Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
07-11-16 | 01:44 PM
#651
DVD Talk Legend
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 18,538
Received 444 Likes
on
313 Posts
From: Formerly known as Groucho AND Bandoman/Death Moans, Iowa
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
Literally nobody is saying "if you are not looking forward to this, you are a sexist man." Literally. Nobody.
I'm a fan of the original. I never felt alienated. Don't like it? Don't see it.
What the fuck?
That's not at all what they did. This tops the heavy backpack arguments.
I checked. I don't see that on there at all. Literally, there's no official post from that page today or yesterday that says that.
I'm a fan of the original. I never felt alienated. Don't like it? Don't see it.
What the fuck?
That's not at all what they did. This tops the heavy backpack arguments.I checked. I don't see that on there at all.
Literally, there's no official post from that page today or yesterday that says that.
07-11-16 | 01:45 PM
#652
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
OH! Shit, I see it. I just did a text search, and didn't even look at the images at all. The rest of my post is accurate, though. I swear! 
07-11-16 | 02:05 PM
#653
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
I think expecting this to stay in the 70's range is hoping. Scanning the positive reviews does not indicate anything new or original or even justified in this reboot and the chemistry between the leads sounds non existent to horrible.
07-11-16 | 02:06 PM
#654
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
I'm glad to see that it's better than the trailers made it look. I'm curious to see if the humor in the movie is the same that's in the trailers, or if they saved all of the best bits for the movie. In any case, they should fire whoever put together those trailers because they were not good at all and apparently didn't do any justice to the actual movie.
07-11-16 | 02:47 PM
#655
DVD Talk Legend
07-11-16 | 03:03 PM
#656
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
David Rooney from The Hollywood Reporter hated it almost as much as Richard Roeper did...
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/rev...-review-909313
Not quite as scathing as...
So, for some people this is clearly not an enjoyable movie at all.
And I have found a post that shows how some of the positive reviews came from people who wrote columns defending the movie just a couple months ago. Kind of hard to say that they're all that objective when they put their reputations on the line defending the movie like they did. Maybe they genuinely thought that the movie was fairly good, maybe they were just trying to save face - who knows?
But maybe it's a bit premature to say that the movie isn't that bad. Let's get some more respected critics chiming in, and let's get the cinemascore from the people who actually pay to see it. (And compare that score to Fant4stic and BVS...)
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/rev...-review-909313
Originally Posted by David Rooney/Hollywood Reporter
The Bottom line - A bust.
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.
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.
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.
The failure to reinvent the leads to any satisfying degree is arguably preferable, however, to the overhaul of the supporting players. While the original movies had Annie Potts' deliciously unflappable Janine Melnitz, this time around, the ghostbusters hire a hunky dolt named Kevin as their assistant, played by Chris Hemsworth in an ingratiating but wooden performance that sucks the comic energy out of his every scene. (It further undermines Erin's credibility that she gets all goo-goo-eyed and silly around him.)
Moranis is the sole surviving principal from the original Ghostbusters who doesn't turn up in a cameo, the best of them saved for the credits. Also reappearing is the blobby, hot dog-gorging Slimer, who gets a lady friend in the Mrs. Potato Head vein; and the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, who appears incongruously alongside some kind of steampunk ghoul version of the Thanksgiving Day Parade. Those and other nostalgic nods to the progenitor only serve as a reminder of the charm that's lacking here, sacrificed to bland, effects-laden bloat and uninspired writing, making this a missed opportunity.
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.
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.
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.
The failure to reinvent the leads to any satisfying degree is arguably preferable, however, to the overhaul of the supporting players. While the original movies had Annie Potts' deliciously unflappable Janine Melnitz, this time around, the ghostbusters hire a hunky dolt named Kevin as their assistant, played by Chris Hemsworth in an ingratiating but wooden performance that sucks the comic energy out of his every scene. (It further undermines Erin's credibility that she gets all goo-goo-eyed and silly around him.)
Moranis is the sole surviving principal from the original Ghostbusters who doesn't turn up in a cameo, the best of them saved for the credits. Also reappearing is the blobby, hot dog-gorging Slimer, who gets a lady friend in the Mrs. Potato Head vein; and the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, who appears incongruously alongside some kind of steampunk ghoul version of the Thanksgiving Day Parade. Those and other nostalgic nods to the progenitor only serve as a reminder of the charm that's lacking here, sacrificed to bland, effects-laden bloat and uninspired writing, making this a missed opportunity.
