TPWW Forums

TPWW Forums (https://www.tpwwforums.com/index.php)
-   entertainment forum (https://www.tpwwforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   SPOILERS<Ghostbusters Reviews Thread>SPOILERS (https://www.tpwwforums.com/showthread.php?t=131883)

Swiss Ultimate 07-10-2016 05:20 PM

SPOILERS<Ghostbusters Reviews Thread>SPOILERS
 
So...doesn't look like it impressed. 76% on Rotten Tomatoes right now with critics only. When I went to school that was a D+

Quote:

When the fledgling team of paranormal investigators in Paul Feig's Ghostbusters reboot post details of their first supernatural encounter online, one of the comments it elicits is: "Ain't no bitches gonna hunt no ghosts." It's a clever wink at the kneejerk hostility engendered among self-appointed guardians of the beloved '80s comedy franchise, long before the new movie was publicly screened. The unfunny mess that hits theaters Friday, like a big goopy splat of ectoplasm, will no doubt make those naysayers feel vindicated. But the fact is that an estrogen-infused makeover, particularly one with such a comedically gifted cast, was a promising idea. Sadly, that's where the inventiveness ended.

SPOILER: show
The high curiosity factor, the stars' popularity and moviegoers' deep affection for the property should generate decent opening numbers for Sony. But despite the teasing hint of a sequel in a post-end-credits coda mention of Zuul, the malevolent demon who possessed Sigourney Weaver in Ivan Reitman's 1984 original, the afterlife this time around looks evanescent.

The trajectory from the character-driven laughs and raucous physicality of Bridesmaids through the odd-couple antics of The Heat to the well-oiled action-comedy heroics of Spy in theory makes director Feig an ideal fit — particularly since all three of those films were elevated by their warmly knotty depiction of female friendship.

However, although the new Ghostbusters follows the template of the original by Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis, the witless script by Feig and his co-writer on The Heat, Katie Dippold, has no juice. Short on both humor and tension, the spook encounters are rote collisions with vaporous CG specters that escalate into an uninvolving supernatural cataclysm unleashed upon New York's Times Square. It's all busy-ness, noise and chaos, with zero thrills and very little sustainable comic buoyancy.

There's some knowing amusement in a rep from the Mayor's office (Saturday Night Live regular Cecily Strong) keeping a lid on public hysteria by using the ghostbusters' gender to discredit them as "incredibly sad, lonely women." But those expecting a clever feminist spin or any other sharp 21st century twists will be disappointed, and the upgrade to new-generation VFX yields nothing remarkable.

What's most surprising is the curious shortage of chemistry among the four leads, who never quite appear comfortable as a unit despite their overlapping screen histories. Kate McKinnon fares best of them, injecting consistent freshness into her off-kilter line readings and screwy reactions as eccentric engineer Jillian Holtzmann, who builds the team's anti-ghost gadgets — from familiar proton blasters to new improved gizmos. And Leslie Jones, despite being stuck playing a streetwise stereotype, has choice moments as Patty Tolan, a transit worker who brings her vast knowledge of New York and her funeral-director uncle's hearse to the job. (Yes, it gets ECTO-1 license plates.)

But there's a hole in the movie where its anchoring central friendship should be — between Melissa McCarthy's Abby Yates and Kristen Wiig's Erin Gilbert, a bond that dates back to high school and is gradually rekindled after an extended chill. While the actors worked together effectively in Bridesmaids, there's minimal evidence of a connection in their scenes here, which are often flat and sagging under the weight of dead air. Concept suffocates comedy at almost every step.

All the supernatural mayhem of the first movie — and to a lesser extent its 1989 sequel — was supported by the terrific rapport among four distinctly drawn main characters. Bill Murray's deadpan drollery, Aykroyd's earnest enthusiasm, Ramis' geeky awkwardness and Ernie Hudson's relaxed everyman vibe intersected in appealing ways that made it a hoot to watch how the team approached each fresh menace.

