Spoilers Ghostbusters (2016): Grading and Review
- Thread starter Trekker4747
- Start date
Saw the movie yesterday...
Thought some of the humour was a bit too juvenile and Kevin was too dumb too live...
The ending was a bit too easy and the bad guy's motivation reminded me a bit of Dr. Janosz Poha's motivation...
But other than that i liked the movie...
Thought some of the humour was a bit too juvenile and Kevin was too dumb too live...
The ending was a bit too easy and the bad guy's motivation reminded me a bit of Dr. Janosz Poha's motivation...
But other than that i liked the movie...
Saw it in a matinee this afternoon which, to my surprise on the second Sunday of release, was packed - we didn't try to arrive early and there were no two seats together anywhere back of the fourth row, so our viewing position wasn't optimal.
Second surprise - I enjoyed the movie from start to finish without a single caveat. It was entertaining as hell, and frequently funny. Maybe "frequently funny" comes off as faint praise for a broad comedy, I don't know, but even when it wasn't laugh out loud funny it was nonetheless delightful.
I think it would probably play just as well if one had never heard of Ghostbusters as it does if one has seen the old movies - sure a couple of jokes and cameos wouldn't land, but Murray's part certainly doesn't rely on his previous association at all. It relies on him being Bill Fucking Murray doing that shit he does in other people's movies. Excellent.
This evening I understand why Paramount was so breathless to announce Star Trek 4 as soon as they'd signed Hemsworth - he's a big part of this movie and he's great. Loved Kevin.
My least favorite character was the one played by McCarthy; I guess she was often playing straight for the others. Fave fave hands down is McKinnon, who as far as I'm concerned can now do absolutely anything and I will pay to see it.
Second surprise - I enjoyed the movie from start to finish without a single caveat. It was entertaining as hell, and frequently funny. Maybe "frequently funny" comes off as faint praise for a broad comedy, I don't know, but even when it wasn't laugh out loud funny it was nonetheless delightful.
I think it would probably play just as well if one had never heard of Ghostbusters as it does if one has seen the old movies - sure a couple of jokes and cameos wouldn't land, but Murray's part certainly doesn't rely on his previous association at all. It relies on him being Bill Fucking Murray doing that shit he does in other people's movies. Excellent.
This evening I understand why Paramount was so breathless to announce Star Trek 4 as soon as they'd signed Hemsworth - he's a big part of this movie and he's great. Loved Kevin.
My least favorite character was the one played by McCarthy; I guess she was often playing straight for the others. Fave fave hands down is McKinnon, who as far as I'm concerned can now do absolutely anything and I will pay to see it.
Hemsworth does indeed do a good job and seems to have a knack for comedy but I didn't much care for Kevin as his character was simply too stupid. There's some of the usual "bimbo/himbo" thing and how he kept tripping over the door jamb when leaving the room but then there's things like him trying to grab the phone through the aquarium glass, not realizing the phone sitting right next to him was the one ringing as opposed to the one inside the tank and thinking his eyes control sound to his ears! That stuff for me didn't land and just made the character way too stupid. I did like the "my cat/Mike Hat" bit. It's not Who's On First exactly, but humorous.
One big thing for me is that movie sort-of lacks the "drama" of the first bust which is a flaw in this movie over the original; in this movie going straight for a slapsticky, broad, comedy universe as opposed to "real world"/mundane universe of the original movie. (mundane except for the existence of ghosts and extra-dimensional portal demons.)
Look at the first bust scene from the original movie; the guys are sitting around a table eating Chinese take-out where it's revealed it represents the last of their petty cash. They've hit rock bottom and are near failure. Janine gets the phone call and with the "they'll be very discrete" line she slams on the bell-switch shouting "We got one!!!", the fire alarm bell rings and the guys spring into action, and the jazzy "We Got One!"/"Cleanin' Up the Town" song plays. They slide-down the poll, put on their uniforms and we cut to the outside where we see the doors opening revealing the license plate, front grille and eventually the emergency lights of Ecto-1, the engine growls to life as the car speeds out of the garage with the iconic siren, it whips around the turn and speeds off, the tempo of the song up-beat and adding to the excitement which comes to a head as the car pulls up on the curb alongside the hotel showing the "no ghosts" symbol.
The first call scene of the new movie doesn't have nearly that same energy and excitement to it. They just sort of shuffle around, wait on the curb, where Holtzman sort-of calmly pulls up to the curb, they get in and there's a bit of an "action" driving piece but hardly has the same "tempo" of the original.
That's sort of the whole movie for me a times it just feels like it's not trying. The scene of them hunting for the ghost is pretty good but also in of itself too short compared to the extended scene of the original movie and, again, the tenseness and eeriness of it. The look in the new movie is decent and it's pretty funny when Patty says. "room full of nightmares, not go in there;" when she sees a costume room. But overall? I dunno. It just lacks something.
