Spoilers Ghostbusters (2016): Grading and Review

[Phily B]

I'd give it a C or maybe C+. Another pointless 80s remake/sequel that is completely inferior to the original in every way, file it in the same category as the star wars remake, terminator, independence day etc etc. Unoriginal, uninspired but I will give them credit for actually trying something new and not being completely derivative of the original. I actually wasn't going to see it because of the controversy around it, namely the threat to sue Bill Murray, but I wouldn't recommend paying to see it in cinema. Wait for it on streaming or netflix or something.

 

[bryce]

This moie was worse than Hitler. It raped my childhood, and my penis fell off.

Oh...wait...thought this thread was about Independence Day: Resurgence. Sorry. Ghostbusters was actually quite fun and I would like to see it again

 

[Gryffindorian]

Some of the humor was simply cringeworthy, like Kevin asking if he could bring his dog "My Cat. Mike Hat, Michael Hat." Seriously, who wrote that line, a 5th grader? I'll give credit to Chris Hemsworth for his really awesome dance moves. I didn't stick around for the post end credit scene. I assumed when they showed him dancing, that was it.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

The new Ghostbusters movie is neither excellent nor terrible, rather it gently coasts as merely enjoyable.

The biggest highlights are Holtzmann as the best new Ghostbuster (but all of them are good), the ghost designs (particularly the Macy Parade balloons), and...well, the potential for a better film if it gets a sequel.

Because honestly, the rest of the film was rather meh. While it made a strong showing with all four of the new Ghostbusters, the film suffers from the same major issues I have with both Abrams' Star Trek films: Great characters played by great actors performing a weak script. But what made that situation worse was the new Ghostbusters movie is that only about one out of ten of the jokes were genuinely funny. The rest wildly ranged from boring to juvenile.

Yes, the original Ghostbusters movies didn't have the strongest scripts and had its fair share of juvenile jokes. However, I often felt that the jokes in the new movie were too in-the-face, overtly yelling "Look at me! I'm a juvenile joke!" And less said about Kevin, the better.

I found it weird that Ghostbusters do very little actually capturing the ghosts and instead the ghosts explode and disappear. Huh?

I also didn't like how the driving force of plot was brought on by some annoying, uninteresting human who caused the impending apocalypse, instead of mystic mumbo-jumbo. Because, honestly, mystic mumbo-jumbo makes more sense than some human who read a single book on the subject of paranormal.

On the plus side, despite weighing heavily on nostalgia throughout the movie, I did enjoy all of the cameos, especially Annie Potts' and Sigourney Weaver's scenes. But it's a pity Harold Ramis' dedication card happened at the end of the credits instead of the beginning.

At the end of the day, I found myself trying too hard to enjoy the movie when I should have been simply enjoying it. I'm now in the same position I was in after seeing Star Trek in 2009: Hoping this great cast of actors and characters actually gets a good script if and when the movie gets a sequel.

 

[Commander Richard]

The balloon scene reminded me of the 1989 Batman.

 

[Csalem]

I think a sequel may do better if they can tell their own story and chart their own path. There is a lot of potential with the cast and I think it certainly deserves a sequel.

If there is one thing I would like to see in a sequel is gloves. Every time they fired the proton pack and were holding the end of the barrel part of me kept thinking that must surely get quite hot and may even burn their hands. Interestingly in the first publicity still they were wearing gloves but they didn't make it into the film.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

On first viewing it was solid but not spectacular, I've been trying to think of what it was missing. I think one thing is that the villain wasn't very well developed, he was just kind of there with only the barest of motivations. There wasn't a lot to work with in Rowan IMO.

I've been trying to figure out why this one didn't seem to quite pop like it should but haven't quite put my finger on it. Looking back on it has made me appreciate what a great job the original did with the tension and nerviness of that first job at the hotel. The new movie has some creepy setups but I didn't think it squeezed them as much as they could have.

I noticed too that the foursome seemed to be in every scene together up until about halfway through the movie. I need to watch it again but it seemed like there was more space in the original movie with Venkman doing his own thing, scenes with Dana and Louis, and bringing in Winston later. I'm not 100% sure that's good or bad but just something I noticed. I think that's a difference in the humor between the two where this one has humor in the back-and-forth bantering and riffing whereas the original was more about a snappy and pat one-liner. I think the Chinese restaurant provided a good backdrop for the cozy camaraderie that was used.