Not quite as scathing as...
Originally Posted by Richard Roeper
‘Ghostbusters’ reboot a horrifying mess
So bad.
“Ghostbusters” is a horror from start to finish, and that’s not me saying it’s legitimately scary.
More like I was horrified by what was transpiring onscreen.
How could so many talented, well-meaning artists, who clearly loved and respected the original, produce such a raggedy-looking, thuddingly unfunny, utterly unnecessary reboot?
“Ghostbusters” is one of the worst movies of the year for multiple other reasons, including:
Bad acting.
Uninspired directing, editing, cinematography and music.
Cheesy special effects.
A forgettable villain.
A terrible script.
The 2016 edition of “Ghostbusters” is not a sequel or a remake per se. While there are multiple visual and musical nods to the 1984 classic (to the point of distraction), this is a stand-alone disaster.
In present day New York City, Kristen Wiig’s Erin is an uptight academic trying to distance herself from her college days when she and her best friend Abby (Melissa McCarthy) published a book claiming ghosts were real. Erin and Abby are estranged — but they’re reunited via plot device when honest-to-ghostness apparitions surface in New York, creating all sorts of evil mischief.
Wiig and McCarthy co-starred in “Bridesmaids” (directed by the usually terrific Paul Feig, who is at the helm here) and they’re enormously charismatic and versatile screen actors — which makes it all the more disappointing to see them flounder separately and together here. They’re both surprisingly muted and flat.
Then again, better understated than insanely over-the-top, which is what we get from Kate McKinnon as Holtzmann, the “wacky” scientist of the bunch. McKinnon is so good on “Saturday Night Live,” but she absolutely butchers her performance in this film — mugging for the camera, bouncing around in an exaggerated manner as if she’s in a “Three Stooges” short, and drawing attention to herself even when a scene calls for her to react and not engage in wholesale attention-getting thievery.
Jones is loud and unsubtle as an MTA worker named Patty who becomes the fourth Ghostbuster, but I’m not sure there’s a way to deliver lines such as, “Aw, hell naw!” without going big.
There’s very little chemistry between any combination of the four Ghostbusters, who spend a lot of time strategizing about their next move and then saying “Woohoo!” when they hit the streets.
Chris Hemsworth further drags down the proceedings as their receptionist, Kevin, who’s monumentally stupid — but also narcissistic and annoying. Hemsworth tries too hard to be funny, instead of creating a legitimately funny character. (It doesn’t help matters that Wiig’s Erin is so smitten with this dope she can barely think straight around him.)
The special effects in “Ghostbusters” are so mediocre I’m wondering if it was a nod to the relatively crude effects of 1984. (Or maybe they’re just not very good.) The ghosts aren’t frightening and they’re not funny and they have almost no backstory; they’re just hissing, hateful, murderous creatures storming through the city.
Neil Casey plays the movie’s main villain, a creepy hotel janitor named Rowan. He’s one of the most forgettable villains of any movie I’ve ever seen. I’m already forgetting his name as I finish this paragraph.
Andy Garcia does what he can with this role as the mayor of New York, who is in deep denial about the whole ghost thing. (It’s a pale imitation of William Atherton’s fantastic work as Walter Peck, the EPA official who tried to shut down the Ghostbusters in the 1984 film.)
So bad.
“Ghostbusters” is a horror from start to finish, and that’s not me saying it’s legitimately scary.
More like I was horrified by what was transpiring onscreen.
How could so many talented, well-meaning artists, who clearly loved and respected the original, produce such a raggedy-looking, thuddingly unfunny, utterly unnecessary reboot?
“Ghostbusters” is one of the worst movies of the year for multiple other reasons, including:
Bad acting.
Uninspired directing, editing, cinematography and music.
Cheesy special effects.
A forgettable villain.
A terrible script.
The 2016 edition of “Ghostbusters” is not a sequel or a remake per se. While there are multiple visual and musical nods to the 1984 classic (to the point of distraction), this is a stand-alone disaster.
In present day New York City, Kristen Wiig’s Erin is an uptight academic trying to distance herself from her college days when she and her best friend Abby (Melissa McCarthy) published a book claiming ghosts were real. Erin and Abby are estranged — but they’re reunited via plot device when honest-to-ghostness apparitions surface in New York, creating all sorts of evil mischief.
