Ghostbusters 2016: Talk about the movie(s).

[Aragorn]

That's what I intended by my statement. I think any review right now is in risk of trying to stick it to the haters or to support the movie on principle as much as the other side goes the other way with it. Not to say no one is capable of reviewing it objectively but the well is too poisoned for me to trust in early reviews.

That's how I feel. I think most of the mainstream critics will be pretty fair (although there are the occasional positive review quote chasers), but quite a few internet reviewers who have no checks and balances (or critical skill) will either be predisposed to bash it or defend it no matter what kind of movie it ends up being.

Some reviewers who are of the latter write to be contrarian and stand out by taking the opposing rating of a well-received or poorly-received movie, some wait to see how the wind blows before throwing in their hat with the majority, and some will rave about a movie if they get an exclusive interview or are granted access to the set.

 

[ichab]

That's how I feel. I think most of the mainstream critics will be pretty fair (although there are the occasional positive review quote chasers), but quite a few internet reviewers who have no checks and balances (or critical skill) will either be predisposed to bash it or defend it no matter what kind of movie it ends up being.

Some reviewers who are of the latter write to be contrarian and stand out by taking the opposing rating of a well-received or poorly-received movie, some wait to see how the wind blows before throwing in their hat with the majority, and some will rave about a movie if they get an exclusive interview or are granted access to the set.

All fair points which is why critics are never a factor in my choice of movie watching. Particuliarly as of late because there have been quite a few panned movies that I've loved. There has also been a lot of so-called GREAT movies that in my opinion were complete garbage.

 

[Kelthaz]

And the reviews are rolling in. Currently at 63% on Rotten Tomatoes.

 

[JeffinOakland]

It looks awful but if it gets good reviews and I know anyone who saw it and liked it, I might watch it.

 

[JD]

IGN's Terri Schwartz has posted her review, she thought it was OK and gave it a 6.9/10. She really liked the cast, but thought the pacing and editing weren't very good, and that it spent to much time with homages and callbacks to the original.

 

[Zaku]

Now it's almost impossible to judge a movie only for its artistic merits. I'm starting to miss the days when you didn't know almost anything about an upcoming film.

By the way, I totally agree with this Cracked article.

5 Reasons It's Now Impossible To Tell If A New Movie's Good

Is it just me, or do movie trailers kinda blow? Despite costing 50 times more than they did in the '80s, the average preview is packed with so many spoilers that you're sick of the movie before it comes out. Combine that with the sheer volume of internet chatter and most days it seemsimpossible to know if a movie will actually be good.

So how do we fix this? Who do we pitchfork? I'm sorry to say, but the answer is everything and everyone. We're all to blame. The studios. The people reading this. And especially me ... the jerkass writing about movies all the time.

No, really, this shitification was a team effort, starting with the fact that ...

 

[CRM-114]

The reviews are starting to roll in, and they are all over the place. You can't get a consistent read on the movie.

The cast is great, the cast is terrible, the characters are copies of the originals, the characters are fresh and unique, the movie is respectful of the original, the movie leans too heavily on the original, the movie is quick-paced and funny, the movie drags in parts and has too few laughs, Paul Feig is the right director, Paul Feig needs to stick to straight comedies, Bill Murray's cameo is funny, Bill Murray's cameo is boring and grinds the film to a halt.

About the only consistent thing in any of the reviews is that Chris Hemsworth is funny.

 

[Zaku]

I'm waiting for the Berardinelli's review. 90% of times I agree with him.

 

[mos6507]

Now it's almost impossible to judge a movie only for its artistic merits. I'm starting to miss the days when you didn't know almost anything about an upcoming film.

By the way, I totally agree with this Cracked article.

5 Reasons It's Now Impossible To Tell If A New Movie's Good

There's a lot of truth in that rant. Thanks for that.

 

[Myko]

About the only consistent thing in any of the reviews is that Chris Hemsworth is funny.

Hollywood reporter says he was bad: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/ghostbusters-film-review-909313

So indeed, all over the place!

 

[Zaku]

I don't trust early reviewers. You have to let settle your opinion a little bit.

 

[JD]

It's got a 62 on Metacritic so far, with 9 positive and 8 mixed reviews.
The highest is a 91 from Hitfix's Drew McWeeny, and the lowest is a 40 The Hollywood Reporter's David Rooney.

 

[Csalem]

Den of Geek have given it 3/5 and seem mostly positive:
http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/ghostbusters/42003/ghostbusters-2016-review

 

[Kelthaz]

So basically what I'm getting from these reviews is that the film is okay with a great cast and the potential for an absolutely fantastic sequel if they fix a few problems. Sounds a lot like Deadpool. To be honest I was expecting a disaster, so I'm pretty happy with this. I think I want to see this movie now.

 

[Tosk]

It's nice to see that they didn't Fant4stic it, but I'm still probably not going to bother seeing it. The trailers and clips just don't do it for me, but I'm glad it's not a trainwreck. Sort of.

