• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Ghostbusters Review Thread [Certified Fresh - 75%]

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tripon

Member
May 24, 2013
23,025
0
920
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ghostbusters_2016/reviews/ - 75%

Film Stage: B- - From GAF Member Expendable.!

Even if all the comedy and action doesn’t land, there’s enough charm to be had with the main cast. Feig and co-writer Katie Dippold even manage to get in a few compulsory jabs at YouTube trolls along the way, but perhaps the biggest triumph of all is that they’ve introduced a team one would actually like to see continue answering the ghost-busting call. This new version of Ghostbusters will rarely make one bowl over with laughter, but, like the first film, it has a consistent amount of lighthearted, amiable fun.

Having displayed comedic chops through his entire career and an eye for action in the last few features, Paul Feig was the ideal director to handle a new version of Ghostbusters. Teaming the actors who have most excelled when working with him (Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy) while giving a spotlight to some deserving talent (Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones), the right ingredients were in place to carry on the spirit of this franchise -- or, let's be honest: just the first film. While it doesn't quite reach the height of laughter or thrills of Feig's best work, Ghostbusters has a persistent dose of rollicking, scrappy fun that the ideal summer blockbuster should contain -- all the way past the last credits.

Mashable: No Score
Much like its progenitor, the new Ghostbusters is a kid-friendly-enough movie that promises to thrill forever fans while enthralling young viewers and igniting a whole new generation of fandom. The Twinkie is gone, but it isn't forgotten.

Vox: 3/5
Despite the fact that it stars an incredibly skilled cast and is helmed by Feig, one the best comedic directors currently working, this Ghostbusters has trouble shedding the skin of its predecessors to become something all its own, even though it’s a full reboot that ostensibly has nothing to do with the original story.

The movie lurches from point A to point B, like it half wants to take the scenic route and let the performers loose, and half wants to just make it to the finish line in one piece.

Daily Beast: No Score
That was a far easier task for Murray, Ramis, Aykroyd, and Hudson to do in 1984 as comedians and actors starring in a comedy designed to showcase their talents. McCarthy, Wiig, Jones, and McKinnon tackle the challenge of doing that while proving their worth as heroes without being heavy-handed about it, striking a natural chemistry that’s easy to root for and believe in. They don’t rise to the occasion because they are women but because they’re the only heroes equipped for and interested in the job.
Plus, they’re already used to being underestimated. They’re women, after all.

Den of Geek: 3/5
In that sense, Ghostbusters fails to make the case less for its quartet of female paranormal investigators, and more for even being made in the first place. It’s kind of fun, you’ll chuckle here and there, and you’ll appreciate the hard work that the ladies do to make it come to life. But as a remake it doesn’t do anything to enhance the original or expand on it, except perhaps to add bigger and better special effects. It does extend the brand – something Sony Pictures has wanted to do for the better part of three decades – but its impact and presence, like a ghost, is fleeting and ephemeral.

CNET: No Score
So is the new "Ghostbusters" any good? Yes.

Some fans have already made their decision, but if you go into the movie with an open mind, this is one of the better remakes Hollywood has produced in recent years. It's fun and funny, breezy and playful, and finds its own voice while staying respectful of the original.

Polygon: No Score
That's the other thing about Ghostbusters: it's a comedy, through and through. The least interesting thing about Feig's version of the movie was also the least interesting thing about Reitman's: the ghosts. When Feig decides to spend his time on the paranormal hunting aspects of the film, it loses some of its magic. The scenes are big, loud and intense, and much to the cast's credit, they do a good job of trying to keep the comedic aspects alive while fighting off ghosts, but even then it feels lackluster. Feig tries to transition seamlessly from goofy comedy to sci-fi action, but never quite succeeds.

Variety: No Score
In an unnecessary nod to fans, Feig resurrects nearly every actor or entity from the 22-year-old original — except for Ramis, who died last year, and the all-but-retired Rick Moranis — while leaving little room for memorable new spirits

Village Voice: No Score
And so, fifty disorganized minutes after it was supposed to, Ghostbusters began in the proper format. What I watched for the next two hours was mostly a tragic underutilizing of four of this country's funniest women — Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Leslie Jones, and Kate McKinnon as the evil-ectoplasm battlers of the title, fighting to save a New York that is played primarily by Boston — combined with what felt like the world's longest laser-tag game.

