GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

Mr E

Variety: 'Ghostbusters' Review: Paul Feig Remake Is Shadow of 1984 Original
Guardian: Ghostbusters review: call off the trolls – Paul Feig's female reboot is a blast
IGN: Burdened by the ghosts of its past.
Polygon: A hilarous and fun paranormal romp

Basq

So... seems to be generally recieved as 3 / 4 out of 5? To be honest, it's what I expected..

.. outside of the online hate for this, Feig is a solid writer / director.

Will I go see it? Probably not..

Harry Palmr

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ghostbusters_2016/

In it's favour is it's short running time (by modern standards) 105 mins, so even if it's sh'te it'll not detain you all evening.

Basq

Harry Palmr wrote: »

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ghostbusters_2016/

In it's favour is it's short running time (by modern standards) 105 mins, so even if it's sh'te it'll not detain you all evening.

I read 117 minutes somewhere else.. let's just be thankful it's not a Judd Apatow who can't seem to do a movie that isn't 2 and a half hours long.

Johnmuck

Basq wrote: »

let's just be thankful it's not a Judd Apatow who can't seem to do a movie that isn't 2 and a half hours long.

or a movie that doesn't star his wife..........

e_e

https://twitter.com/devincf/status/752192682491940864

Going tomorrow.

constitutionus

i dunno when the embargos meant to end but theres a few vids up now on youtube to go along with the offical reviews stuff.

its hilarious looking at em as some go out of their way to hate (the variety one for instance says its funnier and scarier than the first but still rips on it, i mean isnt that a GOOD thing ? while the guardian one is practically channeling some feminutter on the praise front for it - stoping just short of going "girl power!" , despite also admiting its kinda shyte ). its also weird to see a score of near 7 for a film they describe as "okay". to me "okay" is a 5. so not sure whats going on there.

in a weird way the coverage of this film is like watching PC society implode as its not sure what to say about it incase it "offends"



speaking for myself, i got a blast out of "gods of Egypt" . so its gonna have to be REALLY fuking bad to put me off it. one of the youtube reviewers gave what i think is probably whats gonna be the most apt description for me on what i think it be like.

to paraphrase the guy "this ghostbusters is to the original what Jurassic world is to Jurassic park. its is what it is". i loved Jurassic world despite the fact tonally its nothing like Jurassic park so if they can pull off the same thing here i should be ok.

i STILL dont like how the ghosts seem to be more inline with the animated series (made worse by seeing a cameo in one of the clips. seriously that made me wonder "what are they actualy adapting here ?" and how half the cast seem to be more "kirsten wigg and melssia mcarthy in ghostbusters" than actual characters they inhabit like the other two. i really want to see McKinnons character.

but ill give it a chance. if only because theres fuk all else out too bar tarzan i wanna see (and i never thought i'd say that but it acutally looks alright !)

gonna go tomorrow

what the hell!

Delighted to see the good reviews coming in. I'll try see it tomorrow

Chip Whitley

Empire have given it a decent review, said it's got some scares and a few great one-liners. They also said Leslie Jones character is far more important (and funny) to the team than Winston Zeddemore was. Ironically for me, who is most looking forward to Kate McKinnons scenes they said she mostly falls flat.

Going tonight and I'm looking forward to it.

Ben Gadot

e_e wrote: »

https://twitter.com/devincf/status/752192682491940864

Going tomorrow.

While I'm always happy to never judge a film until I see it, Faraci is the last person I'd be convinced by.

An utter clown.

How very odd -- the cinema I frequent has only two showings a night for this week.

pumpkin4life

pumpkin4life wrote: »

My guess is that it will do reasonably well with critics (say 70+ percent on Metacritic) and will be mostly slated by users/everyone else.

Early days I'll admit. but 76% on Rotton Tomatoes and a 4.8/10 user rating on Metacritic.

Also interesting that for a 155 million budget movie, it has the same amount of screenings as in Cineworld.

Unless a mate is raving about this/I'm dragged along, not going near this thing.

pumpkin4life

pumpkin4life wrote: »

My guess is that it will do reasonably well with critics (say 70+ percent on Metacritic) and will be mostly slated by users/everyone else.

Early days I'll admit. but 76% on Rotton Tomatoes and a 4.8/10 user rating on Metacritic.

Also interesting that for a 155 million budget movie, it has the same amount of screenings as Neon Demon, a lowish budget (7 million) artsy movie in Cineworld. They must expect this to be a bit of a flop.

Unless a mate is raving about this/I'm dragged along, not going near this thing.

pumpkin4life

pumpkin4life wrote: »

My guess is that it will do reasonably well with critics (say 70+ percent on Metacritic) and will be mostly slated by users/everyone else.

Early days I'll admit. but 76% on Rotton Tomatoes and a 4.8/10 user rating on Metacritic as of this morning.

Also interesting that for a 155 million budget movie, it has the same amount of screenings as Neon Demon, a lowish budget (7 million) artsy movie in Cineworld. They must expect this to be a bit of a flop.

Unless a mate is raving about this/I'm dragged along, not going near this thing.

py2006

I wanna see it but I am waiting till all the mobile phone using/talking out loud "howyas" are not about.

