GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

superfurry1

Watched the movie last night thought it was ok, Thought Mckinnion was very annoying. McCarthy Okay not funny but inoffensive, Kristin Wiig Damn Hot so a pleasure thought she looked a lot like Jennier Aniston at times. Hemsworth funny at first but got tiresome very quickly same for Leslie Jones. The Storyline was abit of a mess even the actors looked bewildered. All and all a solid 6/10 for me ahhhhhh Okay.

WoolyJumper

smash wrote: »

I wouldn't compare her to Will Ferrell, but she is a one trick pony and I personally find her utterly unfunny. SPY was only good because of Jason Statham's character and apart from that, I can't think of another McCarthy movie I've enjoyed.

Really, I thought he was really annoying in that film. I enjoyed Melissa in Spy but if anything Rose Byrne's character was my favourite. Each to their own I guess.

smash

WoolyJumper wrote: »

Really, I thought he was really annoying in that film. I enjoyed Melissa in Spy but if anything Rose Byrne's character was my favourite. Each to their own I guess.

Yea, I thought he was great in it. He was playing a caricature of all the usual roles he goes plays.

Grayditch

Surely China judges each Ghost movie on it's treatment of Ghosts rather than whether it just has them or not. Burning them and trapping them in little boxes is probably a bad thing there.

Unless if course the original Ghostbusters is ok there?!

WoolyJumper

smash wrote: »

Yea, I thought he was great in it. He was playing a caricature of all the usual roles he goes plays.

Yeah I picked up on that, and it made me like Jason Statham more because he obviously has a sense of humour about himself....but god I thought that character was annoying. Probably because I hate those kind of movies.

mdwexford

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

That's my point though. He's not funny either. See one Will Ferrell vehicle you've seen them all.

Will Ferrell is gold, in my eyes anyway.

Goodshape

RDM_83 again wrote: »

As somebody that hated Bridesmaids (actually not sure if I even finished it) but thought The Heat was a pretty decent light film (I have a major soft spot for sandra bullock), where do you think this fits between the two?

Utterly sick of the bolded stuff in light hearted films these days

Well, for what it's worth, I enjoyed Heat (Bullock doing comedy is usually a good thing) but didn't much care for Bridesmaids. And I enjoyed Ghostbusters plenty.

SnakePlissken

tunguska wrote: »

...there was literally no plot

I don't think you really went to see this movie did you?

SnakePlissken

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The problem with this Ghostbusters is it is really bad. Ghostbusters 1 & 2 are far better works of film. This movie reeks of studio involvement. It is a reinvention of an old idea that does not need an upgrade. The last two were brilliant. Who wants this film which is more in the style of Scooby Doo. At least with Scooby Doo it was for a young audience and it was a real life version of a cartoon.

This was far superior to ghostbusters 2, they're not even in the same ball park.

McLoughlin

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Yes it bloody well was, just because the studio tried to call it a sequel by casting the scientist who was in the original for all of 45 seconds does not make it so.

Jurassic World clearly acknowledged Jurassic Park it is a sequel not a reboot. A reboot is a distinctly new version of an established media franchise like Ghostbusters.

Frank O. Pinion

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

That's my point though. He's not funny either. See one Will Ferrell vehicle you've seen them all.

Melinda and Melinda? Stranger Than Fiction? A Deadly Adoption?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Melinda and Melinda? Stranger Than Fiction? A Deadly Adoption?

I'm talking about them in terms of their improv comedy style films. Anchorman, Step Brothers, Taledega Nights, Blades of Glory etc.

Melissa McCarthy has a fair bit on her CV that proves she can do more as well but when it comes to these kind of loud comedy, for want of a better word, they're the same every time.

I wouldn't call Melinda & Melinda or Stranger Than Fiction Will Ferrell vehicles either.

BMMachine

Christ if I ever hear about Ghostbusters or Melissa McCarthy again this month Im going to explode.

By all accounts:
*The film is mediocre
*No childhoods were destroyed
*Sony have made dumptrucks full of hard currency


UNSUBSCRIBED!!!

Banjaxed82

tunguska wrote: »

I was the same. It felt similar to the experience of someone telling a story thats meant to be funny and interesting but when they get to the punchline it just kind of falls flat on its face. A film like this, being a reboot and all, needs to have a very strong story. People love the original and straight out of the blocks you're fighting with that. But there was no plot really. The original Ghostbusters had a great story that was strong, it had Bill Murray at the height of his powers, it was genuinely funny and also genuinely scary at times. It was tight. But this.......its just another nail in the coffin of reboots.