 

[Trekker4747]

46% on RT on just the "Top Critics" which means a bit more, IMHO, than all internet reviews. I await "fist-hand" reviews from internet vloggers who see the movie this week and report their thoughts. Of note, Channel Awesome "personalities" like Angry Joe, Brad Jones, Doug Walker and former Channel Awesome talents Allison Pregler and Phelous. (Pregler has joined Jones on several Midnight Screenings, so it's possible they'll do theirs together.)

These "vlogger" reviewers sort of matter more to me given they're "ground level" non-professional audience members and often have a more honest reaction and one that's less analytical. Though Jones can tend to be a bit analytical on some aspects. I find I often agree with Jone's views though not as strongly as he often does. He didn't care of ID:Resurgence and many of the reasons why he didn't like it were the same as the reasons why I didn't like it, but I still landed on being okay with it but agree with his assessment it's not one to rush to the theaters to see.

Since the loss of Roger Ebert, more when he stopped doing reviews well before his death, I stopped really caring about professional reviews as there's very few I've latched onto. Audience polling reviews, like what's on RT, also matters little to me as the internet is a void filled with assholes and it's easy for just anyone to rate the move one way or another. Like the oft cited thing that GB(16) is the most hated trailer on YouTube. Meh. It's the interent and you're looking at a major property and a growing "men-inist" sentiment out there so it's easy for just anyone to dislike the trailer just to do it and not based on any real opinion.

But, anyway, the "Top Critics" rating on Rotten Tomatoes speaks louder than the much higher percentage for all reviews (currently at 74%. Considering this is going to encompass numerous internet bloggers and "publications" I sort of wonder if this high rating isn't something of an over-compensating "feminist" movement that feels the movie is flawless and should be lauded because of the female cast and the perceived sexism that's causing people to dislike the movie so much. (Rather than the movie just looking like crap with obvious, text-book 101, humor and a "message" in it that's muddied by a couple aspects the movie.)

As I've said, I'll go see this. Likely this weekend. It's not a movie I'm excited to see or "can't wait to see" but I want to see it out of curiosity and out of a sense of "I can't hate on this movie if I haven't seen it." The trailers don't make it look good and if it wasn't for the curiosity in me I wouldn't bother until home-video. But, eh, I'm curious enough to go see it in theaters and I'm open to being surprised. But, again, from the trailers and the snippet scenes they've shown us; I'm not hopeful.

 

[CRM-114]

I would've been surprised if it really were the profound disaster people were predicting, but if the reviews are as all over the place as they appear, Ghostbusters probably isn't the great summer movie the better reviews are saying, either.

I read somewhere that the movie needs to gross somewhere in the $300 million range to be considered a success, likely due to marketing costs and the fact that it's being used as the basis for an ongoing summer franchise.

 

[kirk55555]

46% on RT on just the "Top Critics" which means a bit more, IMHO, than all internet reviews. I await "fist-hand" reviews from internet vloggers who see the movie this week and report their thoughts. Of note, Channel Awesome "personalities" like Angry Joe, Brad Jones, Doug Walker and former Channel Awesome talents Allison Pregler and Phelous. (Pregler has joined Jones on several Midnight Screenings, so it's possible they'll do theirs together.)

These "vlogger" reviewers sort of matter more to me given they're "ground level" non-professional audience members and often have a more honest reaction and one that's less analytical. Though Jones can tend to be a bit analytical on some aspects. I find I often agree with Jone's views though not as strongly as he often does. He didn't care of ID:Resurgence and many of the reasons why he didn't like it were the same as the reasons why I didn't like it, but I still landed on being okay with it but agree with his assessment it's not one to rush to the theaters to see.

Its funny because I'm the same way. I prefer the reviews of internet personalities I'm familiar with over other reviewers in newspapers/magazines/etc. I'm actually also waiting for reviews from several people you mentioned, especially Angry Joe and some unconnected reviewers like Jeremy Jahns. Not only are they people whose work I enjoy and have experience with, they always make good points even if I don't agree with them 100% of the time (although I tend to agree with them more than I do random reviewers from other media).

 

[Kelthaz]

$300 million is very low for a summer blockbuster. Independence Day, Warcraft, and Apocalypse have reached $300 million and those films were all disappointments/bombs of varying degrees. The general rule of thumb is that movies need to make twice their budget to break even. Given a $150 million production budget and, what, a $100 million marketing budget? We're looking at about $500 million to break even. I'd guess expectations for success are $600-700 million? That seems doable to me.

 

[Trekker4747]

Angry Joe should be interesting he most often tends to be pretty fair though he has time of rage and extremes.

But there's just something "special" about the Midnight Screenings, seeing these people's reactions minutes after they see the movie and discuss it in the the car. Much more first-hand and unpracticed with collected thoughts. Between all of the internvet reviewers combined it makes for a good barometer. I watch Jeremy Johns too but his fast talking, rapid editing, and the "personality" he dons for the videos doesn't work for me. He just speaks too damn fast and his impressions are annoying. And I just really, really hate videos with rapid-cut editing where the person will say a couple lines and then there's a quick cut to them saying the next line. It's not a process that works for me. And I've disagreed more with Johns than anyone else whom I'm usually at least in the ballpark with.