I think I'm waiting until next weekend and doing a double feature with Beyond personally...
Ghostbusters 2016: Talk about the movie(s).
- Thread starter Frontier
- Start date
I think I'm waiting until next weekend and doing a double feature with Beyond personally...
So I went along to see this last night.
I'll preface this by stating that (a) Ghostbusters 1984 is a truly wonderful film made by a group of people who had a clear love of what they were doing (OK maybe not Murray, but who knows with that mercurial chap), (b) Ghostbusters 2 isn't, (c) I've never been interested in a continuation OR a reboot, but (d) now they went and made one I truly couldn't care if had 'busters crewed by men, women, or cats and dogs living together.
So, whilst half of the known trolls of the internet seemed intent on dragging this film down even before the script was written just because there was no Venkmann junior running the show, I just wanted to know: could anyone capture the heart, humour and silliness of the 1984 original. Given the same team could only muster an ink-faded facsimile of the original, my hopes were never that high. Yet, it's a great general premise and anything could be done with it.
Sadly, the reboot is neither funny, nor clever, no remotely scary (seriously those f****ing dogs in the original still creep me out a little) and, somewhat like The Force Awakens, it pulls the majority of its story beats from the original, treading a safe line, desperately hoping that the comic quartet up front and centre can pull it through. Unlike with JJ Abrams though, Paul Fieg clearly has no sense of action direction, scope or, somehow (given Spy, Bridesmaids, The Heat) any comedic directorial timing.
It's filled with bland, repetitive characters whose humour drains solely by smashing you over the head with "LOUD OBNOXIOUS STATEMENTS" meant to allow you to laugh at the characters. But I don't want to laugh at them, I want to laugh with them as they incredulously bumble through their adventures. I am never looking for sophmoric "fuck he's hot, let's desperately flirt with him cos, HORNY" from Wiig. I am not looking for "If I shout loud enough and express wildly enough it has to be funny, right?" from Jones. I have no idea what in the hell Feig told McCarthy to do because, at every single moment she appears to be on the edge of being her character from The Heat (when, if you are going to self cannibalise, she should be her character from Spy), but then draws back and tries to play sensible. And finally - I would have loved to have been in the rehearsals to find out whose idea it was for McKinnon to be as batshit weird as her Holtzmann is - it rarely works, but oh-my-lord does she go for it. I'm reminded of Jesse Eisenberg's Luthor in BvS - no idea what's going on with them, other than they are "crazy", but dear gods do both actors utterly commit to it. Mckinnon does in fact try to build some charm into the weirdness of her character, but I don't think Feig knew what to do with it, as every reaction shot or cutaway shot to her is mistimed and instead of making her endearing reminds me of taking Ramis' lovable quirky nerd and blending him with a Nicholas Cage reaction-shot supercut.
Thank god for Chris Hemsworth. It's an old one-note joke, but he commits and sells it well.
Still, the design of the film is nice (especially the Steampunk motif), perhaps a touch too much late-Tim Burton and not enough early-Tim Burton for my liking (if that is the route you have to go down), a few of the subsidiary characters gained a chuckle or too (specifically the mayoral team desperately trying to downplay the whole "Ghost-thing") and a few of Holtzmanns ghost trapping/mangling inventions gave a tickle or two,
But in the end, I am reminded of a comment from Feig himself, talking about this film and the dumped Ghostbusters 3: With two scripts that both Reitman and he liked, when Feig was given the reins he said "I couldn't figure out how to do that movie". And, so, he played to his own court - rebooting, redesigning and there were actual hopes in me that it would work. The Heat is an undercooked mess, but was funny, with very strong character bonds rebuilt out of the 80's male buddy cop genre. Spy was irreverent and daft, with with credible action and a fair subversion of the Bond/Bourne genre. So, with building action/SFX credentials, a solid ability to create sympathy and relevance in re-formatting male-centric genres, known comedic chops (Freaks & Geeks) and a great central premise to play with - how on earth did he write/direct a film so bland, unengaging, and most importantly, unfunny?
And how on earth do you move what is clearly the funniest moment of the film into the mid-end-credits? It's set up in-film with no in-film pay-off making it just... odd. It perhaps doesn't quite fit with the tone the finale is trying to go for, but is in fact more indicative that Feig just didn't know what tone he was aiming for, full stop. Shame
2/5
Hugo - As much as I didn't care about Ghostbusters 3 in the past, after this reboot, I'm genuinely interested to see what 3's passing of the torch continuation would have been like.
I'll preface this by stating that (a) Ghostbusters 1984 is a truly wonderful film made by a group of people who had a clear love of what they were doing (OK maybe not Murray, but who knows with that mercurial chap), (b) Ghostbusters 2 isn't, (c) I've never been interested in a continuation OR a reboot, but (d) now they went and made one I truly couldn't care if had 'busters crewed by men, women, or cats and dogs living together.