Hollywood Reporter: No Score.
When the fledgling team of paranormal investigators in Paul Feig's Ghostbusters reboot post details of their first supernatural encounter online, one of the comments it elicits is: "Ain't no bitches gonna hunt no ghosts." It's a clever wink at the kneejerk hostility engendered among self-appointed guardians of the beloved '80s comedy franchise, long before the new movie was publicly screened. The unfunny mess that hits theaters July 15, like a big goopy splat of ectoplasm, will no doubt make those naysayers feel vindicated. But the fact is that an estrogen-infused makeover, particularly one with such a comedically gifted cast, was a promising idea. Sadly, that's where the inventiveness ended.

Those and other nostalgic nods to the progenitor only serve as a reminder of the charm that's lacking here, sacrificed to bland, effects-laden bloat and uninspired writing, making this a missed opportunity.

IGN: 6.9/10
The new Ghostbusters is a fresh take on the franchise, with four strong leads and an interesting new entrypoint into the series. The problems with the film come down to the movie itself, as the pacing and editing don't hold up what otherwise could have been a sharp, quick-witted reentry into a world fans hold dear. It doesn't help that this new Ghostbusters tries too hard to pay homage to the previous Ghostbusters movies instead of fully standing on its own. While there is plenty to enjoy about Paul Feig's new comedy, it's not going to be enough to stick it to the haters who spewed vitriol against the all-lady Ghostbusters on premise alone.

Hitfix: A-

Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters is, above all else, a real Ghostbusters movie. If you’re a fan of the 1984 original (as most comedy fans are), one of the things that’s interesting as you watch this one is the way it echoes off of that film. It is no simple remake, but neither is it a radical reinvention of the core idea. It’s simply a different riff on the same idea, with a solid dose of fan service thrown in to help make the transition from the old to the new. The script, by Feig and Katie Dippold, does some big things different, and the choices they make are intriguing. First and foremost, though, Ghostbusters is a big fat slice of silly summer entertainment, confident and sometimes quite beautiful. It is the biggest stretch Feig’s made so far as a filmmaker, embracing the technical side of things in a way he never has so far, and stuffed chock full of affection for everything that makes Ghostbusters such an enduring favorite.

SlashFilm: 7/10
At the end of the day, those who hoped the new Ghostbusters would be just like the original will probably be disappointed. The comedic sensibility is more Paul Feig than Ivan Reitman, the characters and their relationships to one another are completely different, and it all feels more like a 2010s blockbuster film than a 1980s comedy adventure (for pretty obvious reasons). But those willing to roll with the changes will find an entertaining comedy-adventure full of new characters, new gadgets, new monsters, and new possibilities.

Uproxx: No Score
I know the people involved probably felt like they had to pay some sort of due respect, which is a nice sentiment, but they really didn’t. This won’t fend off “the haters.” Feig and company have a pretty good Ghostbusters movie here on their own and I would have just preferred they had stuck with that. If I want to see the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, I will watch my Ghostbusters Blu-ray. (Which, when I checked, miraculously had not been destroyed by the “Paul Feig Annihilates All Copies Of The Original Ghostbusters Ray Gun” – a ray gun that, I think, was invented by George Lucas.)

But, whatever, when Ghostbusters focuses on the team and the characters (always Feig’s strength), it flourishes. It’s only when it gets bogged down in CGI ghosts that, sometimes, it starts to drag. But, this is 2016 and a summer action movie needs to keep moving.

BirthMoviesDeath - No Score
With a better script this new version of Ghostbusters could have given the original a run for its money; that 1984 classic was the result of a lot of elements coming together in just the right way, and this version has so many of those elements - a great cast, a true affection for the supernatural, a varied comedic tone - but it just blows it on the story.

Still, the pieces are in place. The movie, for the most part, works. It’s easily one of the funniest comedies of the year, and I loved hanging out with these characters (which is such a huge part of the success of the 84 movie). Even though it’s stuck having to wink and nod at the original (the cameos, by the way, are fine. Bill Murray’s is, predictably, the best. Harold Ramis’ is touching), this film manages to carve out its own space, and I want to see Feig and his cast return to continue exploring it and expanding it. And hell, their Ghostbusters II HAS TO be better than the original Ghostbusters II.