Those predecessors go unmentioned here, but one of the reboot's biggest problems is that its four leads seem more like female variations on the original models than fully formed characters in their own right. This is especially limiting for McCarthy and Wiig. McCarthy puts her signature, aggressively irreverent spin on impassioned science nerd Abby, and she scores a few laughs — this is not one of her abrasive misfires like Identity Thief or Tammy. But you feel the strain. Wiig's Erin is introduced as a stiff academic who has distanced herself from her early paranormal dabbling; naturally her starchy suit makes her the first to get slimed. Then zany Erin starts to peek through but somehow never gains much traction.

I was kind of neutral until the trailer came out and I didn't laugh once. I didn't have any desire to see this film or for it to bomb. Just kind of amazed at the desperate emotional defenses of the film and how so many people either wanted it to fail or to surpass the original.

There was never a chance that this one would be funnier than the original. Women aren't as funny as men as a rule and when a bunch of women try to be wacky it always comes off as forced. Oh well.

Lock Jaw 07-10-2016 05:26 PM

Been hearing/seeing a lot of good reviews actually....

A bunch of bad ones too, though....

Swiss Ultimate 07-10-2016 05:28 PM

Seen a lot of, "It's not bad" reviews.

Swiss Ultimate 07-10-2016 05:28 PM

Cooler Tom Schuler really wants this movie to be good. I hope he enjoys it.

Swiss Ultimate 07-10-2016 05:50 PM

<iframe width="504" height="284" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/u-Pvk70Gx6c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

SlickyTrickyDamon 07-10-2016 07:14 PM

76 is a C

Swiss Ultimate 07-10-2016 07:27 PM

That explains a lot about you. My school had that as a D.

Swiss Ultimate 07-10-2016 07:28 PM

77-84 C, 84-93 B

And D was 76 to like 68 or something.

Mercenary 07-10-2016 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swiss (Post 4831937)
That explains a lot about you. My school had that as a D.


Mine too

Mercenary 07-10-2016 07:44 PM

I'll let you all know my thoughts when I see it with my nephew next weekend. Not going in expecting it to be good

Zeeboe 07-10-2016 07:57 PM

I've proudly been against this reboot since it was announced two years ago. I am so happy the majority and I actually agree on something for once and that the movie is becoming the epic fail I hoped it would be.


What makes any motion picture work is if it's realistic. Even the ones that have a supernatural story. If something out of this world happens in a flick, I desire to see a story that presents an honest portrayal of how people would really react to it. For example, if ghosts were real and they became menace in society, a bunch of skirts would not be the ones dealing with the problem. That would be men.


You may have one or two butch lesbians assisting for quota purposes and to make CNN smile, and there might even be a few heterosexual babes doing research safely in an office, but as far as going into the mouth of hades and battling the spirits, it's going to be a lot of guys doing it.


Even broad's know this. They just like to pretend everything is equal and we booty-whipped males let them. Chicks are only tough in films and in BDSM sessions.

Damian Rey 2.0 07-11-2016 03:45 AM

76% is not a grade. Rotten tomatoes uses a binary system for that percentage. It means that 3 of every 4 critics would recommend seeing the movie.

The critical consensus is also favourable towards the film as well. It was never going to be the original.

There are more positive or favourable reviews then bad ones. Lots of 3, 3.5 and 4 out of 5 ratings. Seems it's likely a solidly above average movie that'll be fun to watch, if nothing else. Not sure anyone could've expected better. It's certainly receiving a better response than what I had anticipated.

Damian Rey 2.0 07-11-2016 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeeboe (Post 4831952)
I've proudly been against this reboot since it was announced two years ago. I am so happy the majority and I actually agree on something for once...

Might wanna go read what those who've seen it said before pretending they're agreeing with you, as it's not the case.

Innovator 07-11-2016 10:30 AM

Every positive review I've read defends the movie rather than actually reviews it.

Zeeboe 07-11-2016 10:48 AM

Did you not see that article a few months ago how the trailer for the film became the most thumbs downed video ever on YouTube?


I have no doubt a few butch lesbians and girly men will defend the movie, but overall, it is crashing and burning for a lot of folks and I highly doubt it will stand the test of time.