I liked Kate McKinnon and Holtzman but sometimes it felt like she was mugging in a way unlike Harold Ramis and Egon which never seemed like it was winking at the camera. The other characters seemed more natural.

There's the scene where they're putting together the plot of the "villain" with the metaphysical/spectral lines or whatever. Kristen Wiig draws several "X"s on a map of New York to indicate the various encounters they've had and then connects them with a larger "X" and asks if what they look like to everyone.

Kevin is standing there and studying them and he says "It's an X, crossing several other X's" or something to that effect. Which is.... supposed to be funny? He's DUMB we get it! You know what WOULD have been funny? If he said they looked like the metaphysical lines the villain was accessing. Him having this moment of lucidity and intelligence. something to cause a take and reaction from the crew. I'd think that'd have gotten a bigger laugh. Jokes need a PAY OFF and there's no pay off to the "Kevin is dumb" joke. He just keeps acting dumb and dumber and even dumber.

The funny thing is that his analysis wasn't even really all that wrong or lacking at that point.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Yes, the original Ghostbusters movies didn't have the strongest scripts and had its fair share of juvenile jokes. However, I often felt that the jokes in the new movie were too in-the-face, overtly yelling "Look at me! I'm a juvenile joke!"

Have you considered that it's really the same with the original movie and that you just look past it because you were younger when you first saw it?

 

[Trekker4747]

Some of the humor was simply cringeworthy, like Kevin asking if he could bring his dog "My Cat. Mike Hat, Michael Hat." Seriously, who wrote that line, a 5th grader? I'll give credit to Chris Hemsworth for his really awesome dance moves. I didn't stick around for the post end credit scene. I assumed when they showed him dancing, that was it.

I think that's one of the improvised lines that Hemsworth came up with himself and for me it sort of worked because it was sort-of funny and played into Kevin's dimness. Got to hand it to him, Hemsworth does seem to have a good knack for comedy and that was one of the improvised comedy bits that didn't get beaten to death like the flipping-off scene or the cat's out of the bag scene.

I found it weird that Ghostbusters do very little actually capturing the ghosts and instead the ghosts explode and disappear. Huh?

Well they did make a trap and at the end of the movie they did make a containment device. It could be the devices used to "destroy" the ghosts was just one way to dissipate them or use up their PKE energy enough that the could be captured. That was a problem they had a few times in the movie was that the ghosts were more energetic due to the "ghost lines" or whatever being charged up, so they came up with devices that could "tire the ghosts out" enough that they were manageable. During the climax they tired the ghosts out and, maybe, just never had a chance to re-energize and comeback.

When the trailers first came out I really hated the look of the ghosts, in the context of the film them being made to look like early/mid-30th century parade floats makes their look make more sense and "better." But I'm not sure where the old-fashioned parade balloons came from -did Ronin ever express interest in old-tyme parade balloons?) nor am I sure why when destroyed the ghosts became pieces of rubber or why they apparently had mass and weight. Un-pressurized a parade balloon full of air would still weigh close to a ton, so where these ghosts filled with actual air? But then when the three are trapped under the Stay Puft balloon they don't seem like they're under a few tons of air. (Though I'm not entirely sure how that would work. I mean, we have a few tons of tons of air on us at all times, is that made worse by the air being in a container of some sort like a balloon?) How much does "ghost rubber" weigh?

Little of that makes sense but at the same time, I guess, the Stay Puft Marshmallow man in the original movie was several tons of marshmallow conjured out of nothing that was made into a physical substance when destroyed and further "killed" it... (Though maybe Gozer was controlling it/The Traveler from inside the portal and when the portal was closed it no longer had control over the Stay Puft vessel.)

I'm over thinking this, aren't I?

 

[Trekker4747]

Box Office Mojo predicts the movie to make $44m domestically over the opening weekend, $65 million worldwide.

Considering the production budget of $144 million and a marketing and distribution budget that has to be nearly half that again we're looking at the movie to maybe have to make around $200-$225m The movie was bested by "The Secret Life of Pets" in its second week, coming in at #2.

I suspect Sony to not be too happy with these numbers though it'll depend on how good the legs of the movie are which I suspect won't be strong given the tepid word-of-mouth and it has some fairly tough competition next week.

The movie does have other revenue stream avenues given the property; plenty of merchandise out there but some of it reportedly already being seen in bargain bins and such. Ecto Cooler is likely still selling very, very well as another tie-in.