Wiig and McCarthy co-starred in “Bridesmaids” (directed by the usually terrific Paul Feig, who is at the helm here) and they’re enormously charismatic and versatile screen actors — which makes it all the more disappointing to see them flounder separately and together here. They’re both surprisingly muted and flat.
Then again, better understated than insanely over-the-top, which is what we get from Kate McKinnon as Holtzmann, the “wacky” scientist of the bunch. McKinnon is so good on “Saturday Night Live,” but she absolutely butchers her performance in this film — mugging for the camera, bouncing around in an exaggerated manner as if she’s in a “Three Stooges” short, and drawing attention to herself even when a scene calls for her to react and not engage in wholesale attention-getting thievery.
Jones is loud and unsubtle as an MTA worker named Patty who becomes the fourth Ghostbuster, but I’m not sure there’s a way to deliver lines such as, “Aw, hell naw!” without going big.
There’s very little chemistry between any combination of the four Ghostbusters, who spend a lot of time strategizing about their next move and then saying “Woohoo!” when they hit the streets.
Chris Hemsworth further drags down the proceedings as their receptionist, Kevin, who’s monumentally stupid — but also narcissistic and annoying. Hemsworth tries too hard to be funny, instead of creating a legitimately funny character. (It doesn’t help matters that Wiig’s Erin is so smitten with this dope she can barely think straight around him.)
The special effects in “Ghostbusters” are so mediocre I’m wondering if it was a nod to the relatively crude effects of 1984. (Or maybe they’re just not very good.) The ghosts aren’t frightening and they’re not funny and they have almost no backstory; they’re just hissing, hateful, murderous creatures storming through the city.
Neil Casey plays the movie’s main villain, a creepy hotel janitor named Rowan. He’s one of the most forgettable villains of any movie I’ve ever seen. I’m already forgetting his name as I finish this paragraph.
Andy Garcia does what he can with this role as the mayor of New York, who is in deep denial about the whole ghost thing. (It’s a pale imitation of William Atherton’s fantastic work as Walter Peck, the EPA official who tried to shut down the Ghostbusters in the 1984 film.)
So, for some people this is clearly not an enjoyable movie at all.
And I have found a post that shows how some of the positive reviews came from people who wrote columns defending the movie just a couple months ago. Kind of hard to say that they're all that objective when they put their reputations on the line defending the movie like they did. Maybe they genuinely thought that the movie was fairly good, maybe they were just trying to save face - who knows?
But maybe it's a bit premature to say that the movie isn't that bad. Let's get some more respected critics chiming in, and let's get the cinemascore from the people who actually pay to see it. (And compare that score to Fant4stic and BVS...)
07-11-16 | 03:03 PM
#657
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
I'm not talking about seeing the movie. There's lots of movies I don't plan on seeing but I don't keep posting over and over and over about it. It's like you're obsessed with posting about NOT seeing the movie.
07-11-16 | 03:03 PM
#658
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Washington DC
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
CinemaBlend has given the 3D conversion work on Ghostbusters a perfect score!
http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1533...s-movie-ticket
http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1533...s-movie-ticket
07-11-16 | 03:05 PM
#659
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
For those interested, Kevin Smith went to see it last night. He basically said it was a fun movie but if you have negative feelings toward the movie now, it won't change your mind.
07-11-16 | 03:06 PM
#660
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
You don't get it - I wanted to be excited about a new Ghostbusters movie. By hiring the people they did (Feig, McCarthy, Jones) they killed any and all excitement and/or enthusiasm I may have had for the movie. When you hope for and expect one thing, and get something completely different (in a bad way) you do tend to become disappointed and, sometimes, a little angry.
07-11-16 | 03:11 PM
#661
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
CinemaBlend has given the 3D conversion work on Ghostbusters a perfect score!
http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1533...s-movie-ticket
http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1533...s-movie-ticket
Now, I'm not so sure.
You don't get it - I wanted to be excited about a new Ghostbusters movie. By hiring the people they did (Feig, McCarthy, Jones) they killed any and all excitement and/or enthusiasm I may have had for the movie. When you hope for and expect one thing, and get something completely different (in a bad way) you do tend to become disappointed and, sometimes, a little angry.
