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

**SPOILERS WITHIN**

Please continue pre-release discussion here.

Movie:
"Ghostbusters" (Starring: Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon, Leslie Jones, Chris Hemsworth)

Release Date:
7/15/16

Rating:
PG-13 (for supernatural action and some crude humor throughout.)

Running Time:
116m. (1h. 56m.)

Budget:
$154 million (estimated)

IMDb Synopsis:


IMDb Info and Rating:
3.6 (3,823 votes as of 7/11/16)

Rotten Tomatoes:
Fresh:52 Rotten:14 (78% as of 7/11/16)

Metacritic:
62 metascore ('Generally favorable reviews' as of 6/21/16)

Trailer:


Poster Art:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...ostbusters.jpg

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

I have passes to a showing tonight, and will be posting my thoughts tomorrow.

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

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

^ Love him or hate him, Smith does seem to have his finger on the pulse of the Internet. I tend to agree with him on most of his reviews.

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

My review, as posted on my Facebook page, Orbi-Wan Goes To The Movies


Ghostbusters (PG-13) - The ladies step up and do a very good job

There’s no denying, Ghostbusters from 1984 is a beloved horror-comedy classic. When we look back on it, the casting of Aykroyd, Murray, Ramis, Hudson, Weaver, Moranis, Potts, and Atherton was golden, and we had never seen such a mix of action, effects and humor at that level before. The sequel was a disappointing follow-up and, despite years of talk and false starts, a third film never came to fruition.

When it was first announced that the Ghostbusters franchise was being revived with some of the funniest ladies in show business in the leads, the internet exploded with negativity. The first trailer didn’t help much, and many saw no reason to sully their fond memories of the original with a reboot.

However, the new Ghostbusters, while familiar in purpose and imagery, is not just a retelling of the first movie. In fact, outside of some of the music, a few fun but unnecessary cameos, and a couple of brief vignettes, this new movie does an admirable job telling a different story and standing on its own merits.

When Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) discovers that her tenure at Columbia is threatened by the resurgence of a book on the paranormal she co-wrote years before, she seeks out her former partner Abby Yates (a very PG-rated Melissa McCarthy), who has continued to pursue the paranormal in more practical terms. Teaming with the brilliant but cra-cra Jillian Holtzmann (a hysterical Kate McKimmon), Yates has developed equipment to prove the existence of ghosts and ghoulies.

A close encounter at a haunted house and a YouTube video get Erin fired, but provides the motivation needed to create a headquarters where the three (and soon, four) can develop ways to capture and contain ectoplasmic beings. The ladies are joined by Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones), an MTA worker who has her own close encounter, and hire beefcake Kevin (Chris Hemsworth), who is the absolute stupidest receptionist ever depicted on film.

The team soon discovers that someone is intentionally drawing out supernatural entities, with an eye towards creating an apocalypse in New York. However, Homeland Security and the mayor’s office are already aware that something strange is going on in the neighborhood, and want the Ghostbusters to stop their work before they make things worse. Instead, armed with effective but dangerous weapons, the brave quartet put their lives on the line to save the city and mankind.

Personally, I had a blast with Ghostbusters. I found the sight and verbal gags throughout the film to be extremely fun, in some cases funnier than the original film. I was touched by the quick but sweet callback to Harold Ramis. There were a couple of spots that dragged a little, but not terribly so. Some may feel a bit overwhelmed by the effects in the final third of the films, but I had a good time with them. The cast was great, no argument there, and I would really enjoy seeing a follow-up (they start to lay the groundwork in an after-credits scene, so stick around to the very end.)

I feel Ghostbusters does the franchise proud, and give it 4 out of 5. I am looking forward to seeing it again soon.

Parents, a few notes for you: Language is mild for a PG-13 film: one use of b**ches, one use of s**t, and I heard a** three times. There is a crude remark about the origin of a bodily sound, and a very brief discussion about a busty ghost logo. There is a scene with about a half-dozen creative ways of shooting the bird. There are about three scary-ish, “jump” scenes - the first opens the film and is a notch-up from the library scene in the original. The second is Patty’s encounter with a ghost in the subway, and the third involves Abby locking herself in the bathroom when she hears strange noises. The rest of that scene has been shown in trailers and commercials. Considering this director’s usual fare, Ghostbusters is almost PG-13-lite - the original actually had more racy stuff in it.

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

Okay, now that I have gotten my review out of the way, I've had a few more hours to think about Ghostbusters a little more abstractly.

I think that it is seriously NOT a stretch to consider that this version and the original film (and its sequel) share the same universe, if not the same timeline.

In Ghostbusters 2,

Additionally, in the new film,

Then there are the cameos. Dan Aykroyd as a cab driver who just happens to know Bill Murray's extended role Annie Potts, again as a Ernie Hudson as Even Sigourney Weaver, in a during-credits scene as Also, the nice Harold Ramis bit It's not much of a stretch that after the events of Ghostbusters 2 that they all fell out of favor, again, got out of the ghostbusting business, assumed different identities and went on with their lives.

There does seem to be an undercurrent in the public consciousness that SOMETHING happened a few decades ago -

Just a few of my thoughts, and I am sure I will be defending my appreciation for the movie.

Oh yes, stay through the credits to the end. In addition to some additional scenes,

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

Duuuuude! That's interesting stuff! One question:




I'll be seeing it tonight. Not sure if I can make it to an earlier 7pm show, or if I'll have to wait until 10pm.

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

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

I'm going to see this on Saturday, sounds like the 3D is worth it?

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

I've heard and read yes, unfortunately our screening was not in 3D...

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

I actually have one other thought that I think supports my one universe idea, but I will wait until a few more people have seen it before I post, because of the spoilery nature...

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

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

Interesting, as McKinnon is generally considered in most reviews as one of the highlights of the film. Well, we all take away what we want from the movie...

The audience I saw it with last night certainly enjoyed themselves, and I can't recall one person who was talking bad about it after it was over.

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

:lol: Great review by Roeper.

I liked that it was short and sweet and to the point. I wish more film critics would do that and not write some overlong esoteric essay.

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

More often than not I agree with Roeper. I have to believe that I'd agree with him here. I'm not willing to waste $21 taking the family to this movie. Good news for me - my 16 year old daughter thinks it looks like garbage, too.

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

I haven't watched his review but I always found him to be astonishingly insipid when he was on At The Movies with Ebert. I haven't given his reviews credence since then.

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

That sounds more like it.

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

Yeah, he sucked with Ebert. After watching a couple of At the Movies with him, I pretty much blocked him out.

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

Why is he reviewing the movie in the middle of the street, is he homeless?

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

Roeper liked Nolan's Dark Knight films so he clearly doesn't know shit about anything. I won't bother watching his review. I am still looking forward to see Ghostbusters, however.

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

Close. He works for the Chicago Sun-Times. ;)

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

At first I thought he was okay but as time went on I understand what you're saying. I can't think of the last time I ever read anything of his.

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

Roeper...writing? I guess I've read a review of his or two, but he ghovht of him writing makes me think of whatever is two levels below EW.

But his energy for movies he likes is pretty good - Forgetting Sarah Marshall is a good one

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

You made that pretty damn clear in the other thread(s). Why say it again here? Isn't this thread for REVIEWS?

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

Both Siskel and Ebert had a vast knowledge of film and filmmaking that they managed to translate into reviews that any layman could easily grasp. Their reviews were often simple but frequently insightful. Roeper always seemed like he wasn't simple yet insightful, he was just simplistic.