the very positive reviews is, how many completely ignore the problems with the craft and screenwriting and the plot.
The editing is beyond terrible and that is not a subjective point, this is just a fact. And that leads directly to plot and how several stories just lead nowhere were never resolved or did not make any sense at all. This is also not something that is subjective, it is something everybody can see. And there is the screenwriting which RLM also pointed out and also was completely ignored. I was in an early premier here in Europe and they showed the Wiig Murray scene and you actually could people hear moaning how stupid that was.
All of this was not even mentioned in a lot of reviews. Of course people think than that those reviews are either shills or paid, because of you ignore something so obvious something is wrong. A good movie is not just fun, which still is very subjective, there is more to it and if you can not write about that as a movie critic, because you can not be bothered, you have the wrong job. Even the Top Gear people had to talk about the problems with certain cars and that is an entertainment show and was always about feelings. If the gearbox is crap, they told people that, even if they liked the car. But if you ignore it, because it does not fit your narrative, your work as a critic is pretty much worthless.
There are Academy Awards for editing, screenwriting and several of the craft aspects of movies. Most people think they are not that important, but this is the point, which make the difference between a great a mediocre and a bad movie. And in all these categories this movie falls flat. In pure craft the original Ghostbusters is light years away from this one and even the second one is still way beyond this reboot. Of course if you just argue with fun, you will never have to have a conversation because it is totally subjective. But than again you also have to accept that your work as a movie critic is moving to youtube people like angry Joe who have 10-100 time the views as the so called respectable movie journalists.
This may come as a surprise to you, but there are people who actually don't give a shit about any of that stuff. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or snarky here. They can sit and watch a movie and things like editing will never, ever enter their minds. We are on an internet forum, we dissect this shit to death, but there are huge swathes of people who either do not give a fuck, or simply do not even notice, the stuff you're talking about. We have FOUR Transformers movie and a fifth on the way, and as someone who actually likes them, their stories are total shit. But there are FIVE OF THEM. Why are there five of them? Because they make money. How can they make money though if their stories are total bullshit? Because some, possibly even most, people just do not give a shit and want only to be entertained. We got an ENTIRE MOVIE dedicated to MINIONS. Not everyone needs expert editing and a deep complex story to have a good time at a movie.
Edit: It's been pointed out to me that you were referring to professional reviewers and not just reviews in general. I misunderstood!
Don't listen to sans_pants Spookyfish. If you're interested in the 3D and you enjoyed it enough to watch it again, go see it in 3D. They changed the aspect ratio of the film and put black bars on the top and bottom and throughout the movie things "break the frame" and look like they're actually coming out of the screen into the theater. Very cool and unique effect.
Unlike the original where just about every line atleast kinda sticks and has a purpose as a joke or to reflect the characters, this was just alot of dumb improv that goes nowhere. "LET'S RAMBLE FOREVER ABOUT FUCKING WONTONS! LET'S GO ON THIS POINTLESS BIT FOR THREE MINUTES ABOUT CHRIS HEMSWORTH'S DUMB DOG WHICH IS NEVER BROUGHT UP AGAIN! LET'S MAKE THESE UNFUNNY TANGENTS ABOUT PATRICK SWAYZE MOVIES!"
That shit ain't funny TO YOU. There is a reason that Paul Feig's comedies don't bomb even though they are overflowing with that kind of humor. The same kind of humor that also drives dozens of other comedies like Anchorman, Step Brothers, really anything by Adam McKay or Judd Apatow. You might find this hard to believe but different people like different things. Clearly if you do not like verbal diarrhea humor, then you should honestly avoid movies by Feig/Apatow/McKay and others like them, because huge portions of the population disagree with you and think it's hilarious so those directors are going to keep getting work.
I get that the original Ghostbusters wasn't super-funny either, but it wasn't that funny while it wasn't trying to be that funny. The new Ghostbuster isn't very funny while trying very very hard to be funny.
And Kate McKinnon...jesus, what the hell was that performance.
