View Poll Results: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
0
0%
Voters: 56. You may not vote on this poll
Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
#28
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
So, two people have voted 0 stars yet haven't seen it.
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
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
#29
DVD Talk Legend
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.
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.
#32
DVD Talk Legend
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.
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.
#33
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the straps of boots
Posts: 28,008
Received 1,186 Likes
on
837 Posts
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.
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.
#35
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
I thought it was filmed in Boston.
#36
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.
#37
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
Shame. I went, I saw, i enjoyed the heck out of it.
#38
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I gave it 3.5 stars. I'd give the original 5 and the sequel 2.5.
#39
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
#40
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the straps of boots
Posts: 28,008
Received 1,186 Likes
on
837 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
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,
#41
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
mapasu and mcnabb, I'm calling you out. Have you honestly seen the movie?
#42
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the straps of boots
Posts: 28,008
Received 1,186 Likes
on
837 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
when a movie is this hypocritical, bigoted, and ignorant, there is nothing good that can be said about it. Except for the people who were literally bribed into writing positive reviews.
This movie was stolen. Everything in this movie was stolen from the first two. All they did was literally take the first movie, and remove the action parts and the horror parts.
The sexism. This movie is probably the most sexist movie since Doomsday Machine. They replaced the entire main cast with only women to appeal to the radical Feminists. When your ideology discriminates against who you can cast in a role, that is called Fascism, and it's not a good thing.
The bland lobotomized token male. Pretty much the only main character who was a man was turned into a stereotype. He was useless, annoying, fake, had an IQ below sea-level, and was clearly trying to pretend to be Brad Pitt, but with none of the acting talent. He also only got hired because of his looks.
The racism. The only black character was turned into a loud, annoying, street-smart stereotype.
The CGI. It was terrible, and very cartoon-like. "Daffy Duck: The Early Years"
The acting. Not one single main character in the movie could act. Not one. It looked like a grade- school drama club.
Many of the jokes were sexist, too.
The entitlement. The cast and director have been throwing a hissy fit ever since people saw what garbage the first trailer was. They have been trying to claim that people who don't like the movie are sexists. No, no, no, no, and NO. People who think they are entitled to success because of their gender are sexist. The cast of this movie is sexist. The director of this movie is sexist. The people who hate this movie are NOT sexist.
So boring. This movie didn't take any chances, and didn't expand the Ghostbusters universe in any way.
The product placement. It was everywhere. There might not have been a single scene where they weren't advertising something in the background. It made me long for the days of Foodfight!
(I hate product placement, but again, this person didn't even mention a specific instance of it)
In conclusion, nobody should every give their money to these lazy fatcats again. I for one am never buying another Sony product in my life. And if you pay to see this movie, you are a bad person.
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.
Last edited by Dan; 07-15-16 at 02:27 PM.
#43
DVD Talk Legend
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... )
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.
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.
#44
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the straps of boots
Posts: 28,008
Received 1,186 Likes
on
837 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
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.
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.
Last edited by Dan; 07-15-16 at 08:52 AM.
#45
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
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.
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."
#47
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 2,247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) — The Spoiler Filled Reviews Thread
http://www.imax.com/news/see-why-ima...w-ghostbusters
You really want to make sure you see the film in IMAX 3D—the only place where you’ll be sure to witness this fun effect in all its awesomeness! What’s more, the effect will expand beyond the widescreen frame to fill the entire 1.43:1 aspect ratio exclusively in IMAX® with Laser locations
#48
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the straps of boots
Posts: 28,008
Received 1,186 Likes
on
837 Posts
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,
To anyone else who saw it already,
Spoiler:
#49
Banned by request
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."
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."
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.
#50
DVD Talk Hero
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.
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.
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).
Last edited by RichC2; 07-15-16 at 01:49 PM.