DVD Talk Forum
Page 3 of 8
1
2
3
4
5
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Movie Talk (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk-17/)
-   -   Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/635184-ghostbusters-feig-2016-%97-spoiler-filled-reviews-thread.html)

B5Erik 07-15-16 01:55 PM
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 
Originally Posted by Supermallet (Post 12851103)
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.
Wait, so if someone who ripped the trailer and criticized the production 3 months ago writes a negative review you would buy that as an unbiased review?

I don't think so.

Orbi-Wan Techno 07-15-16 02:15 PM
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 
Originally Posted by B5Erik (Post 12850808)
None of the bogus IMDB reviews invalidate the bad reviews we've seen that have been scathing.
Or the positive reviews by people who actually enjoyed the film, or that it's been sitting around 75% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes for days now... ;)

TomOpus 07-15-16 02:16 PM
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 
I gave it 3 stars. It's uneven but not horrible. For people judging the movie based on just the trailers, you won't like the movie anyway. The cameos were nice. Bill Murray had a must bigger cameo than I expected. It was also nice to see
Spoiler:
Sigourney
show up during the credits. I thought Chris did a fine job as the receptionist. I didn't think the antagonist was very good. I thought he was revealed way too soon. The running joke about the Chinese delivery guy was amusing.

There were people in the crowd at my showing laughing at pretty much every joke. They enjoyed themselves. I got what I pretty much expected, so expectations were met.

There's a short scene post credits, for those who care.

Orbi-Wan Techno 07-15-16 02:19 PM
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 
Originally Posted by Dan (Post 12851044)
To anyone else who saw it already,
Spoiler:
What was with Abby and Erin having white hair after going through the portal? Is this a reference to something in the movies/cartoon that I've forgotten about?.
Spoiler:
Poltergeist. Mom's hair had a white streak after going to the other side to rescue Carolanne.

The Valeyard 07-15-16 02:21 PM
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 
Waiting for the inevitable "Domestic Box Office: Guess the Ghostbusters (2016) 2nd Weekend Drop" Thread.

Dan 07-15-16 02:25 PM
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 
Originally Posted by N2DVD (Post 12851168)
Spoiler:
Poltergeist. Mom's hair had a white streak after going to the other side to rescue Carolanne.
:doh: Of course. The follow-up bit was funny. :)

edit: I also want to know more about your theories about the rest of the flick, but we can wait a bit longer. :)

Orbi-Wan Techno 07-15-16 02:27 PM
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 
Here you go, Dan...

Now that a few have had a chance to see it, one more thing I want to add about the shared timeline idea I talked about in a previous post, and where they can go with it. MAJOR SPOILERS hidden.

Spoiler:
After saving New York, the Ghostbusters get fully funded, and move into the same firehouse that housed the original team 30 years prior. It would not be unreasonable to presume that Holtzmann could uncover some previous research hidden in the firehouse that would help them to defeat Zuul, and I assume Gozer, in a sequel.

Dan 07-15-16 02:34 PM
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 
Nice! I thought you might be referring to that part; there's definitely room to tie things together there, if they're so inclined.

Supermallet 07-15-16 03:20 PM
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 
Originally Posted by B5Erik (Post 12851140)
Wait, so if someone who ripped the trailer and criticized the production 3 months ago writes a negative review you would buy that as an unbiased review?

I don't think so.
You expect reviewers to have zero bias, which is impossible. Even if the "top critics" didn't get into the fray, they still have opinions and preferences. Aggregators like RT and MC have their flaws, but I think they also do a decent job of showing the general trends in critical response. And in this case, the general trend is positive but it's not a blowout. Which makes sense. If the movie were really truly rotten, you'd see the general trend going in that direction, despite the attempts of a few people to bolster it for reasons beyond the content of the movie.

TomOpus 07-15-16 04:15 PM
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 
Originally Posted by N2DVD (Post 12851182)
Here you go, Dan...