They should have just animated her like that living Ghostbuster logo, probably would have been less uncomfortable seeing a cartoon contort their face that much for two hours
This may come as a surprise to you, but there are people who actually don't give a shit about any of that stuff. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or snarky here. They can sit and watch a movie and things like editing will never, ever enter their minds. We are on an internet forum, we dissect this shit to death, but there are huge swathes of people who either do not give a fuck, or simply do not even notice, the stuff you're talking about. We have FOUR Transformers movie and a fifth on the way, and as someone who actually likes them, their stories are total shit. But there are FIVE OF THEM. Why are there five of them? Because they make money. How can they make money though if their stories are total bullshit? Because some, possibly even most, people just do not give a shit and want only to be entertained. We got an ENTIRE MOVIE dedicated to MINIONS. Not everyone needs expert editing and a deep complex story to have a good time at a movie.
That's an opinion, and also not the only time they use the effect. It's a 2 hour movie, they don't just do it once. I found it especially effective for the proton streams and excess proton discharge.
For what it's worth, spookyfish, I saw it in 3D for my 3rd viewing, and even though the spectral projection "ghost barf" scene has been used in like every piece of marketing and I'd already seen the movie twice, in 3D actually made me jump because I wasn't expecting the effect to work the way it does. Maybe it had to do with where I was sitting in relation to the screen but aside from apparently one scene in Life of Pie, Answer the Call is the only movie that does this kind of "frame break" 3D effect so I'm more used to 3D giving movies depth "into" the screen, not shit flying out of it.
As I said before if you enjoyed the movie enough to see it a second time there's no reason not to check it out in 3D.
That does come as a surprise to me, I completely misread/misunderstood what he was saying! He said "positive reviews" and talked about RLM so I took that to mean everyone, not specifically professional reviewers. Thank you for clarifying!
The worst part of the movie was the line "Say 'hello' to my little friend!"
Aside from just being ripped off from Scarface, there was a bit in the movie Sisters just last year where a character who is supposed to be lame and unfunny does that impression at a party.
The whole joke was that it would be hack and unoriginal for even just a random guy at a party to do that impression. To see a character do that same impression unironically in a blockbuster comedy a year later is crazy.
More than anything I'm surprised that Paul Feig didn't see Sisters. He probably would have liked it.
The worst part of the movie was the line "Say 'hello' to my little friend!"
Aside from just being ripped off from Scarface, there was a bit in the movie Sisters just last year where a character who is supposed to be lame and unfunny does that impression at a party.
The whole joke was that it would be hack and unoriginal for even just a random guy at a party to do that impression. To see a character do that same impression unironically in a blockbuster comedy a year later is crazy.
More than anything I'm surprised that Paul Feig didn't see Sisters. He probably would have liked it.
People need to relax. "Unironically". It's quoting a popular line from a popular movie. It's completely tongue in cheek.
Edit: sorry for the rant. It just seems like such an odd thing to get worked up over enough to write up that post just to ultimately point out that another movie did the joke better (or something).And now I question myself...
People need to relax. "Unironically". It's quoting a popular line from a popular movie. It's completely tongue in cheek.
Edit: sorry for the rant. It just seems like such an odd thing to get worked up over enough to write up that post just to ultimately point out that another movie did the joke better (or something).And now I question myself...
My point isn't that another movie 'did it better'. Sisters came out last year and had a character do that impression because it was the quickest way to demonstrate to the audience that he was an unfunny hack.
Ghostbusters comes along a year later and uses that impression in the same way that Scarface did. Without any irony. Like the unfunny hack character in Sisters.
I just think it is interesting that a movie that came out in 2016 got called out by a movie that came out in 2015.
The worst part of the movie was the line "Say 'hello' to my little friend!"
Aside from just being ripped off from Scarface, there was a bit in the movie Sisters just last year where a character who is supposed to be lame and unfunny does that impression at a party.
The whole joke was that it would be hack and unoriginal for even just a random guy at a party to do that impression. To see a character do that same impression unironically in a blockbuster comedy a year later is crazy.
More than anything I'm surprised that Paul Feig didn't see Sisters. He probably would have liked it.
