Support NeoGAF

[Knuckle Sandwich]

That was a great review. The ad-libbing really is terrible and his edit makes those two moments so much better.

So people like the voice he does?

I do. I've sat through hours and hours of it though so maybe I'm desensitized.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

I would prefer Scientist Man

Scientist Man is patronizing and awful.

Maybe that's your point

Mike is best when he's talking to someone rather than talking at someone.

 

[disappeared]

Bill Murray is kind of an asshole. Whenever I see the dumb Bill Murray sticker on someones car I roll my eyes out of my head.

Let that shit go.

Who even made that into a thing?

It was on cars, t-shirts, hats, lots of stuff. Did somebody just figure it'd catch on? I mean it did, but yeah.

 

[Beerman462]

Most people who enjoy comedy, would put both Bill Murray and Steve Martin up there.

And I have no idea what you are going with concerning Bill Murray stickers.

Never seen it once, and I have seen "Kill a gay baby whale for Jesus." Multiple times on the back of cars in Texas.

What state are these pro Bill Murray bumper stickers popping up?

Never seen these?

 

[Wall]

Interestingly enough, in their Re:View show about it, they make the point that the movie is about science conquering superstition, but it's a very surface note and not the historical reading you want, but it is indeed an interesting start point. Heck, without going too meta on this, it might actually be an opportunity for you to make that kind of commentary and put it out there!

Neat. I'll have to check it out. Except I'd say that in the movies the ghostbusters kind of make a science out of phenomena previously beyond science or even human understanding, to the point where people disbelieve the existence of the objects of the ghostbuster's study - the ghosts. As I understand the idea, science conquering superstition involves finding mechanistic explanations for phenomena previouls explained by elements of myth and folklore, such as ghosts. The ghostbusters seem to make a science of the spirits, rather than finding an alteranative explanation to them rooted in the natural sciences.

I think it's an interesting idea, though. I've always kind of viewed the original ghostbusters movies as kind of a cultural inflection point between the pessimism and spiritualism of the 70's and the do-it-yourself rationalism of the 80's and 90's. The idea of making the irrational rational kind of goes along with that.

What's great about the movies to me are that they seem to simultaneously satarize and celebrate both viewpoints.

 

[Elwood Blues]

There was a reference to the Wizard of fucking Oz in the movie and the director didn't even know it. How is that possible?

 

[phanphare]

Most people who enjoy comedy, would put both Bill Murray and Steve Martin up there.

And I have no idea what you are going with concerning Bill Murray stickers.

Never seen it once, and I have seen "Kill a gay baby whale for Jesus." Multiple times on the back of cars in Texas.

What state are these pro Bill Murray bumper stickers popping up?

I lived in Charleston for a while and Bill Murray is sort of a local legendish type of guy there. super cool. lots of funny stories about running into him at bars and what not. he's a co owner of the minor league baseball team down there.

basically they like Bill Murray in Charleston and I wouldn't be surprised to see those kinds of stickers there

 

[Beerman462]

Scientist Man is patronizing and awful.

Maybe that's your point

Mike is best when he's talking to someone rather than talking at someone.

It's done tongue in cheek. This fly's over some peoples heads though. Not saying that's you, just saying.

 

[Krev]

Paul Feig has been carried by talented writers in all of his work that has been well received.

Yeah, that hack Paul Feig couldn't have made a movie like Spy without being carried by a talented writer like Paul Feig.

 

[C4Lukins]

Never seen these?

Nope never once until today.

Not to say it does not exist, but yeah it is not a thing in any version of the world that I experience.

 

[Knuckle Sandwich]

Who even made that into a thing?

It was on cars, t-shirts, hats, lots of stuff. Did somebody just figure it'd catch on? I mean it did, but yeah.

I think Bill Murray doing stuff like showing up at strangers weddings started the weird worship of him.

 

[Beerman462]

Nope never once until today.

Not to say it does not exist, but yeah it is not a thing in any version of the world that I experience.

It reminds me of the Chive bullshit and might be from Chive.

 

[phanphare]

I think Bill Murray doing stuff like showing up at strangers weddings started the weird worship of him.

he's the people's champ!

 

[Riposte]

I really liked the whole thing except when he started to badger on about Bill Murray not allowing the third Ghostbuster movie to be made.

It's a really stupid thing to bring up (and seemingly get serious about) in a review which is criticizing needless use of valuable IPs and directly promises early on to not to make it about nostalgia. This really sticks out as a huge contradiction and he actually dwells on it for quite a bit. The world hardly needed a second Ghostbusters (which is, tellingly, not mentioned at all here), why even be upset about there not being a third one?