Like I said, I don't think Sony's going to get the franchise they want out of this and they spent too much money putting all of their chips on this movie to do it for them. $144m seems like quite a lot to spend on comedy, even an action-comedy like this. Most comedy movies with such a high budget are usually CGI animated family/children's films.

 

[Kemaiku]

I also didn't like how the driving force of plot was brought on by some annoying, uninteresting human who caused the impending apocalypse, instead of mystic mumbo-jumbo. Because, honestly, mystic mumbo-jumbo makes more sense than some human who read a single book on the subject of paranormal.

*cough*EvilDead*cough*

 

[Nerys Myk]

 

[Greg Cox]

Saw this in a packed theater in a mall in Maryland Saturday night. Much fun and laughter. The audience really seemed to enjoy it.

Personally, I thought the the big action climax went on a bit too long (a common bane of modern blockbusters), but otherwise I thought it was a lot of fun--and that Kate McKinnon pretty much stole the movie. As it happens, I was at a con this weekend, and there seemed to be lot of love for Holtzmann among the fans I talked to afterwards. (I predict lots of Holtzmann cosplay in the months to come.)

I don't want to spoil any of my favorite gags by quoting, but I'm glad I sat through the closing credits for that final bit, about which I'll only say: Hmmm . . ..

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Yes, the original Ghostbusters movies didn't have the strongest scripts and had its fair share of juvenile jokes. However, I often felt that the jokes in the new movie were too in-the-face, overtly yelling "Look at me! I'm a juvenile joke!"

Have you considered that it's really the same with the original movie and that you just look past it because you were younger when you first saw it?

Sure, that's always a consideration, but this movie's style of humor just didn't connect with me. I've seen the original Ghostbusters countless of times and I never get tired of it. In fact, I just watched it again and so many of the jokes still connect with me. I've always enjoyed Ramis' style of humor, which tended to be sophisticated and subtle, while also outlandish and ridiculous. I feel that kind of comedic style was sorely missing from this movie.

I found it weird that Ghostbusters do very little actually capturing the ghosts and instead the ghosts explode and disappear. Huh?

Well they did make a trap and at the end of the movie they did make a containment device. It could be the devices used to "destroy" the ghosts was just one way to dissipate them or use up their PKE energy enough that the could be captured. That was a problem they had a few times in the movie was that the ghosts were more energetic due to the "ghost lines" or whatever being charged up, so they came up with devices that could "tire the ghosts out" enough that they were manageable. During the climax they tired the ghosts out and, maybe, just never had a chance to re-energize and comeback.

Yeah, I can see that working but I wish there was at least some attempt to explain the shift of attack and expectations. They put so much emphasis on capturing the ghost (although that was partially down to representing the same sequence from the original) and then later in the movie it was all about zapping them as quickly as possible and moving onto to the next ghost.

I'm over thinking this, aren't I?

Maybe we both are.

*cough*EvilDead*cough*

Yeah...I never watched that film.

Personally, I thought the the big action climax went on a bit too long (a common bane of modern blockbusters), but otherwise I thought it was a lot of fun--and that Kate McKinnon pretty much stole the movie. As it happens, I was at a con this weekend, and there seemed to be lot of love for Holtzmann among the fans I talked to afterwards. (I predict lots of Holtzmann cosplay in the months to come.)

While not at all surprising, it's good to know that fans are enjoying her as much as I did.

 

[Commander Richard]

People seem to be really divided on McKinnon.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Box Office Mojo predicts the movie to make $44m domestically over the opening weekend, $65 million worldwide.

Considering the production budget of $144 million and a marketing and distribution budget that has to be nearly half that again we're looking at the movie to maybe have to make around $200-$225m The movie was bested by "The Secret Life of Pets" in its second week, coming in at #2.

I suspect Sony to not be too happy with these numbers though it'll depend on how good the legs of the movie are which I suspect won't be strong given the tepid word-of-mouth and it has some fairly tough competition next week.

The movie does have other revenue stream avenues given the property; plenty of merchandise out there but some of it reportedly already being seen in bargain bins and such. Ecto Cooler is likely still selling very, very well as another tie-in.

Like I said, I don't think Sony's going to get the franchise they want out of this and they spent too much money putting all of their chips on this movie to do it for them. $144m seems like quite a lot to spend on comedy, even an action-comedy like this. Most comedy movies with such a high budget are usually CGI animated family/children's films.