ShakerMaker91

I'd probably wait until all the reviews that Sony paid for or reviewers who are mates with the director/cast are out of the way first before I'd believe any reviews of this film

ShakerMaker91

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

I'd probably wait until all the reviews that Sony paid for or reviewers who are mates with the director/cast are out of the way first before I'd believe any reviews of this film

Are people that desperate to write off the film that now all early reviews which aren't slating the film were paid for or written by friends of the production. Don't bother answering that, I know a number of people who have seen the film and all enjoyed it. It may not be great cinema but from what they and reviews have said is that it's a fun film that doesn't outstay its welcome.

johnny_ultimate

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

I'd probably wait until all the reviews that Sony paid for or reviewers who are mates with the director/cast are out of the way first before I'd believe any reviews of this film

Apologies for repeating myself, but... Oh dear

ShakerMaker91

You'd want to be a very naïve person to think Sony isn't paying some reviewers to give this a decent score. An example being IGN's review which claims Lesie Jones's characters "jokes" all land like that statement is absolute bol*x

pumpkin4life

Rating's 4.2/10 now on IMDB. Keeps going like this and it's going to be one of the lowest rated movies on the entire website.

ShakerMaker91

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

You'd want to be a very naïve person to think Sony isn't paying some reviewers to give this a decent score. An example being IGN's review which claims Lesie Jones's characters "jokes" all land like that statement is absolute bol*x

I know four differnt people who reviewed the film and none has been paid by Sony. I bet that if the IGN review was negative then you'd be in here pasting in a link to say "see how right I was about how bad the film is". No one is being paid to like the film and give a positive film, especially not the critics who I would trust.

Here's a link to the review from Little White lies, a publication whose tastes would lean more toward the three hour, silent, black and white epic about the effects of war on an Iranian town in the decades after and they seemed to really enjoy the film.

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Rating's 4.2/10 now on IMDB. Keeps going like this and it's going to be one of the lowest rated movies on the entire website.

Yes, the IMDB rating of a film. Truly the most reliable reflection of the actual quality of a film, especially a film that is so beloved by fanboys.

Metacritic is a mixed bag but no out and out negatives.
I've seen and enjoyed worse rated.

There are 3 reviewers whose tastes match my own, in general, looking forward to seeing their take.
Could be a trip to cinema yet (and some fired marketing people)

I still think that a complete cast gender swap is a shallow gimmick but if the film is good I can easily get over it.

ShakerMaker91

wrote:

"No one is being paid to like the film and give a positive film, especially not the critics who I would trust.

So you're telling me movie companies never pay any reviewers to say nice things about their films ya right go back to bed will ya

smash

This isn't getting slated half as much as I expected on rotten tomatoes.

ShakerMaker91

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

So you're telling me movie companies never pay any reviewers to say nice things about their films ya right go back to bed will ya

Do you think that a professional critic would risk losing their livelihood in exchange for some cash? I'm sure there are some that have in the past but to write off good reviews of the film as bought reviews is just you trying to justify your opinion of the film, one you formed without first having seen the film.

If all the reviews were awful would you be in here posting links to them saying "see how right I was about the film". It's amazing how far people will go to try and prove themselves right, if the film is awful you'd be in here posting about how you knew it would be but when the critical consensus is that it's quiet good you are in here trying to say that those opinions don't matter as the studio paid them to say that and those that the studio didn't pay are giving good reviews because they are friends with the cast and crew. Just accept that the film isn't the travesty you hoped it would be and get on with your life.

MilesMorales1

I seen it there. It was fine. Not my cup of tea, not a disaster either.

py2006

In fairness, it has been known for reviewers to be 'encouraged' to deliver overly positive reviews, thumbs up, likes etc. Perhaps the top, well known (and well paid) reviewers wouldn't succumb to temptation but not everyone is in their position.

Its like product/hotel reviews (which in fairness can be anonymous) can and are often done by those offering the service/product or their 'pals'.

Its not uncommon. I think there was an issue with regards a particular Game review a couple years ago (don't quote me) where it was alleged they were 'encouraged' to give it a overly positive review. It was called into question anyway...

I think one game site even gave an unusually negative review of a particularly popular game. There was a lot of question marks over it.

johnny_ultimate

Just watched it, and guess what? It's plenty of fun!

The four busters of ghosts are excellent - all fully committed and able to play off each other. McKinnon is the MVP, but McCarthy plays it cool and Jones' role is far more grounded than the trailers suggest. The production design is first rate - there's a lovely garish homemade quality to the props and effects. Indeed, outside the CG heavy final act, the ghosts are much more effective than they looked in promos. There's a particularly neat bit with a mannequin which balances that perfect line between creepy and funny. The main set pieces in the first half also walk that tightrope skilfully. It's also great how the film predicted and responded to the online backlash and embedded it into the plot - and yet you'd have to have really, really thin skin to be even remotely offended by it.

The biggest problem with the film, outside some inevitable missed punchlines, like many franchise entries these days, is how indebted it is to its original. Ghostbusters 1984 fans are well served to a fault. The structure is too familiar, the cameos are contrived and the film is too loaded with winks and nods. Thankfully the enthusiasm of the newbies shines through and capably counteracts it for the most part. The third act is also entirely fitting with modern blockbuster trends - although rises slightly above average due to some imaginative effects (a haunted parade) and a sequence where McKinnon embraces her inner action hero to great effect.

So yes, it's a pretty standard modern studio comedy enhanced by the enthusiasm of a capable new cast. Oddly for a sequel sceptic such as me, I'd actually dig a sequel to this where they didn't feel the need to pay tribute to their predecessors and had the familiar origin story over and done with.

Finally, special thanks to the Sony rep who was standing at the door dispensing brown envelopes. Every little helps.

py2006

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Finally, special thanks to the Sony rep who was standing at the door dispensing brown envelopes. Every little helps.

I was just about to ask...

ShakerMaker91

There's no way Sony hasn't leaned on some reviewers to give this a positive review after all the uproar around the trailers. Case in point Black Nerd on Youtube. After the first trailer came out everyone agreed that it was a pretty bad looking attempt at showing the film with just comprising of bad jokes.

Sony flew him out to a Ghostbusters event and he probably had a really good time at it. He was then praising the film after he got back basically saying it looked really good from the terrible trailers.