GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

PopePalpatine

Sad Professor wrote: »

Yeah but they weren't full reviews. Just quotes for the posters. Pretty low grade stuff.

Those poster quotes are usually misquotes anyway.

Now that you've said it, I'm reminded of how "Legend" hid a 2-star review between the two Tom Hardys on the poster. :pac:

BMMachine

sorry after this, the thread is over.
we are done here

johnny_ultimate

If there was a fake reviewer writing in a publication of note it would be a legitimate offence to criticism and journalism, worthy of every bit of scorn we could collectively muster.

World of difference between that and some marketing copywriter making up a quote for what is very evidently a product advertisement. It's still wrong, but majorly different contexts and consequences.

Sad Professor wrote:

Those poster quotes are usually misquotes anyway.

Not a misquote, but the main poster for the Neon Demon boasts a five star review from Unilad. Another reason why posters should be taken with several spoonfuls of salt

e_e

BMMachine wrote: »

sorry after this, the thread is over.
we are done here

Been using the dark theme for so long. :P

iguana

Saw it tonight and it was an awful lot better than I was expecting. McCarthy was actually playing a character for the first time in a long time rather than the caricatures she has been doing for the last few year. Jones also wasn't as bad as her appearances in the trailers came across. And it wasn't a string of gross out gags like a lot of Feig's most recent work. Best of I came away with the impression that the cast really seemed to be enjoying themselves hugely when making this film and it left me feeling a lot of goodwill towards the whole movie.

I agree that it was the third best Ghostbuster movie but I'm not impartial as the first two are part of my childhood and my judgement on them is significantly biased by that. But Murray has a witty charm that isn't replicated by any of the leads in the reboot. This movie started off very well but lagged in the middle and some of the finale was a bit rushed and flat. I felt all the cameos disturbed the flow of the movie. Hudson's was the best, Weaver's being in a tag obviously wasn't obtrusive but Murray's and Ackroyd's really felt like the story was stopped for a bit so they could show up, Potts was a little like that but not as bad.

Also as my 3, going on 4, year old is very eager to go see this I was watching it with that in mind and I think it's actually an awful lot scarier than the first two. The opening scenes with Zach Woods would be terrifying for a small child in a way that doesn't compare to anything in the first two and the final scenes with the big bad felt much more malevolent than Gozer or Vigo.

6.5-7 out of 10, while the originals get a solid 8.

ps3lover

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Gotta be the silliest post I ever read. The cinema goers are drawn from an international audience and besides it not the casting that is the issue it is everything about the movie which is average.:mad: Who knows maybe Trump has gone and seen the movie himself or some of his followers have.:D

Someone else brought up the Trump thing, they said it was Sony who said it, I was correcting him.

Elliott S

squonk wrote: »

Christ this back and forth is getting boring. Who here has actually seen the film? I haven't, but I'll go in with an open mind.

+1

Cannot believe the fuss over this film. All I know is, my sister who loved the original Ghostbusters film enjoyed the new one. I also like the original and am looking forward to seeing the new one with an open mind. The end.

Elliott S

iguana wrote: »

6.5-7 out of 10, while the originals get a solid 8.

Can't believe you'd rate the second one an 8, even with the nostalgia bias.

johnny_ultimate

For those catching up, here's some poorly explained bullet points:

Good

[*] Cast
[*] Chemistry (see above)
[*] McKinnon
[*] Neon design
[*] Mannequin

Bad

[*] Familiarity
[*] Cameos
[*] Haphazard craft

Mixed

[*] Third act
[*] Laughs

???

[*] Sequel



[*] Culture war

iguana

Elliott S wrote: »

Can't believe you'd rate the second one an 8, even with the nostalgia bias.

It's the first movie I ever saw in the cinema!

Links234

II gets my love purely for the cheesiness, and Peter MacNicol went whole hog hamming it up.

iguana

And this exchange, always makes me laugh;

Louis Tully: Your Honor, ladies and gentleman of the audience, I don't think it's fair to call my clients frauds. Sure, the blackout was a big problem for everybody. I was trapped in an elevator for two hours and I had to make the whole time. But I don't blame them. Because one time, I turned into a dog and they helped me. Thank you.
[the courtroom is in bewildered silence]
Egon: Very good, Louis. Short, but pointless.