Some have tried to project (hope) its connection to the audience being like that of the original GB, but that was never grounded in reality. Consider the following:. with ST hitting theaters next weekend, and Pets simply being a more appealing/entertaining film which prevented GB-2016 from reaching #1, GB will slowly sink.Spending $144 million in production costs alone (not counting the marketing budget), and projections for breaking even not confident, Sony has a problem. On the other hand, the original GB's production budget was $30 million, but its domestic take alone was $229,242,989, and if you consider this was the same summer of a still strong Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (May 23) Star Trek 3: The Search for Spock (June 1st) and Gremlins (opened June 8--the same day as GB), the original GB was a strong performer able to make its own mark.

 

[Greg Cox]

Yeah, I can see that working but I wish there was at least some attempt to explain the shift of attack and expectations. They put so much emphasis on capturing the ghost (although that was partially down to representing the same sequence from the original) and then later in the movie it was all about zapping them as quickly as possible and moving onto to the next ghost.

I don't know. That seemed pretty self-explanatory to me. Their approach changed as their priorities and circumstances changed. In the beginning, their motives were strictly scientific: they wanted to capture an actual ghost to study it and to prove the validity of their theories.

Later, when all hell broke loose, capturing a specimen for science became much less important than averting the apocalypse, so busting the ghosts understandably took priority over capturing them.

It's basically the difference between, "ooh, what a fascinating new species of spider, I must try to capture a live specimen for further study" and "ohmigod, the city is being overrun by an army of giant mutant spiders! Break out the flame throwers!"

 

[Lakenheath 72]

Sony announced there is a possiblity of a sequel. I do not see it happening. What I do see is a drop of 50% or greater in the box office next week. Along with Star Trek: Beyond, there is Ice Age: Collision Course, Lights Out, and Absolutely Fabulous. That is a lot of competition.

 

[Trekker4747]

Some have tried to project (hope) its connection to the audience being like that of the original GB, but that was never grounded in reality. Consider the following:. with ST hitting theaters next weekend, and Pets simply being a more appealing/entertaining film which prevented GB-2016 from reaching #1, GB will slowly sink.Spending $144 million in production costs alone (not counting the marketing budget), and projections for breaking even not confident, Sony has a problem. On the other hand, the original GB's production budget was $30 million, but its domestic take alone was $229,242,989, and if you consider this was the same summer of a still strong Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (May 23) Star Trek 3: The Search for Spock (June 1st) and Gremlins (opened June 8--the same day as GB), the original GB was a strong performer able to make its own mark.

Yeah, but keep in mind the original GB came out when movies were in theaters for several months before going to $1 theaters and wouldn't see home video for a couple of years. It was also a lot less thick market for movies and it was also a highly praised movie being done by some of the top comedic actors of the time.

That's a lot different than this movie which has maybe a month to make as much money as it can before viewership drops down to almost nothing and it's in a very, very, dense movie marker in a very, very dense time of year and has a lesser-know, or highly touted, cast and production crew. Not to mention it's tepid reviews.

 

[Trek Survivor]

Saw it with my eldest son (9 years old) yesterday. He loved it, and I enjoyed it a great deal. In the poll, I gave it a solid B+, but was very close to the A-.

I've been a GB fan since the mid-80s. I love the original movies and all the associated figures, comics, books etc. But I was never against this remake. In the absence of a sequel that featured all four original GBs (sadly impossible now) this was what I wanted to see. I still think it would've been completely possible for this to be a sequel and keep the primary structure (remember, there were characters in GB2 that didn't believe in ghosts - despite Stay Puft just five years previous!), but I am not dissatisfied with what we got.

The CONCEPT of Ghostbusters is so entertaining, it deserves to be rejigged for a new generation. I hope this group take off and there are sequels.

What I liked:

* The cast were very good. I seem to be out of kilter with the majority in that I liked McKinnon the least, but she was still good. Kristen Wiig was very good.

* The plot itself was just the right mix of 'familiar' to 'new' that it harkened back to the originals without completely aping them.

* The humour was pretty scatter-gun, but I'd say at least 70% of it hit with me.

* Enough 'spooky' moments - my son jumped when that ghost was sick all over Erin (he hadn't seen the trailers), followed by a big grin on his face.

* I liked Slimer coming back for a joyride, and had no objection to Mrs. Slimer. Anyone complaining that this was ridiculous/too comedic really needs to look hard at this franchise we're talking about.