But those few minutes aside, I did really like the review. The more you find out about this movie, the easier it is to hate.

 

[deadscreensky]

I'm not generally a fan, but this video was pretty damn great.

 

[Beerman462]

I think Bill Murray doing stuff like showing up at strangers weddings started the weird worship of him.

I liked him in Zombieland and that's about it recently. Obviously his early career was great.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Have not watched yet, but happy to hear it ain't shitty about diversity in movies. Though to people saying that there was no valid concern, there was plenty. They dogged on TFA for "diversity quotas" in casting and devoted an entire video to downplaying how bad the harassment was. That it turned out well was defying expectations based on the last Plinkett review and last GB2016 video.

 

[Knuckle Sandwich]

I liked him in Zombieland and that's about it recently. Obviously his early career was great.

I still think he's great but the sorta folk hero status is just weird. St. Vincent is a great recent movie with him and Melissa McCarthy.

 

[phanphare]

I really liked the whole thing except when he started to badger on about Bill Murray not allowing the third Ghostbuster movie to be made.

It's a really stupid thing to bring up (and seemingly get serious about) in a review which is criticizing needless use of valuable IPs and directly promises early on to not to make it about nostalgia. This really sticks out as a huge contradiction and he actually dwells on it for quite a bit. The world hardly needed a second Ghostbusters (which is, tellingly, not mentioned at all here), why even be upset about there not being a third one?

But those few minutes aside, I did really like the review. The more you find out about this movie, the easier it is to hate.

I think that whole bit was just a joke that if bill murray had agreed to ghostbusters 3 gb2016 wouldn't have existed therefore gb2016 existing and being awful is bill murray's fault

 

[Riposte]

If people haven't watched RLM stuff lately, I recommend watching the recent Best of the Worst, because it's probably the most entertaining one they've ever done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWKlmbTudD8

You may want to watch this one first though:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PILodU2wXw

 

[Marcel]

I knew Paul Feig was a hack but having it all laid out for an hour really drives it home. Good review as usual from Mike.

 

[DUFFMCWALIN]

Oh joy. More Ghostbusters Discourse.

I hate the internet.

Nvm I see it's already been talked about. That's what I get for posting on mobile before refreshing.

 

[The Scollard]

It was a really good review, and a return to form after the TFA review which was a bit meandering. I would say that it took a little to get rolling, but when it did, it had a lot of quality stuff in it. The comparison between the original and the remake was eye-opening, and there were some great Plinkett moments that are up there with the opening line of his TPM review. The suicide note joke was hilariously dark.

I think, considering the amount of time between the last Plinkett review and this one, the lack of skits was more so Mike could get this one out quicker, and not do as much hard work on it. Try and stick to his main points. This is from someone who really enjoyed the dead hooker from earlier on. Honestly, considering what Jay has said about Mike and how RLM generally operates, I highly doubt Mike chose to cut back on the skits and not really touch on the sexism aspects surrounding the movie because of people criticized RLM for it. Mike only takes fandom reaction into account when he decides to double down on it, like with the Transformers 5 reviews. Those were hilarious. Me, personally, I believe Mike just believed he already said what he wanted to say on the controversy surrounding the movie in the Scientist Man and the HitB review. It's consistent with his previous behaviour.

I honestly don't get the idea that people should refrain from discussing or criticizing this film because doing so would "encourage the alt-right". The whole argument is dumb. GB2016 is an awful movie, and people shouldn't walk on eggshells around this movie because a small group of nazis don't like it. It's basically a "Hitler Ate Sugar" argument coupled with stupid fearmongering. If anybody was responsible for making this terrible movie into some cultural battle, it's probably Sony, so I don't see why RLM shouldn't not tear it down because of a defense pretty much set up by the corporation. The whole point of their Scientist Man video (which a ton of people misrepresent) is that Sony, by focusing too much attention on a few vocal sexist people, essentially amplified their views and made them seem more important than they really were.The Melissa McCarthy quote at the end basically sums up the main idea and point. If anything, I would say Sony's actions did a better job of "encouraging the alt-right" than any negative takedown of the movie.

 

[broncobuster]

Dull review for a dull and bad movie. Probably his worst Plinkett review after Star Wars 7.

 

[Beerman462]

bobby said many times in that thread that he wouldn't be watching this review and that is a prerequisite for posting in this thread so there's that

A man of his word....also easier to lay criticism without substance and claim the high ground.

 

[GhaleonEB]

So yeah, that was pretty good. Some of the extended jokes didn't land, but he did cut to the heart of why the film didn't work with some pretty good analysis, and some insights that never occurred to me.

