Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

Because I was reacting to his video review?

Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

Exactly. Man, I miss those guys.

Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

So, two people have voted 0 stars yet haven't seen it. -ohbfrank-

If you're not going to see it that's what the "what are you high" selection is for since there are no stars assigned. But I guess it's par for the course :lol:

Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

Saw it tonight...it's not very good, guys. And I mean significantly worse than Ghostbusters II.

The first 30 minutes are PAINFULLY unfunny and unentertaining. You'll quickly realize that there's no attempt to make this new 'Ghostbusters' feel like it takes place in the real world (or even the real New York City, as it's mostly obvious it's not shot in NYC). The movie has the tone and look of most of today's lowbrow comedies...pretty much like Feig's other films. Other than the F/X, there's really not much attempt to be creative with the camera...just a lot of close ups and mugging from the actors on what are obviously sets and not real locations.

After those first 30 minutes, once Chris Hemsworth and Leslie Jones show up (the two of them surprisingly the best things about this reboot), the movie at least becomes watchable...but the laughs are few and far between A few jokes hit the mark (including a 'Jaws' joke I liked), but there's nothing here that comes close to the original films.

Believe it or not, the cameo from Bill Murray (which amounts to maybe three minutes of screen time...far more than the other cameos) is the least-funny thing in the movie. The other actors popping up are fun moments, but they have nothing to do with the story - what little there is.

The story is the movie's biggest problem...there's not much of a plot here. One gets the feeling these actresses would be much better in a smarter screenplay (Aykroyd reportedly has three completed Ghostbuster sequel stories...too bad he couldn't have given these guys one). The finale is just 20 minutes or so of special effects...no real logic as to the ghosts that are showing up...just an excuse to spend a bunch of money, show a lot of destruction, and assume the audience will enjoy the mayhem.

There's just no sense of fun and joy here. There are moments where it looks like the cast will just let loose and have fun with the concept (a dance number with Hemsworth seems to have been cut from the film and so plays over the end credits instead), but things always seem to get reeled back in and slowed down - I have no idea why. This is a mess of a movie that might have been better under someone else's watch (why didn't they just let Ivan Reitman direct this?!)... 1 1/2 stars out of 5 from me. :)

Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

Please review the 3D as well! Thanks

Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

If you're asking me, I didn't see it in 3D.

Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

There seems to be a common theme among the really bad reviews of this movie. Given how many people I respect that have pointed out the same fatal flaws in the movie I have to believe that this movie really is a bit of a mess.

Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

I'll think on it some more, but generally speaking, there were a lot more things I liked about it than things I didn't like, but the things I didn't like, I really didn't like.

Overall, I still totally recommend it.

IMAX 3D was great during the vfx stuff, but pointless during the dialog scenes. Effective use of going beyond the scope of the image; the Blu-ray will be sure to piss off folks who have CIH screens.

Most delightful thing was, at the end, I saw two kids stand up and dance during the entire credits sequence. Clearly, they enjoyed it. :)

So my own childhood has escaped unscathed, at least for now.

Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

Weren't there a bunch of production shots of them filming around NYC last year?

Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

I thought it was filmed in Boston.

Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

With just shy of 16 000 votes this is currently sitting at 4.3 on IMDB. Although I'm sure a whopping 38 of those who voted have actually seen it.

Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

I looked through a ton of those IMDB reviews, and it was painfully obvious pretty much most of them had not seen it. A lot made assumptions about things in the movie that were not actually there, and again, most were rants that it should not have been made.

Shame. I went, I saw, i enjoyed the heck out of it.

Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

Can the results of the poll be made public? I'd love to know who supposedly ran right out and saw a preview screening last night and then gave it a 0-star review.

I gave it 3.5 stars. I'd give the original 5 and the sequel 2.5.

Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

IMDB lists a bunch of places around Boston, but I also heard that some shots were filmed in NYC.

BUT, in the end credits, there was a very distinct credit saying "Filmed in Australia." and something about thanking the Australian government for participation, etc.

Either way, :shrug:

Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

Thanks, I didn't see that link/option on the mobile site.

mapasu and mcnabb, I'm calling you out. Have you honestly seen the movie?

Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

Yup. The first review that shows up on IMDB starts with:
:lol:
There were more action/horror scenes in this than either of the originals. This person didn't see it. Period. I'm not saying the action/horror parts were all GOOD, but quantitatively, there were a higher number of those scenes.
like every blockbuster film in the last 30 years? :lol: Also, notice how they say nothing about the actual content of the movie.
SO CLOSE! Does this person not see that that last bit is exactly the point?
Nope. Jones was VERY subdued. The only times she was "loud" was when ANY person would have been loud in those situations.
The CGI had a very specific style, and I liked it. The only thing I didn't like was big-Rowan.
The acting was on par with any other comedy dependent on a bit of improvisation.
:lol: No.
Says the person who started their """"review"""" with "They replaced the entire main cast with only women to appeal to the radical Feminists."
I would disagree. It took quite a few chances with the universe these characters inhabit, and planted the right seeds for more. But, y'know, I saw the film, unlike this person.
Product placement!??! In a multi-million-dollar blockbuster?! What sorcery is this?!
(I hate product placement, but again, this person didn't even mention a specific instance of it)
:lol: Yes, seeing a movie to be entertained by said movie makes you a bad person. Of course it does.