I'm trying to remember, was Supermallet angry about Prometheus?
07-11-16 | 03:18 PM
#662
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
07-11-16 | 03:21 PM
#663
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
Wow, dude. You realize we're just talking about movies, right? How sheltered does someone have to be that not getting the movie they wanted is enough to make them angry, even a little bit? I mean, my daughter get's angry and cries all the time when I don't give her cookies and ice cream and stuff like that. But she's 3.
But if you're not enough of a fan of any movie franchise to get irritated or frustrated (or maybe a little angry) when a studio screws you over as a fan then you'll never get it.
I'm not going to be around forever. There are some things I'd like to see before I die. The Chargers winning a Super Bowl being a good example. To a lesser degree I hoped to see a new Ghostbusters movie - but not like this! So now that ship has sailed. I'll get over it. But that doesn't mean I have to be happy about what Amy Pascal did to a franchise that I really enjoyed and was hoping to get one last sequel to (or at least a respectful passing of the torch to the next generation).
07-11-16 | 03:27 PM
#665
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
Sorry, but that's how it comes off. My apologies if that offends you.
Again: I've been a fan of this franchise for as long as I can remember. I was too young to see GB theatrically, but saw GB2 in the theatre. I have a bunch of random GB shit in my house. I've watched both movies dozens of times, even if I now respect that GB2 is kind of terrible.
I do not feel like the studio screwed ME over at all. Not one bit.
Maybe they screwed over Dan Aykroyd.
But he seems happy enough; maybe they let him throw in a Crystal Skull Vodka plug into the movie.
I'm not "enough of a fan?" Please. You can't even spell Aykroyd. I can, but I guess that's because I'm Canadian.
edit:
But if you're not enough of a fan of any movie franchise to get irritated or frustrated (or maybe a little angry) when a studio screws you over as a fan then you'll never get it.
I do not feel like the studio screwed ME over at all. Not one bit.
Maybe they screwed over Dan Aykroyd.
But he seems happy enough; maybe they let him throw in a Crystal Skull Vodka plug into the movie.I'm not "enough of a fan?" Please. You can't even spell Aykroyd.
I can, but I guess that's because I'm Canadian.edit:
Last edited by Dan; 07-11-16 at 03:36 PM.
07-11-16 | 03:38 PM
#666
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
But in general, yes, that is what the media has basically labeled us "naysayers" as. Watch any Late Night show that the cast is guest stars on and you get the question, "So there's a lot of negativity around the movie with people saying women can't be Ghostbusters. What do you say to that?" Then you get that bitch McCarthy giving the response, "It's a bunch of losers living in their parents basement looking for ways to complain." It's the easy argument to make. But it's not an accurate representation of why people hate this movie before even seeing it.
And no, I'm not planning on watching it.
Again, a slap in the face to the fans of the original film.
This just goes back to my first point... even a review from the New York Times goes for the easy attack on the film's naysayers. And what's worse, the official Facbook page is promoting that post (putting money behind it).
Last edited by Matto1020; 07-11-16 at 03:44 PM.
07-11-16 | 04:12 PM
#668
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
But in general, yes, that is what the media has basically labeled us "naysayers" as. Watch any Late Night show that the cast is guest stars on and you get the question, "So there's a lot of negativity around the movie with people saying women can't be Ghostbusters. What do you say to that?" Then you get that bitch McCarthy giving the response, "It's a bunch of losers living in their parents basement looking for ways to complain." It's the easy argument to make. But it's not an accurate representation of why people hate this movie before even seeing it.
07-11-16 | 04:12 PM
#669
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
I don't have any problems with the IDEA of this version of this movie; Feig, females, reboot. No issues there.
Sure, I could say that Aykroyd and Ramis got shafted by Sony because Murray wanted nothing to do with THEIR film (think about that. Hard.), but that's not a reason for anyone but Aykroyd to be bent out of shape.
Sure, if the options were NO MOVIE or REBOOT, I'd have chose NO MOVIE. But the reboot exists, and it doesn't look as bad as GB2, and I like most of the people involved, so I'll see it. All I've got to lose is $8. It's just a movie, broh.
But in general, yes, that is what the media has basically labeled us "naysayers" as.
And no, I'm not planning on watching it.