Now that a few have had a chance to see it, one more thing I want to add about the shared timeline idea I talked about in a previous post, and where they can go with it. MAJOR SPOILERS hidden.

Spoiler:
After saving New York, the Ghostbusters get fully funded, and move into the same firehouse that housed the original team 30 years prior. It would not be unreasonable to presume that Holtzmann could uncover some previous research hidden in the firehouse that would help them to defeat Zuul, and I assume Gozer, in a sequel.
Spoiler:
Personally, would rather they keep Zuul to a minimum if they go that route. Otherwise you gotta have a Keymaster and Gatekeeper again...and we're back to the first movie. Since Zuul mentioned in the post-credit scene they are kinda stuck with doing something now.

stingermck 07-15-16 04:37 PM
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 
My wife and I saw it and both enjoyed it.

Kate Mckinnon steals the show.

Childhood not ruined. Carry on.

dex14 07-16-16 12:26 PM
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 
I really didn't care for this at all. Barely any laughs.

tylergfoster 07-16-16 01:26 PM
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 
Am I really the only one who wants them to avoid tying the continuities together, for any reason? I hate that idea so much.

Shannon Nutt 07-16-16 02:57 PM
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 
EW put a story up saying that Chris Hemsworth's big dance number (seen over the end credits) was originally in the movie and set to the Bee Gees' "You Should Be Dancing" That's a shame it got cut/moved. If there's anything that third act really missed, it was some creative humor...I'm not sure I would have liked the movie any more, but I would have liked to have seen that scene as originally intended.

Not to mention that this movie really needed a good song in it. ;)

Josh-da-man 07-16-16 03:13 PM
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 
http://deadline.com/2016/07/ghostbus...ce-1201787149/

5TH WRITETHRU, Saturday 8:30am after 1:10AM: Sony/Village Roadshow’s female Ghostbusters has slowed in its weekend estimates from some of the hyper projections we saw on Friday, now heading toward a $44.5M weekend opening after winning Friday with a $16.9M gross. Sony is projecting a weekend of $46.5M, but this is where industry estimates have it as of now.

Yes, that three-day is a record for director Paul Feig and star Melissa McCarthy (easily beating the $39.1M opening of their B.O. high The Heat), however, considering what Ghostbusters cost at $144M after rebates (and before an estimated $100M-plus global P&A), a number of rival sources consider anything in the $40M range to be a mediocre start for this reboot. Anything north of $50M is ideally safer.

“It’s not a bomb,” said one non-Sony executive today, “a bomb would be an opening in the $20M range. However, a start such as this really puts more pressure on overseas delivering.”
Looking at $46M for the weekend. Seems kind of lukewarm; with a $250M budget, I don't really see this turning a profit. I don't see the domestic take going over $100M. Not sure how it will play overseas; GB seems like a mostly American phenomenon.

RichC2 07-16-16 03:30 PM
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 
Originally Posted by Josh-da-man (Post 12851817)
http://deadline.com/2016/07/ghostbus...ce-1201787149/



Looking at $46M for the weekend. Seems kind of lukewarm; with a $250M budget, I don't really see this turning a profit. I don't see the domestic take going over $100M. Not sure how it will play overseas; GB seems like a mostly American phenomenon.
The production cost of Ghostbusters was $144m, advertising budgets get estimated waaaay too high as of late (last year Deadline kept reporting Mad Max's budget in increasing increments. First it was the proper $150m, then $200m, then as the movie showed some legs, $250m). The fact this isn't being released in China has to be a little worrysome for Sony, but Korea should be a solid market for them.

This scored an A- cinemascore for the Under-25s and a B+ overall.

TomOpus 07-16-16 05:48 PM
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 
Originally Posted by Shannon Nutt (Post 12851804)
EW put a story up saying that Chris Hemsworth's big dance number (seen over the end credits) was originally in the movie and set to the Bee Gees' "You Should Be Dancing" That's a shame it got cut/moved. If there's anything that third act really missed, it was some creative humor...I'm not sure I would have liked the movie any more, but I would have liked to have seen that scene as originally intended.