Anyway, I'm thinking I'd rate the film somewhere around 3.5 or 4 out of 5. Too bad 3.75 isn't an option. edit: I'm going to round it up. Why not.

I absolutely hated the "possession" sequence, as seen in the trailers. This is the SPOILER thread so... just the Abby bit, getting slapped, then Kevin getting possessed. If it were me, I'd have just had them go straight to Kevin, even if it means getting rid of Holtzmann's line about making a ghostbusting shotgun.


Of course they haven't. I wouldn't worry about it. There's a long history of people rating movies 0/5 or 1/5 on this forum "for the lolz" or because they "just don't care." This film is not special in that regard, at all. Oldboy used to call folks out on it, but it never amounted to anything. :shrug:

Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

None of the bogus IMDB reviews invalidate the bad reviews we've seen that have been scathing.

And there are a good number of people who have written positive reviews about the movie who also had previously written columns/blogs defending the movie and attacking it's critics. That makes those reviews highly suspect at best.

Attacking the fringe lunatics and subtly lumping all criticism of the movie in with that group doesn't help prop up a movie that a lot of people (including top critics) strongly (and genuinely) dislike.


And notice that I haven't voted on it. And I won't. (Well, the , "Are you high," option is rather amusing... ;) )

Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

Did I say it did?

No it doesn't. Or, it only does if you're a conspiracy theorist. These people are writers. Their job is writing. It's perfectly reasonable to write columns about the lead-up to the release of the movie, with an opinion *gasp* about the "critics" of the movie. I put that in quotes because shit like "bitches can't bust ghosts!" isn't a reasonable criticism. Those articles aren't about folks like you unless YOU make it about folks like you.

PLEASE, I've asked so many times now. Show me ONE article/blog from someone with an audience of more than 100 people, that lumps ALL criticism in with the lunatics. Stop saying this unless you can factually prove it.
I love how the internet suddenly cares about "top critics" on IMDB. Yes, they are top critics for a reason (experience and viewership), but I've never seen this brought up in any other discussion about reviews for a movie. This is called grasping at straws.

Congrats! But if you want to see the results without having to click on it every time, just use that last option as it was intended.


One thing I did love in the action scenes:
Holtzmann's dual handgun moment. It was probably less than a minute long, but I loved the way it looked.

Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

It's implied. By not giving any credence to the rational people criticizing the movie and only noting the nutjobs the implication is that the only people criticizing it are nutjobs. If someone wants to write it correctly they write something like this, "While there is understandable criticism from long time fans of the franchise who hoped to see a true sequel there is also an ugly underside to the criticism..."

No, I think that top critics are less likely to be swayed by the controversy. They don't get involved with the back and forth bickering, and they don't engage in insults towards the movie's critics among the fanbase.

And I do not for a second believe that defending the movie before it comes out and posting attacks against critics of the movie lends a critic to be unbiased. They then have a horse in the race. They also have their reputation invested in the movie being good. They don't want to admit to being wrong. It's purely human nature. Psychology 101.

Almost no one is going to write, "Remember how I was adamantly defending this movie three months ago? Never mind. It does suck."

Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

Okay.


In other news,

Michael Hat. :lol:

Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

http://www.imax.com/news/see-why-ima...w-ghostbusters


http://http://www.imax.com/sites/def.../2Dvs3D-V2.jpg

Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

I'm putting this late-movie question in spoiler tags because it's still only the first weekend, and I'm not sure I want to go all-out with spoilery stuff just yet.

To anyone else who saw it already,

Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

Lord, what a crock of shit. So all these critics are just brimming over with bias but you are able to see through all of them with your unbiased lenses? Come on. You didn't want to like the movie, and so you're choosing to discount and invalidate people who do.

The top critics seem fairly split, some liked it, some didn't. You're giving weight to those who didn't. Why? Because of your own bias.

Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 

My guess is he secretly loves the movie but won't admit it due to everything he's posted about the movie thus far. It's just human nature.

James Berardinelli gave it a 2.5 out of 4, I tend to agree with him on movies like this. That'd more or less make it an enjoyable time waster but not particularly memorable, roughly what I expected and one of several reasons why I'll likely wait to rent/stream/buy it (well that and I just don't like going to the movie theater).