What's also sad is this flick could have worked if Hollywood didn't turn it into a political project to get people to vote for Clinton. (FYI: I am an undecided voter, but Clinton and her police-hating is not impressing me, so my current support is for Trump. Furthermore, I fear if Clinton wins, there's gonna be more PMS motion pictures cause the suits are gonna think Americans desire seeing females out of the kitchen. The powers that be need to realize at the end of the day, men are still the superior gender and we need that fact to be a reflection in our entertainment.)


Take "Terminator 3", the "Ghostbusters" reboot and the "Hunger Games" series and stick it in the oven! (Cause we all know if the world gets FUBAR'd, a freaking white girl is gonna be the lone survivor. GIVE ME A F'N BREAK! "The Book of Eli" - Now that's realistic! A blind man has a better chance at holding his own in the valley of darkness! No pun intended.)


#BrosBeforeHoes

Damian Rey 2.0 07-11-2016 11:45 AM

It's crashing and burning how?

mitch_h 07-11-2016 02:05 PM

this is getting good reviews because a sinister cabal of SJW are bribing and outright threatening movie critics (who are useless anyway, because they didn't like Batman v Superman, X-Men Apocalypse and Warcraft)

SlickyTrickyDamon 07-11-2016 02:17 PM

Do respected reviewers count more in Rotten Tomatoes? Richard Roeper panned it.

Zeeboe 07-11-2016 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damian Rey 2.0 (Post 4832109)
It's crashing and burning how?

It's getting negative reviews.



So, what's your story dude? Do you think by kissing up to women you're going to get to lick more pussy in the future?

Destor 07-11-2016 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlickyTrickyDamon (Post 4832132)
Do respected reviewers count more in Rotten Tomatoes? Richard Roeper panned it.

They dont but they should

Damian Rey 2.0 07-11-2016 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeeboe (Post 4832135)
It's getting negative reviews.



So, what's your story dude? Do you think by kissing up to women you're going to get to lick more pussy in the future?

It is? 78% of critics would give It a recommendation. Of the 65 reviews submitted, only 14 have been negative. It's definitely getting some negative reviews. But crashing and burning doesn't apply. Not to mention it hasn't even come out yet and the real test will be its box office numbers.

I could care less if it's good or not. I have zero investment in the movie. I'm just speaking the facts.

Damian Rey 2.0 07-11-2016 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mitch_h (Post 4832129)
this is getting good reviews because a sinister cabal of SJW are bribing and outright threatening movie critics (who are useless anyway, because they didn't like Batman v Superman, X-Men Apocalypse and Warcraft)

So they're useless when they don't like movies you like? I didn't like BvS or X-Men. And I won't see Warcraft because I'm Not interested.

Damian Rey 2.0 07-11-2016 05:54 PM

And again. Critics are from useless. Rotten tomatoes exists and is used as a marketing ploy because like it or not, critics matter and their voice is influential. If they weren't, movie studious wouldn't be slapping fresh stickers on their DVD/blu ray sleeves nor would they re edit trailers after a film release packed with critics reviews praising a film to generate box office returns. They clearly matter.

Rammsteinmad 07-11-2016 06:00 PM

Just shy of 4,000 ratings on IMDB has it at 3.6 at the moment. I want this film to flop. I defended it all the way until the trailer was released and I didn't laugh/smile/show interest once. It looked awful and it deserves to fail miserably.

Sadly, it will still be a financial success coz all the people who thumbs down'd it on YouTube are probably still gonna go and see it, resulting in it making a profit and therefore validating the release of sequels etc.

mitch_h 07-11-2016 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damian Rey 2.0 (Post 4832202)
So they're useless when they don't like movies you like? I didn't like BvS or X-Men. And I won't see Warcraft because I'm Not interested.

I was just being a little jokester/ making fun of people here and other places on the Internet.

Destor 07-11-2016 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damian Rey 2.0 (Post 4832202)
So they're useless when they don't like movies you like? I didn't like BvS or X-Men. And I won't see Warcraft because I'm Not interested.