The comparison of the opening sequences in particular was an effective demonstration of the story telling quality between them. The two films set their respective tones with that opening, with the original taking itself seriously and playing it straight. I didn't really recognize how important that was until the comparison was made. The new film never takes itself, its characters or is premise seriously and that's clear from the opening scene. Most of the problems are established in the opening - the tone, pacing, reliance on effects and poor comic timing are all on display.

That's when the review was as its most insightful, when it was going deep onto scenes and dialing in on why they don't work in the context of the film, and particularly when contrasted with the original.

I'd put this up there with the last couple Prequel reviews in terms of analysis, though as I said I don't think the jokes landed as consistently.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

Almost all remakes are terrible. Hollywood needs to stop leaning so hard on remakes and reboots, and instead go back to making original IPs.

 

[EBreda]

This reboot sucked donkey ass.
Can not stand this piece of trash. Jokes so forced , acting so mundane and directing so convoluted ... Plot is like a nightmare.

No redeeming qualities at all.

 

[A Link to the Past]

So yeah, that was pretty good. Some of the extended jokes didn't work, but he did cut to the heart of why the film didn't work with some pretty good analysis, and some insights that never occurred to me.

The comparison of the opening sequences in particular was an effective demonstration of the story telling quality between them. The two films set their respective tones with that opening, with the original taking itself seriously and playing it straight. I didn't really recognize how important that was until the comparison was made. The new film never takes itself, its characters or is premise seriously and that's clear from the opening scene. Most of the problems are clear from that opening - the tone, pacing, reliance on effects and poor comic timing are all on display.

That's when the review was as its most insightful, when it was going deep onto scenes and dialing in on why they don't work in the context of the film, and particularly when contrasted with the original.

I'd put this up there with the last couple Prequel reviews in terms of analysis, though as I said I don't think the jokes landed as consistently.

My concern is that the review will be a retread of other criticisms, but I'll of course reserve judgments.

 

[Veitsev]

This reboot sucked donkey ass.
Can not stand this piece of trash. Jokes so forced , acting so mundane and directing so convoluted ... Plot is like a nightmare.

No redeeming qualities at all.

I can't stand this ad lib trend. Seems to happen in every Melissa McCarthy movie and its not funny at all.

Like write a fucking script you hacks.

 

[Sblargh]

Lost in Translation in my head is a movie about Bill Murray that had the good luck of having Bill Murray as its star.

I guess that's when people started to feel closer to him.
Like, when I see a depressed Bill Murray half-ass an acting job or an interview, I can't help but go "yeah, I get you brah".

 

[Beerman462]

So yeah, that was pretty good. Some of the extended jokes didn't land, but he did cut to the heart of why the film didn't work with some pretty good analysis, and some insights that never occurred to me.

The comparison of the opening sequences in particular was an effective demonstration of the story telling quality between them. The two films set their respective tones with that opening, with the original taking itself seriously and playing it straight. I didn't really recognize how important that was until the comparison was made. The new film never takes itself, its characters or is premise seriously and that's clear from the opening scene. Most of the problems are established in the opening - the tone, pacing, reliance on effects and poor comic timing are all on display.

That's when the review was as its most insightful, when it was going deep onto scenes and dialing in on why they don't work in the context of the film, and particularly when contrasted with the original.

I'd put this up there with the last couple Prequel reviews in terms of analysis, though as I said I don't think the jokes landed as consistently.

They covered this in, I think the Half in the Bag episode. The original Ghostbusters was a Sci-Fi horror with a comedic layer applied. Ghostbusters 2016 was a "modern" comedy with a supernatural element.

 

[Marcel]

I can't stand this ad lib trend. Seems to happen in every Melissa McCarthy movie and its not funny at all.

Like write a fucking script you hacks.

Ad-libbing in the modern comedy film is basically when Louie CK ad-libs in front of David Lynch's character on Louie but even worse.

 

[QuantumZebra]

Damning with faint praise.

Also, 2 is miles better than the reboot.

Huffing paint is bad for you

 

[GhaleonEB]

They covered this in, I think the Half in the Bag episode. The original Ghostbusters was a Sci-Fi horror with a comedic layer applied. Ghostbusters 2016 was a "modern" comedy with a supernatural element.

That's a good description. And I think that's a fine distinction in approach to the films, if they had found a way to make it work. The film sandbagged itself by adhering so close to the original and with all the awful ad libbing.

 

[The Scollard]

Huffing paint is bad for you

You must know from experience.