Just for that line which was in the movie trailers, along with the other lame movie references, "Power of Patty compels you", rotating head like in the Exorcist, "That's gonna leave a mark.", and "Gonna need a bigger boat", I don't see what could drive anyone to pay to see this movie. No one capable of writing a good script or being funny could think that reusing those lines are funny.
Man Paul Feig went from Freaks & Geeks to this. I hate the "barrage of jokes" style he's developed in his past few movies. The movie screams desperation, "please find a few of these jokes funny.. pleeease." Spy also tried too hard to be funny, but Ghostbusters makes Spy look like Caddyshack.
I was speaking purely from a generalized review standpoint, I personally adore Ghostbusters II and agree it gets really unfairly shit on. It has some bad, dumb stuff in it, but it has a lot of really hilarious bits too, and innovative ideas like Mood Slime and the Slime Blowers. I don't think "Where d'you t'ink all dis is comin' from, th' sky!?!" will ever not make me laugh.
If I'm being completely honest, all 3 Ghostbusters movies are about equal in my eyes with any edge going to the original. There are good aspects to GBII and I have a lot of fun watching it, and there are certain aspects that I think Answer the Call even does better than the original, but there are a lot of problems too. Ghostbusters is just about flawless in my eyes though, if there's anything bad I could say about it at all I'd say MAYBE it moves a little too slow and is a little too quiet but that's just how movies used to be, people today can't seem to sit still long enough for that to be effective anymore.
If I absolutely had to rank them, it'd be Ghostbusters, Answer the Call, then Ghostbusters II, but that in no way means I think GBII is a bad movie.
While I think answer the call is a decent movie, and I enjoy it, I couldn't say it was anywhere near as good as Ghosbusters. I'd watch ATC again, but on reflection there relatively glaring problems with the movie that bring it down a lot. I could watch the original Ghostbusters monthly and not get tired of it, and there is really only the blowjob ghost joke that truly falls flat. The rest of the movie is near-perfect.
I feel like answer the call would only get worse as I watched it more. There's too many poor jokes that either just land flat, completely take you out of the movie, or both. The plot only sort of makes sense, and it seems like the movie's plot changed mid-filming... or something. The editing is a mess, so there's scenes that just seem out of place and the plot doesn't tie together well. the action scenes are not particularly good at all.
The movie is serviceable, even above average for a summer blockbuster, but it's nowhere near a classic. I do still feel like a tighter edit could fix a lot of the problems by getting rid of some of the dumber jokes and fleshing out the plot holes, though.
I saw this while on vacation, and never got around to posting about it.
It...had some good stuff? I liked all the lead characters a great deal, in particular Kate McKinnon. She was like a puppy, so eager to make friends but her personality drove people away. Her speech at the end about not making friends before resonated. I thought her character just worked.
Hemsworth was great, though I wish they did a bit more with his character, he was basically just one joke, extended.
And that was about it for the good stuff. The story didn't work. The villain was unnecessary; the little time spent with him would be better put to use with the other characters. The schisms opening along those fault lines would be sufficient. The third act was an utter mess, plot threads chopped (I think one of them sort of quit? and came back? sort of?), the WTF inducing decision to have
all the destruction get reversed for some reason
.
The big action scene during the finale was so poorly shot and staged. Who was where, in relation to one another? Why did it look exactly like they were all standing independently in front of a green screen and composited into a CG-laden background, given the budget?
The none of the 'scary' moments really took the time to build up properly, nor did they deliver. The opening had potential, but around the time the
stairs collapsed and the slime came out of the floor
and the FX went off the charts and the music was doing the cliche epic scary music choir....damn. Just dreadful.
Speaking of the music, this film had the worst score of any major release I've seen in years. Constant crappy remixes of the original GB theme/song, miscues when it's trying to build tension, epic and shrieking when it's trying to be scary.
So yeah. The cast put in work, but the film was a hot mess. I came out of the theater really bummed.
I thought it was ok. Whilst its not even remotely close to being as good ad the original I wouldn't be against a sequel. I liked the characters and the actors did well. Overall though it was fairly forgettable and seemed to fail some of the basic aspects of film which surprised me.