But was it really..?

I watched it with my kid a few months ago for the first time in years. While it was fun, and even more fun if you're kid, I don't remember laughing beyond the odd chuckle here and there. Bit of a myth conjured over time that it's comedy gold.

Grayditch

I watched it the other day and it's still funny to me. No myth, most people still think it's funny, too.

KingBrian2

My main problem with this reboot is the slapstick humour that and the obvious reversing of the gender roles. Cringe worthy.

silverharp

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

But was it really..?

I watched it with my kid a few months ago for the first time in years. While it was fun, and even more fun if you're kid, I don't remember laughing beyond the odd chuckle here and there. Bit of a myth conjured over time that it's comedy gold.

I watched it with my son a couple of months back and no its not a lol type of movie. and regardless of who they cast male or female I don't think I'd have bothered going to see it in the cinema especially if they were taking it in a comedy direction. If it was a big action adventure with no tongue in cheek maybe

MilesMorales1

I just realised, I didn't even see the Weaver cameo. Where was she?

maximoose

Bonus scene during credits.

It was a bit cringey.

AMKC

RDM_83 again wrote: »

As somebody that hated Bridesmaids (actually not sure if I even finished it) but thought The Heat was a pretty decent light film (I have a major soft spot for sandra bullock), where do you think this fits between the two?

Utterly sick of the bolded stuff in light hearted films these days

Bridesmaids That is a terrible film not one bit funny and way overrated. Watching paint dry is more exciting than watching that.

That Melissa one is not funny at all its all forced and fake.

py2006

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf-XBng81SA

He lets you know in advance when he is about to talk spoilery

Tony EH

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

But was it really..?

I watched it with my kid a few months ago for the first time in years. While it was fun, and even more fun if you're kid, I don't remember laughing beyond the odd chuckle here and there. Bit of a myth conjured over time that it's comedy gold.

Agreed. It's chucklesome at best and dare I say it, waaay too overrated by some.

But, it's still a very good film and one that you could throw on and watch many times. It has that energy that happy accidents always have. Everything "turned out right" and that comes across on the screen.

ancapailldorcha

So I was asked to vacate my flat for this evening and ended up going to see Tarzan. Except I was late and had to settle for this. And I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would. The leads seemed to work quite well and I got a fair few laughs out of it, as did most of the audience. Chris Hemsworth was very good as well.

Slydice

MovieBob's Review (3 out of 4):

So how’d they do?
Not half bad, actually!

ShakerMaker91

I'd reckon some people are saying this film is good even though they know its terrible. They want to be seen to be defending it for some reason.

pixelburp

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

I'd reckon some people are saying this film is good even though they know its terrible. They want to be seen to be defending it for some reason.

So if reviewers aren't taking bribes, they're now just lying to themselves? OK, we get it, you really don't like this film, or the idea of this film; let it go already and stop with the passing snark.

ShakerMaker91

pixelburp wrote: »

So if reviewers aren't taking bribes, they're now just lying to themselves? OK, we get it, you really don't like this film, or the idea of this film; let it go already and stop with the passing snark.

Didn't mean it to be snarky just expressing an opinion of mine. I thought we're all entitled to an opinion or is just pro Ghostbusters opinions from now on?

The Black Oil

First 20-30 minutes I was worried that this was going to be passable and little else, but once they found a new home I really started to enjoy it a lot more. I don't know the actors' past work, at all. I smiled a few times more so than actually laughing. There's some nice nods to the original.

pixelburp

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

Didn't mean it to be snarky just expressing an opinion of mine. I thought we're all entitled to an opinion or is just pro Ghostbusters opinions from now on?

I never claimed you have to be pro or against, but trashing reviews as either taking bribes or being in denial is betraying a bias on your part. As you say, you're expressing an opinion, but at the cost of dismissing and belittling others' own.

johnny_ultimate

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

I'd reckon some people are saying this film is good even though they know its terrible. They want to be seen to be defending it for some reason.

Mod note: ShakerMaker, your posts in this thread are becoming increasingly pointless and frankly antagonistic. You clearly haven't seen the film and have nothing to say about it other than nonsense conspiracy theories and making insulting assessments on people with an opinion based on actually watching the film. We get it, so please stop.

We haven't ever needed to implement thread bans in this forum before, but you're really putting us in position where we might need to consider it.