GB2 was an good movie that doesn't hold a candle to its predecessor. It wasn't bad and had some great new bits. It's just that it was somewhat disappointing because it was a follow-up to a fantastic movie. GB2 had Vigo the Carpathian and the courthouse scene, which is miles better than anything in GB2016.

 

[Anth0ny]

So yeah, that was pretty good. Some of the extended jokes didn't land, but he did cut to the heart of why the film didn't work with some pretty good analysis, and some insights that never occurred to me.

The comparison of the opening sequences in particular was an effective demonstration of the story telling quality between them. The two films set their respective tones with that opening, with the original taking itself seriously and playing it straight. I didn't really recognize how important that was until the comparison was made. The new film never takes itself, its characters or is premise seriously and that's clear from the opening scene. Most of the problems are established in the opening - the tone, pacing, reliance on effects and poor comic timing are all on display.

That's when the review was as its most insightful, when it was going deep onto scenes and dialing in on why they don't work in the context of the film, and particularly when contrasted with the original.

I'd put this up there with the last couple Prequel reviews in terms of analysis, though as I said I don't think the jokes landed as consistently.

I liked that too, and I think Mike has a really good eye for that kind of stuff. He had similar comparisons in the Prequel reviews too.

I can't stand this ad lib trend. Seems to happen in every Melissa McCarthy movie and its not funny at all.

Like write a fucking script you hacks.

It's very difficult to pull off properly imo. When the cast of a show like Curb your Enthusiasm do it it's one thing... but it shouldn't always be used, or even be commonly used.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I can't stand this ad lib trend. Seems to happen in every Melissa McCarthy movie and its not funny at all.

Like write a fucking script you hacks.

Adlibbing's not a trend, it's pretty old. Bill Murray famously adlibbed a bunch in the original.

 

[Sapiens]

This was really Ghostbusters for Moms at the end of the day. Moms who miss Oprah and think they deserve the same pay as men. Silly.

 

[Puck Beaverton]

imagine thinking improv isn't great for movies

 

[bonesmccoy]

Yea, I agree with RLM here.

And that comment from Feig, saying he had to give control of the movie to his stars.... That actually explains a lot.

 

[phanphare]

Huffing paint is bad for you

joking aside I'm actually curious to hear your take on this review as I found it did an excellent job of showing why the original movie was so good while contrasting that with the many ways that the reboot missed the mark, sometimes horribly so

 

[Marcel]

imagine thinking improv isn't great for movies

In the modern comedy film it usually just consists of making scenes longer and fielding a bunch of material like you're practicing a tight five in front of a college bar open mic crowd.

 

[Veitsev]

Adlibbing's not a trend, it's pretty old. Bill Murray famously adlibbed a bunch in the original.

The films where every character is adlibbing the entire time like Spy, Judd Apatow movies, and this movie is absolutely a trend. Its a hallmark of McCarthy films. Let just let her riff the whole time and its not funny.

There isn't anything wrong with some adlibbing. When you use it instead of writing jokes its a problem.

They showed it pretty clearly in the review. Maybe you should watch it?

 

[GhaleonEB]

Yea, I agree with RLM here.

And that comment from Feig, saying he had to give control of the movie to his stars.... That actually explains a lot.

Yeah, I literally said wow at that moment. It explained so much.

 

[A Link to the Past]

The films where every character is adlibbing the entire time like Spy, Judd Apatow movies, and this movie is absolutely a trend. Its a hallmark of McCarthy films. Let just let her riff the whole time and its not funny.

There isn't anything wrong with some adlibbing. When you use it instead of writing jokes its a problem.

That is fair.

 

[Beerman462]

This was really Ghostbusters for Moms at the end of the day. Moms who miss Oprah and think they deserve the same pay as men. Silly.

That is an interesting take.

That's a good description. And I think that's a fine distinction in approach to the films, if they had found a way to make it work. The film sandbagged itself by adhering so close to the original and with all the awful ad libbing.

My youngest liked the movie and that's great. It's just not a smart or sophisticated comedy like the original.

 

[IsntChrisL]

Good review. The movie was not awful. It was just completely forgettable. It did nothing special. It should not have been a hard reboot and it should not have been put in Feig and Pascal's hands.

 

[Frozenprince]

That's a good description. And I think that's a fine distinction in approach to the films, if they had found a way to make it work. The film sandbagged itself by adhering so close to the original and with all the awful ad libbing.

The issue isn't changing the tone and genre, really.

It's that it did so badly. The whole thing is very disjointed from the beginning and it kinda shows that nobody involved had any real idea what they actually wanted this project to be.

 

[Acorn]

Watched the reboot and review back to back. He pretty much nails it imo.

It's biggest crime is how utterly forgettable it is.