While I think answer the call is a decent movie, and I enjoy it, I couldn't say it was anywhere near as good as Ghosbusters. I'd watch ATC again, but on reflection there relatively glaring problems with the movie that bring it down a lot. I could watch the original Ghostbusters monthly and not get tired of it, and there is really only the blowjob ghost joke that truly falls flat. The rest of the movie is near-perfect.
I feel like answer the call would only get worse as I watched it more. There's too many poor jokes that either just land flat, completely take you out of the movie, or both. The plot only sort of makes sense, and it seems like the movie's plot changed mid-filming... or something. The editing is a mess, so there's scenes that just seem out of place and the plot doesn't tie together well. the action scenes are not particularly good at all.
The movie is serviceable, even above average for a summer blockbuster, but it's nowhere near a classic. I do still feel like a tighter edit could fix a lot of the problems by getting rid of some of the dumber jokes and fleshing out the plot holes, though.
I should probably wait to see the Director's Cut before passing final judgement but as it stand at least for my taste, they're all about equal.
For my reasoning with Answer the Call, is that the stuff IMO it gets right, it gets REALLY right for me. I love the technobable and focus on making he gadgets "real". I love the "science" of the ghosts and the focus on them doing research and not just trying to monetize it. I love that the government is actually involved this time. I love the Lay Lines. I really like the characters, and how there's basically two Rays this time and then a Ray-Egon Hybrid and a Winston. Tons of heart. It does a lot of things poorly and there are some jokes that do nooot land but I can see past it because it has so much of the stuff I like. That's part of why I love Ghostbusters II as much as I do as well. I love the lore for Vigo, the Mood Slime, the new tech Slime Blowers, how they can use positively charged ectoplasm to excise someone that's possessed by an evil spirit. My favorite Ghostbusters is when they're doing the geeky science stuff and lore for the ghosts and other paranormal entities.
The original is the original though, and it has a pretty much perfect mix of everything.
God can you imagine if Ghostbusters II had somehow been even better than the original?
I really enjoyed it but that was one of my main take aways, this movie has 2016 Hollywood's fingerprints all over it. But that said in some respects it makes it out better than a lot of other remakes/reboots do.
I'm honestly fine with them just knocking the ghosts the fuck out instead of trapping them so we can have our big action scenes, but I do wish that was explained.
after rewatching Ghostbusters 84, it's even more clear how uninteresting Ghostbusters 2016 is shot. the first scenes in Ghostbusters 84 following the librarian/ghostbusters through the stacks is better than any shot in GB16.
True that, Vigo is more interesting than Zuul in my book, because of how much potential he has. If we ever had a true sequel I would've loved some sort of retread on how he became trapped in the painting.
Rowan isn't interesting at all, has no real threat and is forgettable.
True that, Vigo is more interesting than Zuul in my book, because of how much potential he has. If we ever had a true sequel I would've loved some sort of retread on how he became trapped in the painting.
Rowan isn't interesting at all, has no real threat and is forgettable.
Yeah. Maybe it was because I saw GB2 more as a kid than 1, but I always found GB1's villain to be pretty forgettable compared to the sneering painting of Vigo. I always found the dogs in GB1 to be more of a villain than Gozer, who ultimately just looks like a cheap David Bowie knock-off.
The villain in the new one was about Gozer-tier, which is to say not very interesting. But GB1 at least benefitted from not spending any more time with Gozer than we needed to.
Honestly, the saving grace for GB2016 for me was the chemistry between the leads which I found to be well done. I found the chemistry more endearing than the actual comedy or dramatic stakes and it buoyed its score for me significantly (B-). But if I didn't care for the characters like a lot of people seem not to, the film would probably be closer to a C for me, sadly.
I get that the original Ghostbusters wasn't super-funny either, but it wasn't that funny while it wasn't trying to be that funny. The new Ghostbuster isn't very funny while trying very very hard to be funny.
And Kate McKinnon...jesus, what the hell was that performance.