Not to mention that this movie really needed a good song in it. ;)
Personally, I'm glad they cut it. It wasn't that great-looking during the credits.

silentbob007 07-16-16 06:26 PM
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 
I went in with low expectations and this movie didn't deliver at even that level. I didn't have any huge laughs and the origin-story stuff really dragged. The continuity of the rules of the world also seemed vary widely. First a ghost is trapped though they don't have anything to do with the trap. After that, they could just lasso them with the proton packs until they were disintegrated.

Shannon Nutt 07-16-16 10:10 PM
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 
Originally Posted by TomOpus (Post 12851895)
Personally, I'm glad they cut it. It wasn't that great-looking during the credits.
Maybe, but you're also not seeing it as it was designed/intended. My point was it couldn't have hurt and perhaps would have helped. I'm sure Feig will use it as a selling point for his home video "Director's Cut" (as if Sony didn't give him final cut on this movie!).

Supermallet 07-16-16 10:12 PM
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 
I think it was pretty darned good, better I suspect than many of the Ghostbusters III ideas would have been. It wasn't perfect but my wife and I agreed we want to see it again in IMAX.

Shannon Nutt 07-16-16 10:18 PM
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 
Originally Posted by silentbob007 (Post 12851917)
I went in with low expectations and this movie didn't deliver at even that level. I didn't have any huge laughs and the origin-story stuff really dragged. The continuity of the rules of the world also seemed vary widely. First a ghost is trapped though they don't have anything to do with the trap. After that, they could just lasso them with the proton packs until they were disintegrated.
That was weird in the finale...it was like they were able to "kill" ghosts with the proton packs. It didn't bother me too much, because by that point I was already hugely disappointed in the movie.

I didn't even laugh once until Chris and Leslie showed up...not that they were hilarious or anything...I just can't believe how flat and lifeless the first 30 minutes are. And the last 30 minutes are pretty humorless as well - just a bunch of F/X.

I'm perhaps most surprised at the reaction to Kate McKinnon. I love her on SNL and think she's really talented, but her performance in this film is WAY over the top. It's the kind of performance that works on stage (and, yes, on SNL), but it too 'big' for a film. A good director would have reeled that in, but I get he feeling that Feig just let everyone improv and then picked his favorite takes in the editing process. That certainly would explain the uneven and often inexplicable storyline.

TomOpus 07-16-16 11:07 PM
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 
Originally Posted by Shannon Nutt (Post 12852015)
Maybe, but you're also not seeing it as it was designed/intended. My point was it couldn't have hurt and perhaps would have helped. I'm sure Feig will use it as a selling point for his home video "Director's Cut" (as if Sony didn't give him final cut on this movie!).
So, any time a scene is edited out that's not seeing it as intended? This happens with 99% of movies.

RichC2 07-16-16 11:35 PM
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 
Up to a 4.7 on IMDb (was at 3.8 before it opened with 15,000 votes, now at 25000 votes), and a 54% on rt audience (was at 44% the moment voting opened) :lol: lot of counterbalancing to go

Shannon Nutt 07-17-16 12:06 AM
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 
Originally Posted by TomOpus (Post 12852048)
So, any time a scene is edited out that's not seeing it as intended? This happens with 99% of movies.
No, I meant seeing it over the end credits and set to another tune wasn't seeing it as "intended." We saw it, we didn't see it as it was intended.

Shannon Nutt 07-17-16 12:07 AM
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
 
Originally Posted by RichC2 (Post 12852058)
Up to a 4.7 on IMDb (was at 3.8 before it opened with 15,000 votes, now at 25000 votes), and a 54% on rt audience (was at 44% the moment voting opened) :lol: lot of counterbalancing to go
Sony's got their interns working OT.

(just kidding...just kidding! - some of you are so touchy about this movie, I think you own Sony stock)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:09 AM.
Page 3 of 8
1
2
3
4
5
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.