This is really becoming the summer of meh for me. First X-men, then Warcraft, Independence Day, Tarzan and now Ghostbusters. This movie was so meh that I fell asleep during the third act.

I was actually totally into from the beginning. Great opening, but then the jokes start landing so lame. And then they repeat them! Like McCarthy never getting the right ratio in her wanton soup. All the best laughs were given away in the trailer. Then we have a villian with practically zero backstory or characterization and giant leaps of logic like figuring out the portals or whatever by drawing and intersecting lines.

The plot framework is almost identical to the original movie so the movie just comes off flat and very lazy. I think it would have been a much more satisfying experience to keep continuity with the original films and have the new team as related to the original team somehow. Dusting off the old equipment in storage for 30 years to face down a new threat.

That's a very improv thing to do.

I perform with some improv groups in town and some of the "veteran" performers do things like asking why another performer did some bit of business. The idea is that if you saw your co-worker do that in real life, you'd comment on it. It grounds it over living in a world where someone scratches their eyes through their fake glasses and no one says a word, which can come across as unrealistic.

There are whole philosophies from improvisers on whether or not to do things like that. Given how much improvisation there is on a Paul Feig movie and how many of the actors have that as a background, you see it all the time in his movies.

Personally I find that stuff hilarious - it makes the performances feel more real to me.

$150 million movies should NOT be improved. Not even if you're Bill Murray. Certainly not if you're these four ladies.

Why not? Good improv actors can come up with fantastic material, sometimes better than what you can get in a writer's room. Shouldn't they be working to make the best movie they can make, and not following some arbitrary rules laid down by an internet critic?

I don't know much about Jones and McKinnon's background, but Wiig and McCarthy are two of the best improvisers around. And Feig does take after take of improvised dialogue in all of his movies.

That probably explains why I haven't liked any of his movies yet.

I'll take your word for it since you have much more improv experience than me, but in the movie it felt forced and unfunny. Like they didn't trust the audience to get the gag, so they explained it to them. It just ran some of the jokes into the ground for me.

That's fair enough. And there are definitely improvisers who don't subscribe to that philosophy. It's a personal preference thing.

Our finest national critic offers his take:

http://www.filthycritic.com/

I think I agree with both of you (I've done improv, as well). Yes, it's effective especially live and in the movie it didn't bug me / I found it funny except one time - the pointing out the lenses were missing. It felt like spoonfeeding. The rest worked for me, as far as I can recall.

I know what you meant, but I still read that wrong a bunch of times.

For a movie based on a "good but not great" franchise, this flick certainly has generated enough buzz to last a lifetime. I feel bad for the leads for all the crap they've taken and if there's one thing I've taken away from all this, it's that Sony usually craps the beds with major franchise reboots (I'm looking at you, Spiderman)... so I never really had high hopes anyways.

Just imagine, if things were different, and this were a straight-up passing-the-torch sequel, all of the dudes complaining about it today would actually have went to see it in the first weekend.

The movie would have made dozens of more dollars. Dozens!*


*based on the idea that lots of normal folks wouldn't have bothered at all, it probably would have balanced out to be about the same. Hell, maybe lower.

Probably because it should have been "improv'd"

Had they gone this route I would have been there day fucking 1.

Ghostbusters was the first film I saw as a kid without my parents, I loved that movie, it will always have a special place in my heart.

I know I have said it before, but I have zero interest in seeing this one based on the humour, the fact it is a reboot, and the way Paul Feig and whatshername - the sony studio exec - handled the whole situation from the start.

I am absolutely devastated about what they did.

Or even "improvised"

While the movie is nothing special, I certainly had a good time watching it. Even if they were thin, I did like these characters. I hope they get a sequel, because while they fell short of it, I feel like they're very close to something really good.

My crowd loved McKinnon. I don't think anyone left the theater not having a crush on her character.

Saw this Tuesday night. Not nearly as bad as I thought it'd be, but nothing too special. It had some laughs, but there were very, very few laugh out loud moments. The ghosts were pretty uninspired. I actually liked the chemistry of the new cast. It's a shame they didn't have much to do. I'd give it a three out of five.

Finally watched tonight and removed from all the durm and strang of the fanboys losing their minds, I really enjoyed this. I'm actually even more mad that it was a reboot instead of a continuation because a lot of the concepts and themes really felt like they belonged in the old animated series from the 80s and it could have breathed new life into the franchise.

Even so, this was still very funny and nowhere near deserving of the flak it took.

Yeah, going the straight reboot route was a mistake. It felt like they were just pushing you along the rails the first film set. Their whole attempt at a mayor/government conspiracy thing was DULL and pointless. The cameos were pretty wasted. And it does strain for laughs for the most part. Still...

it isn't that terrible. I liked the effects. Certainly colorful. And the girls did a fine job. I wasn't necessarily a fan of all the actresses before this, but they all worked for me here. Film is at its best when just them on the screen. I even liked when they got action-y at the end. I guess considering the returns, they won't get a second chance at this? Too bad.

i thought this was one of the most fun films of 2016.

Did you notice it starred four women? Because that was a huge problem for a lot of people

Its funny, this movie has only been out a few months and it already feels completely forgotten. Almost like it never happened.

I don't know about forgotten. There's still a lot of very upset "Men Going Their Own Way" (aka lonely masturbators) out there.

Did you notice that it wasn't really that funny? Because that was a huge problem for a lot of people