New York Times: No Score
Part of what makes “Ghostbusters” enjoyable is that it allows women to be as simply and uncomplicatedly funny as men, though it would have been nice if Ms. Jones had been given more to do. (If this were a radical reboot, she would have played a scientist.) In the end, these are Ghostbusters, not Ghostbusting suffragists, even if there’s plenty of feminism onscreen and off. It’s hard to know if the movie started off being as meta as it now plays, but when these Ghostbusters are labeled frauds — or crack jokes about ugly online comments or take on a fan boy from hell — it sure feels as if Mr. Feig and his team are blowing gleeful raspberries at the project’s early sexist attackers.

Nerdist: 3/5
Overall, I enjoyed watching the movie and I think the main takeaway is that it’s completely inoffensive, which may seem like damning with faint praise, but when so much vitriol has been littering message boards and comment threads for over a year, the fact that it’s not only not that bad but it’s perfectly fine is a victory in and of itself. I’d love to see what Feig’s director’s cut looked like, but the film we have now is nothing at all to be upset about. In fact, I’d wager anybody who rips the movie apart went in ready to hate it.

I wish for the sake of shutting up haters that the movie had been a grand slam, or even just a home run with a couple of runners on base. As it is, it’s a base hit in the top of the 3rd inning. It does its job, you can watch it, laugh, and move on to hating something else before you’ve seen it.

Entertainment Weekly: C+
So why does Ghostbusters feel so restrained? For starters, it’s too slavish when it nods to the original (although its throw-back cameos are fun), and too flailing and flat when it strays from it (Feig and co-writer Katie Dippold introduce a ghost-unleashing villain, then don’t know what to do with him). Even the spectral f/x are oddly shlocky (seeing it in 3-D is pointless aside from one comin’-at-ya slime gag). McCarthy, of course, gets off some lunatic one-liners; McKinnon, the group’s loose cannon, can crack you up just by widening her wildcard eyes; Jones mixes her signature bluster with an air of gung-ho joy; and Wiig’s timing is as Swiss-precise as ever (that is, when she’s not being saddled as the film’s straight-woman). Even Chris Hemsworth, as the Ghostbusters’ dim, beefcake receptionist, is funny — for a while. But with a cast as daring and quick as this one, Ghostbusters is too mild and plays it too safe. Somewhere, I bet, there’s an R-rated director’s cut of the movie where these women really let it rip. I want to see that movie.

TIME: No Score
Yet there’s little that’s nostalgic, in the musty sense, about Feig’s reimagined ghostbusting universe: The movie glows with vitality, thanks largely to the performers, who revel in one another’s company, and not in a self-congratulatory, Ocean’s Twelve-style, “We’re awesome movie stars, together” way. Some of their dialogue has a loose, loopy, unscripted vibe, a la Bill Murray’s poker-faced asides in the original. When the heroines take time out from their heavy-duty citizen-saving for an impromptu Patrick Swayze reverie, they’re inviting us right into the crystalline goofiness of the moment.

Forbes: No Score
As someone who merely likes the first two Ghostbusters without worshipping them, I’d say this redo is about as good as those two 1980’s films. It also lacks the Reagan-esque right wing fantasies of the original, so that’s an upgrade right there. I wish Ghostbusters was a better film, because I know the stakes and because I like everyone involved. But “Okay” is not the enemy of perfect, especially since most of my complaints will be irrelevant to paying consumers.

Ghostbusters is neither the great comedy of its age, nor an “Everything you are doing is bad. I want you to know this” disaster. Its mere adequacy may become the most important part of its legacy, especially if it’s a hit. Ghostbusters makes the case for the conventionality of a female-fronted blockbuster while also arguing that such a thing can be just as “Eh, it’s okay” as any male-fronted one.

Guardian: 4/5
The new Ghostbusters is good. Very good, in fact. It had to be. No comedy has faced more advance scrutiny - even hostility – than Paul Feig’s reboot of Ivan Reitman’s beloved 1980s hit.

Most crucially, the mean-spirited reception to the film before anyone had seen it does not seem to have put a dampener on the movie itself. Fun oozes from almost every frame; likewise the energy of a team excited to be revolutionising the blockbuster landscape. Let’s just hope everyone will enjoy the view.
 