Which is mostly why I landed on "meh" for the movie. It has moments but at the same time doesn't even feel like it's trying to be something other than a product designed to set-up a path to sell other product.
One big thing for me is that movie sort-of lacks the "drama" of the first bust which is a flaw in this movie over the original; in this movie going straight for a slapsticky, broad, comedy universe as opposed to "real world"/mundane universe of the original movie. (mundane except for the existence of ghosts and extra-dimensional portal demons.)
Look at the first bust scene from the original movie; the guys are sitting around a table eating Chinese take-out where it's revealed it represents the last of their petty cash. They've hit rock bottom and are near failure. Janine gets the phone call and with the "they'll be very discrete" line she slams on the bell-switch shouting "We got one!!!", the fire alarm bell rings and the guys spring into action, and the jazzy "We Got One!"/"Cleanin' Up the Town" song plays. They slide-down the poll, put on their uniforms and we cut to the outside where we see the doors opening revealing the license plate, front grille and eventually the emergency lights of Ecto-1, the engine growls to life as the car speeds out of the garage with the iconic siren, it whips around the turn and speeds off, the tempo of the song up-beat and adding to the excitement which comes to a head as the car pulls up on the curb alongside the hotel showing the "no ghosts" symbol.
The first call scene of the new movie doesn't have nearly that same energy and excitement to it. They just sort of shuffle around, wait on the curb, where Holtzman sort-of calmly pulls up to the curb, they get in and there's a bit of an "action" driving piece but hardly has the same "tempo" of the original.
That's sort of the whole movie for me a times it just feels like it's not trying. The scene of them hunting for the ghost is pretty good but also in of itself too short compared to the extended scene of the original movie and, again, the tenseness and eeriness of it. The look in the new movie is decent and it's pretty funny when Patty says. "room full of nightmares, not go in there;" when she sees a costume room. But overall? I dunno. It just lacks something.
Which is mostly why I landed on "meh" for the movie. It has moments but at the same time doesn't even feel like it's trying to be something other than a product designed to set-up a path to sell other product.
Okay, two things:
- Kevin is funny. The fact that no matter how stupid you might imagine that Kevin could be, he's way stupider, is even more funny.
- I do not care how anything was done in the old Ghostbusters movie. Saw it, liked it. Thirty years later I watch other movies which I also like.
Depends on how much "stupidity" one is willing to accept. He was funny and some of his dim moments worked for be, but being so stupid he things his eyes controls sound is just beyond dumb and I didn't find that bit funny because it's just, "Really?"
Well, of course they will. Imagine if they were all just one continuous Ghostbuster!
Yeah, whatever. At least you only expended one paragraph on that one.
Ghostbusters falls to 3rd place, with a global total of $122,856,739, nowhere near its production budget, and again, remembering the observation of box office analyst Jeff Block:
This is not turning out to be the summer blockbuster / franchise re-launch Sony and its media supporters pushed for months.
This is not turning out to be the summer blockbuster / franchise re-launch Sony and its media supporters pushed for months.
No surprise there with all the controversy. The anti-feminist fan boys who were so upset with the all female cast were the same ones that would have went to see the movie multiple times instead of boycotting it. Maybe they should have cast both male and female Ghostbusters? Regardless the franchise is dead again.
Here we go again with the anti-female fanboys. While I'm sure that played a role it wasn't a big role. Fury Road and The Force Awakens both had female protagonists and they succeeded big-time at the Box Office, I suspect Rogue One will do the same this winter which also has a female protagonist and I think it goes without saying that Star Wars has a much larger and more militant fanboy base than Ghostbusters does.
The problem is that it's just not a very good movie and if there's any "feminism" backlash from "men-inists" it'd be due to the movie being overt about this "message" between the cast and the movie itself having stuff in it that could be construed as anti-men. (Most of the men in the movie are portrayed as dumb and/or weak-willed and the antagonist in ghost-forum is defeated by shooting him in the ghost-junk.)
But, in the end, it's just not a strong movie. Most reviews I've read hover around "Meh" which is generally reflected in the grade/rating it's given. Rotten Tomatoes has it at a high score but only because it parses reviews into Good/Bad and there's no middle ground. At 73% it's a flat C. Top Critic Score at 58% gives it an F (Which Rotten Tomatoes seems to make a "Certified Fresh") and the Audience Score of 58% lines up with "Top Critics." Interestingly as I look at the other movies and compare the All Critics and Top Critics both of them are more-or-less in line with one another, with maybe only a few points in disparity.
Really makes one wonder on why the disparity when it comes to Ghostbusters. I suspect it's largely, again, on how RT parses the reviews into a Good/Bad or maybe most of the reviewers not considered "Top Critics" were easy on the movie to prevent backlash from more militant feminists.