Kylo Ren

Links234 wrote: »

II gets my love purely for the cheesiness, and Peter MacNicol went whole hog hamming it up.

I like II too. Heh.

It's probably nostalgia, but I don't care.

There was an interesting video done on the guy who plays Vigo. He was a famous boxer back in Germany and led a destructive and ultimately sad life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi0tAryAbLE

The series focuses on character actors and goes through their lives and roles. The one on Crispin Glover is fantastic.

Allyall

Edit.
Apologies.
I pressed the self destruct button a few days ago...

Elliott S

iguana wrote: »

It's the first movie I ever saw in the cinema!

The one I saw was Care Bears! The second was Honey I Shrunk the Kids. I have no fondness for the former but I still adore the latter.

S.M.B.

For some reason this isn't showing at the 3 cinemas I would usually go to. Odd. Has it gotten a standard release is Irish cinemas?

constitutionus

shoulda done.

its gone down to three shows a day at the IMC in tallaght from friday onwards but its still there.

i'd say maybe they passed on it like when Dredd came out, but ghostbusters is aimed at a far younger audience and should have a broader (see more profitable in the cinemas eyes) appeal.

bit weird if its not gettting a good release country wide

constitutionus

constitutionus wrote: »

shoulda done.

its gone down to three shows a day at the IMC in tallaght from friday onwards but its still there.

i'd say maybe they passed on it like when Dredd came out, but ghostbusters is aimed at a far younger audience and should have a broader (see more profitable in the cinemas eyes) appeal.

bit weird if its not gettting a good release country wide

It did get a wide release around the country, it's just that these months are the busiest of the year and films generally get a shorted theatrical life span.

iguana

Elliott S wrote: »

The one I saw was Care Bears! The second was Honey I Shrunk the Kids. I have no fondness for the former but I still adore the latter.

Must be a Rick Moranis thing so!. I just remember coming home that night with my brother, our friends and I singing Doh! Ray! EGONNNNN!!!!!!! over and over, at the top of our voices and cracking up every time. I think we may have made our friends' dad lose the will to live.

conorhal

pixelburp wrote: »

Having seen some of the output of the Sony hack, I think it's a bit rich to assign any semblance of machiavellian evil to their PR dept. They're a hot mess and their desperation for a blockbuster hit is palpable in their output. Hollywood is dysfunctional behemoth, capable of currying favour from pliable outlets and that's about it. The wholesale steering of public opinion is a bit beyond them

Unless of course you're the type to think the hack itself was an conspiracy, which is the kind of spiral thinking from which there's no escape.

I was looking at some female reviewers perspective on the film for an unbiased assessment of the controversy and some interesting points were made about this, there actually is a suggestion that Sony manufactured the controversy and some proof.
It was pointed out that when the trailer was released there was a $h1tstorm of negativity and Sony went delete crazy on pretty much all negative reviews on youtube when it was released, but not all negative reviews got deleted by them.
Now anybody familiar with the youtube comments sections knows well that it's a cess pool of misogyny and even the most innocuous videos can get targeted, those comments were always going to be there, but those were the ones Sony chose not to delete.
Why?
The suggestion is that Sony panicked and then tried to spin the negativity into a narrative that 'Ghostbusters isn't a cynical, messy cash-in on some valuable intellectual property by a bunch of greedy corporate executives that $h1ts all over the original for a bag of cash, it's a good movie that horrible misogynists are trying to tear down with hate'.

You don't need to be some all powerful dark overlord of PR to point a few lazy Op-Ed writers, who lets face it write about trivial controversy on the internet all the time since that's where journalism get's its stories these days, at the comments section and get them to write pieces championing the film against such hate. We got a slew of articles about 'Why Ghostbusters is the movie America needs right now' and 'Ghostbusters, the bros who hate it and the art of misogyny'. The media was more then happy to indulge a storm in a teacup based on some loudmouth youtubers.