So, whilst half of the known trolls of the internet seemed intent on dragging this film down even before the script was written just because there was no Venkmann junior running the show, I just wanted to know: could anyone capture the heart, humour and silliness of the 1984 original. Given the same team could only muster an ink-faded facsimile of the original, my hopes were never that high. Yet, it's a great general premise and anything could be done with it.
Sadly, the reboot is neither funny, nor clever, no remotely scary (seriously those f****ing dogs in the original still creep me out a little) and, somewhat like The Force Awakens, it pulls the majority of its story beats from the original, treading a safe line, desperately hoping that the comic quartet up front and centre can pull it through. Unlike with JJ Abrams though, Paul Fieg clearly has no sense of action direction, scope or, somehow (given Spy, Bridesmaids, The Heat) any comedic directorial timing.
It's filled with bland, repetitive characters whose humour drains solely by smashing you over the head with "LOUD OBNOXIOUS STATEMENTS" meant to allow you to laugh at the characters. But I don't want to laugh at them, I want to laugh with them as they incredulously bumble through their adventures. I am never looking for sophmoric "fuck he's hot, let's desperately flirt with him cos, HORNY" from Wiig. I am not looking for "If I shout loud enough and express wildly enough it has to be funny, right?" from Jones. I have no idea what in the hell Feig told McCarthy to do because, at every single moment she appears to be on the edge of being her character from The Heat (when, if you are going to self cannibalise, she should be her character from Spy), but then draws back and tries to play sensible. And finally - I would have loved to have been in the rehearsals to find out whose idea it was for McKinnon to be as batshit weird as her Holtzmann is - it rarely works, but oh-my-lord does she go for it. I'm reminded of Jesse Eisenberg's Luthor in BvS - no idea what's going on with them, other than they are "crazy", but dear gods do both actors utterly commit to it. Mckinnon does in fact try to build some charm into the weirdness of her character, but I don't think Feig knew what to do with it, as every reaction shot or cutaway shot to her is mistimed and instead of making her endearing reminds me of taking Ramis' lovable quirky nerd and blending him with a Nicholas Cage reaction-shot supercut.
Thank god for Chris Hemsworth. It's an old one-note joke, but he commits and sells it well.
Still, the design of the film is nice (especially the Steampunk motif), perhaps a touch too much late-Tim Burton and not enough early-Tim Burton for my liking (if that is the route you have to go down), a few of the subsidiary characters gained a chuckle or too (specifically the mayoral team desperately trying to downplay the whole "Ghost-thing") and a few of Holtzmanns ghost trapping/mangling inventions gave a tickle or two,
But in the end, I am reminded of a comment from Feig himself, talking about this film and the dumped Ghostbusters 3: With two scripts that both Reitman and he liked, when Feig was given the reins he said "I couldn't figure out how to do that movie". And, so, he played to his own court - rebooting, redesigning and there were actual hopes in me that it would work. The Heat is an undercooked mess, but was funny, with very strong character bonds rebuilt out of the 80's male buddy cop genre. Spy was irreverent and daft, with with credible action and a fair subversion of the Bond/Bourne genre. So, with building action/SFX credentials, a solid ability to create sympathy and relevance in re-formatting male-centric genres, known comedic chops (Freaks & Geeks) and a great central premise to play with - how on earth did he write/direct a film so bland, unengaging, and most importantly, unfunny?
And how on earth do you move what is clearly the funniest moment of the film into the mid-end-credits? It's set up in-film with no in-film pay-off making it just... odd. It perhaps doesn't quite fit with the tone the finale is trying to go for, but is in fact more indicative that Feig just didn't know what tone he was aiming for, full stop. Shame
2/5
Hugo - As much as I didn't care about Ghostbusters 3 in the past, after this reboot, I'm genuinely interested to see what 3's passing of the torch continuation would have been like.
Last edited:
I've personally been sitting on the fence but quietly hopeful about this movie, and I'm likely seeing it this weekend. My 12 year old daughter has been extremely eager to see this movie, and all the commercials recently are just egging her on. She's been a big GB fan ever since I took her to see it on the big screen at the Space & Rocket Center a couple years ago.
Yep, people love their confirmation bias, and they use it to not see a movie or TV show. A typical guy 'Busters fan hates it? Meh, dime a dozen, he can go frack himself and the horse he rode in on.
What is surprising, though, is the women that are against it, like this young lady:
Oh well, different strokes for different folks.
That's what really matters, getting the young women like her (and young boys) to see this, to show that anybody can be a hero. The whole 'Make your own new franchise' meme is overrated and not always possible. And pandering to older established fans should not be done 'just because.'
Last edited:
Why make a new franchise anyway?
It's not like the new movie is taking the old movies away from the "From my cold dead hands!"-crowd.
That's about the worst attitude I can imagine for approaching this kind of controversy. If a guy doesn't like it, he can frack himself, and if a girl doesn't like it it's 'surprising, but hey, different strokes...'