Yeah, I feel like I'm in another dimension when I come here and see praise for her (and the "comedy" in this film). I chuckled a couple times, but overall thought this was one of the worst movies I've seen in a theater. Just a badly edited, unfunny mess. Really wanted to love this, as I'm a fan of Fieg. This is not good, though.
Edit: regarding the chemistry of the leads, I guess they had chemistry of the type that a bunch of friends have when going out to dinner. Kind of like watching the guys in Grown Ups good on each other. But an interesting film it did not make.
after rewatching Ghostbusters 84, it's even more clear how uninteresting Ghostbusters 2016 is shot. the first scenes in Ghostbusters 84 following the librarian/ghostbusters through the stacks is better than any shot in GB16.
after rewatching Ghostbusters 84, it's even more clear how uninteresting Ghostbusters 2016 is shot. the first scenes in Ghostbusters 84 following the librarian/ghostbusters through the stacks is better than any shot in GB16.
One of the many great things about the original Ghostbusters is how it's shot, if they had taken out all the jokes and made it a serious movie they likely would of shot it the exact same way.
As best I can tell, it's performing on par with similar movies, but hasn't broke even yet.
Depends how much you consider it an "investment" into the future, and how much you think the lack of Chinese release hurt it. IMO, it did fine, and will make the rest of the budget between more release weeks and home video.
One of the many great things about the original Ghostbusters is how it's shot, if they had taken out all the jokes and made it a serious movie they likely would of shot it the exact same way.
The marketing for this movie was so bad. They could have had a much easier road if they had called it The Real Ghostbusters and said flatout that it was a live-action reboot of the cartoon.
If you are expecting Ghostbusters 1 it is a huge letdown, but if you are expecting a zany cartoon-y take on Ghostbusters it is fine.
It's putting up solid numbers at the US box office but its international numbers currently look pitiful.
It still has to open in Germany, Italy, Japan and some other territories but it is a long way from being the hit (and the supposed cinematic universe) that Sony had hoped for.
As best I can tell, it's performing on par with similar movies, but hasn't broke even yet.
Depends how much you consider it an "investment" into the future, and how much you think the lack of Chinese release hurt it. IMO, it did fine, and will make the rest of the budget between more release weeks and home video.
I should probably wait to see the Director's Cut before passing final judgement but as it stand at least for my taste, they're all about equal.
For my reasoning with Answer the Call, is that the stuff IMO it gets right, it gets REALLY right for me. I love the technobable and focus on making he gadgets "real". I love the "science" of the ghosts and the focus on them doing research and not just trying to monetize it. I love that the government is actually involved this time. I love the Lay Lines. I really like the characters, and how there's basically two Rays this time and then a Ray-Egon Hybrid and a Winston. Tons of heart. It does a lot of things poorly and there are some jokes that do nooot land but I can see past it because it has so much of the stuff I like. That's part of why I love Ghostbusters II as much as I do as well. I love the lore for Vigo, the Mood Slime, the new tech Slime Blowers, how they can use positively charged ectoplasm to excise someone that's possessed by an evil spirit. My favorite Ghostbusters is when they're doing the geeky science stuff and lore for the ghosts and other paranormal entities.
The original is the original though, and it has a pretty much perfect mix of everything.
God can you imagine if Ghostbusters II had somehow been even better than the original?
There's definitely some redeeming points you hit on there that I passed over.
This one actually kind of reminds me of Ghostbusters 2 in a way. Both have some really high points, a few really low points, and are awkwardly paced.
I watched ghostbusters 2 with my daughter a few weeks ago and realized that it starts really really slow. It has a bunch of good scenes as it goes on, and then has kind of a terrible climax.
2016 starts out awesome, and then loses steam as it goes on, but has enough high points to keep it in the "pretty good movie" realm.
One of the many great things about the original Ghostbusters is how it's shot, if they had taken out all the jokes and made it a serious movie they likely would of shot it the exact same way.
Does 128M box office mean Sony has made 128M? Or is that before the theaters take their cut?
Either way, when you factor in that marketing must've cost 100M+, this might lose money for Sony. It'll be really interesting to see the fallout if that happens. Will Sony continue with their cinematic universe?