I'm not going to respond to your Star Wars stuff. I'm laughing too hard to deal with that right now. That is some beautiful poetry, though.
07-11-16 | 04:21 PM
#670
DVD Talk Godfather
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
I will wait to see how it fares come Friday when all reviews and the general public get a say.
I think expecting this to stay in the 70's range is hoping. Scanning the positive reviews does not indicate anything new or original or even justified in this reboot and the chemistry between the leads sounds non existent to horrible.
I think expecting this to stay in the 70's range is hoping. Scanning the positive reviews does not indicate anything new or original or even justified in this reboot and the chemistry between the leads sounds non existent to horrible.
That said, I've said a few times that even the positive reviews have a lot of issues. It certainly doesn't look like a great or memorable movie, i'm just saying it isn't shit based on the reactions.
07-11-16 | 04:24 PM
#671
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
This is a really good write-up, worth sharing.
https://filmschoolrejects.com/open-l...84f#.lak4895q4
https://filmschoolrejects.com/open-l...84f#.lak4895q4
And this leads me to my last and most important point. Even if Ghostbusters puts the franchise through the Hollywood wringer, that does not mean there aren’t kids — boys and girls — who won’t fall in love with the movie for everything it gets right. As we spend time arguing over the value of our respective childhoods, there are people out there who get the chance to see themselves onscreen fighting ghosts and saving New York City instead of just playing the damsel in ghost distress. Some of them may even seek out the original Ghostbusters as a result of their newfound interest, and then there is one more person out there to appreciate the comedic genius of Bill Murray, Sigourney Weaver, and all the rest of the original Ghostbusters cast.
Look, I’ll be completely honest here. I’m not particularly enthused about the new Ghostbusters movie, nor am I a big fan of the original Ghostbusters films. And I’m certainly not asking you to muster up artificial enthusiasm or to pay to see a movie you have no interest in supporting. All I’m asking is that we hit the reset button on the entire Ghostbusters line of thinking. Something that you love — that exists frozen in time for generations to come — has also given female audiences a chance to be represented on the screen in the same way that you once connected to a hilarious group of ragtag outsiders. It comes down to a choice. You can either choose to view this new Ghostbusters as an affront the memory of the original, or take pride in the fact that a movie you love has the power to help usher in a new era of comedies. I hope you’re at least willing to entertain the idea of the latter.
Look, I’ll be completely honest here. I’m not particularly enthused about the new Ghostbusters movie, nor am I a big fan of the original Ghostbusters films. And I’m certainly not asking you to muster up artificial enthusiasm or to pay to see a movie you have no interest in supporting. All I’m asking is that we hit the reset button on the entire Ghostbusters line of thinking. Something that you love — that exists frozen in time for generations to come — has also given female audiences a chance to be represented on the screen in the same way that you once connected to a hilarious group of ragtag outsiders. It comes down to a choice. You can either choose to view this new Ghostbusters as an affront the memory of the original, or take pride in the fact that a movie you love has the power to help usher in a new era of comedies. I hope you’re at least willing to entertain the idea of the latter.
07-11-16 | 04:44 PM
#672
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
This is a really good write-up, worth sharing.
https://filmschoolrejects.com/open-l...84f#.lak4895q4
https://filmschoolrejects.com/open-l...84f#.lak4895q4
07-11-16 | 05:14 PM
#673
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
Yep, Kevin loves everything and he was pretty lukewarm on his podcast...saying "I liked it" but then backtracking by saying it might not be for everyone.
07-11-16 | 05:57 PM
#674
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
Yeah, and as someone who is only mild fan of Ghostbusters it's fascinating to watch as an outside observer.
I liked (not loved) the original Ghostbusters movie, but I feel absolutely no affection for the franchise like I do Wars, Trek, and Who, so I am able to observe this kerfluffle from the outside as a detached observer.
I liked (not loved) the original Ghostbusters movie, but I feel absolutely no affection for the franchise like I do Wars, Trek, and Who, so I am able to observe this kerfluffle from the outside as a detached observer.
Last edited by Josh-da-man; 07-12-16 at 01:01 AM.
07-11-16 | 06:06 PM
#675
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
I loved the original Ghostbusters -- saw it a bunch of times in the summer of 1984 as a 13 year old fan -- but it's not like the movie was so sacrosanct to the point of this measure of impassioned response and outcry. IMO of course