Seriously. No one is obligated to like this movie. If they're actually spouting bullshit against it, then you can tell them to go frack themselves, but gender should not be a part of that equation at all (except insofar as they individually make it a part of the equation through their own comments).
Well, tell that to the dudes who kept raging because "omg, wimminz in my franchise, ewww!" or the guys who desperately tried to camouflage that same sentiment with bullshit reasons.
Well, tell that to the dudes who kept raging because "omg, wimminz in my franchise, ewww!" or the guys who desperately tried to camouflage that same sentiment with bullshit reasons.
Full quote: " If they're actually spouting bullshit against it, then you can tell them to go frack themselves, but gender should not be a part of that equation at all (except insofar as they individually make it a part of the equation through their own comments)."
Attacking guys who don't like the movie just because they're guys who don't like the movie is every bit as stupid and sexist as attacking the movie because it stars women. When they cross into actual misogyny, then you can jump on them. This really shouldn't be a hard thing to understand.
I don't think the average reasonable person has a problem understanding that. Why are you so busy fighting windmills?
Are you worried about them poor men?
I saw it today and I enjoyed it. After I walked out of the cinema I thought I was underwhelmed by it but I cannot get it out of my head. I keep reminding myself of fun moments from the film. For me that is a good sign and the film must have a struck some sort of a chord with me.
The cast is good and Chris Hemsworth is great in it. I went in expecting to like the character Holtzman and I came out loving her. I found myself drawn to watching her in every scene she was in.
The film is not perfect nor a classic. I would say editing is the biggest issue. One scene in particular felt out of place and could probably have been cut.
Overall I would give it a 3 or 4 out of 5 and probably will buy the dvd or blu-ray.
The cast is good and Chris Hemsworth is great in it. I went in expecting to like the character Holtzman and I came out loving her. I found myself drawn to watching her in every scene she was in.
The film is not perfect nor a classic. I would say editing is the biggest issue. One scene in particular felt out of place and could probably have been cut.
Overall I would give it a 3 or 4 out of 5 and probably will buy the dvd or blu-ray.
I don't think the average reasonable person has a problem understanding that. Why are you so busy fighting windmills?
Are you worried about them poor men?
I responded to a specific post that seemed to show a terrible lack of understanding of the fact. The fact the very next response also deliberately ignored half my point would seem to prove that it's not really a windmill.
And I'm not trying to protect anyone, I'm hoping that maybe in this riduculously divided world, there might still be some basic sense of fair play to be found rather than the depressingly common anti-/pro- whatever wars.
Thanks for the honest review, Hugo. Seems to be a lot of missed opportunity going around with this movie.
Similar to the Social Justice Warriors who convinced themselves that the film was going to be "great" or "important" long before its release, and that any opposing view "must be" misogyny.
You seem to think any female critical of this film is some kind of aberration--that all women must act and think the same, and support anything involving women, or have a feminist message (as if there is some universal feminist platform). You speak of "confirmation bias?" Your negative comment about the young woman having an opinion of her own, reveals a need for group-think, where all high-step single file, all thinking, supporting and professing the same idea.
Not very realistic or open minded of you.
No one could begin to unpack the universe-sized level of BS in your statement. History exists. Heroines have existed in fact and myth since ancient times, and what world do you live in where young boys are not aware of heroines? Millennials, Generation X, Baby Boomers and older have all seen, heard or read of heroines in the popular culture. Its nothing new. you are creating a "solution" for a non-existent problem.
Isn't that the self-defeating nature of identity politics? Scream at "the enemy' not to cite gender, yet their every reason to be is about citing / arguing for gender, usually with a misandrist / separatist mindset driving it.
I literally laughed out loud when I read this.
It's ridiculous to think that every person who has criticized the movie is sexist, but at the same time it's incredibly naive to think that sexism hasn't played a big part of the insane, mind boggling level of hate the movie has. We've seen plenty of reboots of beloved franchises, but none of them have reached the toxic levels of hate this has, and the one big stand out feature of this is the fact that the leads are all women.
I do find it a little frustrating that Sony and the producers have chosen to give so much attention to the sexism against the movie, because all it has done is make it so that even people with legimate complaints are declared sexist and ignored. But even more frustrating is the fact that there is even that amount of sexism in a post-Aliens, Kill Bill, and Hunger Games world.
I do find it a little frustrating that Sony and the producers have chosen to give so much attention to the sexism against the movie, because all it has done is make it so that even people with legimate complaints are declared sexist and ignored. But even more frustrating is the fact that there is even that amount of sexism in a post-Aliens, Kill Bill, and Hunger Games world.
History does exist, and that history shows a lack of female heroes compared to their male counterparts. I mean, you honestly suggest that the proportion is anywhere near equal? For every Ellen Ripley, there are countless male heroes.
How ironic.
I said heroines existed all along--a correct counter to the false notion that none existed before the present day. That was the point.
Yawn.
Who the heck said that no heroines existed before the present day?
Similar threads