Something about the controversy feels rather 'post truth' manufactured and Sony benefits. 'Follow the money' as they say in a far better film. Why for example would Sony release a cobbled together reshot scene as a TV trailer featuring some nerd slagging the women off and telling them that they should go find husbands instead of ghosts, right before Melissa McCarthy blows up his moped with a proton blaster. A scene that isn't even in the movie. It's almost as if they are eager to fuel the controversy....

KingBrian2

iguana wrote: »

And this exchange, always makes me laugh;

Louis Tully: Your Honor, ladies and gentleman of the audience, I don't think it's fair to call my clients frauds. Sure, the blackout was a big problem for everybody. I was trapped in an elevator for two hours and I had to make the whole time. But I don't blame them. Because one time, I turned into a dog and they helped me. Thank you.
[the courtroom is in bewildered silence]
Egon: Very good, Louis. Short, but pointless.

That piece of dialogue is so funny.:D

Just back and..

I'm sorry to say that I thought it was utterly horrendous.

ps3lover

I'm a real sucker for Special Effects in movies and have always loved the bathroom sequence in the second film, great effect, chilling scene.

Elliott S

iguana wrote: »

Must be a Rick Moranis thing so!. I just remember coming home that night with my brother, our friends and I singing Doh! Ray! EGONNNNN!!!!!!! over and over, at the top of our voices and cracking up every time. I think we may have made our friends' dad lose the will to live.

Yeah, I liked Rick. Sadly he left acting after his wife died in her early 30s of breast cancer and he decided to devote himself full-time to being a single father. Poor Rick. He said he realised he didn't miss acting and so didn't bother to return to it.

It went from being Disneyland's Haunted Mansion to Cirque Du Soleil.

Mackman

iguana wrote: »

Saw it tonight and it was an awful lot better than I was expecting. McCarthy was actually playing a character for the first time in a long time rather than the caricatures she has been doing for the last few year. Jones also wasn't as bad as her appearances in the trailers came across. And it wasn't a string of gross out gags like a lot of Feig's most recent work. Best of I came away with the impression that the cast really seemed to be enjoying themselves hugely when making this film and it left me feeling a lot of goodwill towards the whole movie.

I agree that it was the third best Ghostbuster movie but I'm not impartial as the first two are part of my childhood and my judgement on them is significantly biased by that. But Murray has a witty charm that isn't replicated by any of the leads in the reboot. This movie started off very well but lagged in the middle and some of the finale was a bit rushed and flat. I felt all the cameos disturbed the flow of the movie. Hudson's was the best, Weaver's being in a tag obviously wasn't obtrusive but Murray's and Ackroyd's really felt like the story was stopped for a bit so they could show up, Potts was a little like that but not as bad.

Also as my 3, going on 4, year old is very eager to go see this I was watching it with that in mind and I think it's actually an awful lot scarier than the first two. The opening scenes with Zach Woods would be terrifying for a small child in a way that doesn't compare to anything in the first two and the final scenes with the big bad felt much more malevolent than Gozer or Vigo.

6.5-7 out of 10, while the originals get a solid 8.

Pretty much my exact thoughts on the movie. Overall I enjoyed it. I'm not a huge fan of the socially awkward / cringe comedy gags that seem to plague most modern comedies. I thought the cast did a god job.

I won't be out buying the DVD, but if the wife wants to watch it again, I won't protest too much

Kate McKinnon was just annoying as hell and anytime her character was on screen, I just got less and less interested. "Oh hey, look at me - I'm a goofball, I'm crazy, I'm aloof, look at my mannerisms. Har har".

py2006

Aykroyd speaking up for Leslie Jones:

"First of all, these people, they're insignificant gnats," Aykroyd began. "They're losers. They have no lives of their own, they can probably barely pay for the Wi-Fi they're using, probably [have] no jobs.

"I would say you're probably looking at obese, white men between 50 and 60 who are active Klan members or members of the Aryan Nation, and there are millions of them."

e_e

py2006 wrote: »

Aykroyd speaking up for Leslie Jones:

They're this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bZnqyE14RY

Dan Akroyd looked embarrassed as hell to be in the movie. And, to me, the cameos just felt like a kick in the nuts - Murray was given too much screentime.