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Jun 18, 2009
62,408
10
1,115
Film Stage: https://thefilmstage.com/reviews/review-ghostbusters/

B-, fairly positive overall

Even if all the comedy and action doesn’t land, there’s enough charm to be had with the main cast. Feig and co-writer Katie Dippold even manage to get in a few compulsory jabs at YouTube trolls along the way, but perhaps the biggest triumph of all is that they’ve introduced a team one would actually like to see continue answering the ghost-busting call. This new version of Ghostbusters will rarely make one bowl over with laughter, but, like the first film, it has a consistent amount of lighthearted, amiable fun.
 

213372bu

Banned
Dec 11, 2013
6,326
1
350
However, although the new Ghostbusters follows the template of the original by Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis, the witless script by Feig and his co-writer on The Heat, Katie Dippold, has no juice. Short on both humor and tension, the spook encounters are rote collisions with vaporous CG specters that escalate into an uninvolving supernatural cataclysm unleashed upon New York's Times Square. It's all busy-ness, noise and chaos, with zero thrills and very little sustainable comic buoyancy.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/ghostbusters-film-review-909313
Hollywood Reporter
 
May 6, 2013
1,155
0
0
Hitfix: A-

Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters is, above all else, a real Ghostbusters movie. If you’re a fan of the 1984 original (as most comedy fans are), one of the things that’s interesting as you watch this one is the way it echoes off of that film. It is no simple remake, but neither is it a radical reinvention of the core idea. It’s simply a different riff on the same idea, with a solid dose of fan service thrown in to help make the transition from the old to the new. The script, by Feig and Katie Dippold, does some big things different, and the choices they make are intriguing.
 
Sep 18, 2011
8,322
2
740
New York, NY
Ah, I was thinking of making a thread.

Here are some others:

SlashFilm - 7/10

At the end of the day, those who hoped the new Ghostbusters would be just like the original will probably be disappointed. The comedic sensibility is more Paul Feig than Ivan Reitman, the characters and their relationships to one another are completely different, and it all feels more like a 2010s blockbuster film than a 1980s comedy adventure (for pretty obvious reasons). But those willing to roll with the changes will find an entertaining comedy-adventure full of new characters, new gadgets, new monsters, and new possibilities.

HitFix - "A-"

Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters is, above all else, a real Ghostbusters movie. If you’re a fan of the 1984 original (as most comedy fans are), one of the things that’s interesting as you watch this one is the way it echoes off of that film. It is no simple remake, but neither is it a radical reinvention of the core idea. It’s simply a different riff on the same idea, with a solid dose of fan service thrown in to help make the transition from the old to the new. The script, by Feig and Katie Dippold, does some big things different, and the choices they make are intriguing. First and foremost, though, Ghostbusters is a big fat slice of silly summer entertainment, confident and sometimes quite beautiful. It is the biggest stretch Feig’s made so far as a filmmaker, embracing the technical side of things in a way he never has so far, and stuffed chock full of affection for everything that makes Ghostbusters such an enduring favorite.
 

Real Hero

Member
Jul 31, 2012
9,611
0
0
'Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters is, above all else, a real Ghostbusters movie. '

the fuck does this mean
 
Jul 15, 2009
12,180
0
915
I'm thinking the consensus will be ok, not terrible and not great around 6/10

Think it will be a hit box office wise as well
 

Already Torn

Banned
Sep 29, 2015
12,213
1
0

Expendable.

Member
Feb 9, 2008
19,109
1
0
NYC
www.thefilmstage.com
Here's my review. If you can get past the repeated structure, it's quite funny.

[Review] Ghostbusters




Having displayed comedic chops through his entire career and an eye for action in the last few features, Paul Feig was the ideal director to handle a new version of Ghostbusters. Teaming the actors who have most excelled when working with him (Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy) while giving a spotlight to some deserving talent (Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones), the right ingredients were in place to carry on the spirit of this franchise -- or, let's be honest: just the first film. While it doesn't quite reach the height of laughter or thrills of Feig's best work, Ghostbusters has a persistent dose of rollicking, scrappy fun that the ideal summer blockbuster should contain -- all the way past the last credits.

Edit: I see it was shared above. Thanks!
 

Shamrock7r

Member
Sep 25, 2005
8,224
3
1,155
There is only one reviewer I trust. Peter Rosenthal and the Film Standard. I'll wait for his take.
 

User1608

Banned
Aug 11, 2015
5,914
0
0
Heck
Hmm, love the original Ghostbusters, and like 2 enough, just want this one to be a fun movie at least.😃

Cautiously looking forward to it from reviews.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.