Im not defending the hate but ive got to say anything rating this a 90+ was DEF paid to do so. Its not like it isnt common knowledge that critics are often paid by studios to do this.

SlickyTrickyDamon 07-11-2016 06:58 PM

IGN gave it a 69 which by their shit standards is "Okay." I think I'd have gotten in trouble in school if I ever got that grade.

Droford 07-11-2016 07:07 PM

This flopping will just fuel the war on women storyline and they will double down with more remakes like White Girl Can't Jump..Gurlz in the Hood..Women in Black..A Few Good Women

Damian Rey 2.0 07-11-2016 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Destor (Post 4832218)
Im not defending the hate but ive got to say anything rating this a 90+ was DEF paid to do so. Its not like it isnt common knowledge that critics are often paid by studios to do this.

And why is that exactly? Is It unfathomable to think they actually liked the movie and enjoyed watching it?

Frank Drebin 07-11-2016 07:25 PM

Going to agree with Droford to a degree actually. While I'm sure there are some out there deliberately hating the film because its 4 women, I doubt the vitrol that has been spewed is predominantly because of that. The previews really made it obvious that they didn't try to do anything original with this, they just swapped SNL generations and added 21st century CGI and hoped for the best. They'l go through similar troupes (meeting a calm looking ghost in a library that turns out to be a mean one) and thats not going to do it.

I think the public has reached burnout on nostalgia profiteering to some extent and this movie is just bearing that cross.

The first film captured lightning in a bottle for too many reasons to list, and was never going to be duplicated. If Ghostbusters 2 couldn't hold onto enough elements that made 1 great, how could one thats been run through the process of studio bleaching 30 years later?

I'm sure the movie is ok. Nothing special. Just ok. A good way to kill a couple of hours.

Damian Rey 2.0 07-11-2016 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mitch_h (Post 4832217)
I was just being a little jokester/ making fun of people here and other places on the Internet.

I have failed you.

Destor 07-11-2016 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damian Rey 2.0 (Post 4832241)
And why is that exactly? Is It unfathomable to think they actually liked the movie and enjoyed watching it?

It is unfathomable to think a summer comedy would ever get near perfect marks yes

Damian Rey 2.0 07-12-2016 02:15 AM

It's not getting neat perfect marks. It's getting passable "hey, it's not the original but it doesn't try to be and it's actually pretty entertaining if nothing spectacular" marks.

There are critics who didn't like it at all and others who didn't care much for it and didn't recommend it, as well as those who didn't care for it but would recommend it.

I still don't get why critics have to paid off to like something. They pan shit all the time. Melissa McCarthy has had several duds including her most recent film.

Destor 07-12-2016 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damian Rey 2.0 (Post 4832646)
It's not getting neat perfect marks. It's getting passable "hey, it's not the original but it doesn't try to be and it's actually pretty entertaining if nothing spectacular" marks.

There are critics who didn't like it at all and others who didn't care much for it and didn't recommend it, as well as those who didn't care for it but would recommend it.

I still don't get why critics have to paid off to like something. They pan shit all the time. Melissa McCarthy has had several duds including her most recent film.

I literally said only the scores that are above 90% where clearly paid off.

Mercenary 07-12-2016 12:28 PM

I'm so sneaking in a can of ecto cooler when I go

SlickyTrickyDamon 07-12-2016 01:11 PM

Still won't make it go any smoother but I will do the same.

Damian Rey 2.0 07-12-2016 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Destor (Post 4832654)
I literally said only the scores that are above 90% where clearly paid off.

Clearly how? Evidence? Proof? Facts?

Destor 07-12-2016 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damian Rey 2.0 (Post 4832710)
Clearly how? Evidence? Proof? Facts?

If you think a paint by numbers comedy is worth top marks then its clear why you arent a film critic

Damian Rey 2.0 07-12-2016 04:49 PM

So...you have no proof then? Just claims you're making because you don't buy that someone might just really like a movie you haven't seen but are deeming it as a paint by numbers result?

Destor 07-12-2016 06:34 PM

Not sure if trolling or contrarian either way have fun defending a summer comedy as a near masterpiece.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®