At any rate, the movie dropped 53% over the week which is fairly significant, though not unusual looking at most other movies. But looking at previous comedies from Feig/McCarthy it's pretty strong. Bridesmaids dropped 21% between weeks, The Heat 40%,, Spy 44%. McCarthy's Tammy saw a 179% increase between first and second weeks (along with an increase in screens) and then a 41% drop between weeks.
So that's a lot of numbers, but shows that Ghostbusters isn't quite making as much of an impact as they had hoped and it's got two big challengers the next two weeks at BO and it was still beaten by a now 3-week-old animated movie making it 3rd place for the week.
The problem is that it's just not a very good movie and if there's any "feminism" backlash from "men-inists" it'd be due to the movie being overt about this "message" between the cast and the movie itself having stuff in it that could be construed as anti-men. (Most of the men in the movie are portrayed as dumb and/or weak-willed and the antagonist in ghost-forum is defeated by shooting him in the ghost-junk.)
But, in the end, it's just not a strong movie. Most reviews I've read hover around "Meh" which is generally reflected in the grade/rating it's given. Rotten Tomatoes has it at a high score but only because it parses reviews into Good/Bad and there's no middle ground. At 73% it's a flat C. Top Critic Score at 58% gives it an F (Which Rotten Tomatoes seems to make a "Certified Fresh") and the Audience Score of 58% lines up with "Top Critics." Interestingly as I look at the other movies and compare the All Critics and Top Critics both of them are more-or-less in line with one another, with maybe only a few points in disparity.
Really makes one wonder on why the disparity when it comes to Ghostbusters. I suspect it's largely, again, on how RT parses the reviews into a Good/Bad or maybe most of the reviewers not considered "Top Critics" were easy on the movie to prevent backlash from more militant feminists.
At any rate, the movie dropped 53% over the week which is fairly significant, though not unusual looking at most other movies. But looking at previous comedies from Feig/McCarthy it's pretty strong. Bridesmaids dropped 21% between weeks, The Heat 40%,, Spy 44%. McCarthy's Tammy saw a 179% increase between first and second weeks (along with an increase in screens) and then a 41% drop between weeks.
So that's a lot of numbers, but shows that Ghostbusters isn't quite making as much of an impact as they had hoped and it's got two big challengers the next two weeks at BO and it was still beaten by a now 3-week-old animated movie making it 3rd place for the week.
Yeah, it can't be because the movie just wasn't very good, the trailer made it look unfunny and unappealing, and it was clearly going to be an awful "reimagining" of the original movie that was greatly beloved by many.
It's all because it had girls in it.
That rhetoric is really getting fucking old. The exact same movie could have been made with an all-male cast, and it would still have been as meh as it is with nearly the same box office take. Because it wasn't the cast; it was the movie itself as a whole.
No matter how many people need to convince themselves that it was some idiotic misogynistic conspiracy to keep women oppressed. Or whatever other nonsense these people believe.
It's all because it had girls in it.
That rhetoric is really getting fucking old. The exact same movie could have been made with an all-male cast, and it would still have been as meh as it is with nearly the same box office take. Because it wasn't the cast; it was the movie itself as a whole.
No matter how many people need to convince themselves that it was some idiotic misogynistic conspiracy to keep women oppressed. Or whatever other nonsense these people believe.
The movie definitely had a lot of shit flung at it from sexist assholes. Whether or not that really contributed to its mediocre box office is unclear, although I doubt it.
Personally I think most people outside a specific group of nerds just don't give a shit about the Ghostbusters franchise. I know I don't.
Personally I think most people outside a specific group of nerds just don't give a shit about the Ghostbusters franchise. I know I don't.
It's absolutely normal:
- Captain America: Civil War: -59.5%
- Dark Knight: -52%
- Amazing Spider Man: -61%
http://manfeels-park.tumblr.com/post/147941022965/your-face-is-tanking
But those films all had much bigger openings. A 53% drop on a mediocre $46 million opening weekend is pretty bad. The hope was that the movie would have excellent legs like Feig's other films, but that's clearly not the case.
Nor do I. I don't know that I'd have paid any attention to the movie at all if it weren't for all the controversy.
My oldest child loved the original - didn't like Ghostbusters II - and we saw it together yesterday. She liked the new one as well.
Pretty much, which is why I compared it to other Fieg comedies where its drop stands out more, and for a movie with such a soft opening weekend and as large of a budget as it has that 53% drop stands out a heck of a lot more about this movie's financial future. Compare that to Neighbors 2 which made almost $30m in its opening weekend (making its estimated budget back) and then dropped 50% over the week for a second week take of $14 million. So after two weeks the movie likely paid for itself between production and marketing. Now the movie is still something of a flop considering its overall take of $55 million because there's other cost factors and that the movie doesn't get all of that money; but it works for a nice comparison of things because budget matters.
If Ghostbusters had a more reasonable budget for a summer action-comedy it'd be sitting pretty well right now. But it has a very high budget which means it's numbers and drops stands out more because that just shows how much more difficult it is for the studio to see a profit and to launch franchise.
Similar threads
