Ghostbusters (2016)

[NumberCruncher]

On 8/12/2016 at 10:39 AM, Fukui San said:

Already I hear the same awful sneering jokes about the upcoming Ocean's Eight movie, but not much about the male gender switched Splash movie. Wonder why? 

Probably because Splash wasn't even remotely close to the zeitgeist Ghostbusters was back in the day.  While Splash may be considered a classic to some, it's not generally considered as iconic as Ghostbusters is today.  Long story short...people probably just don't give a f*ck.

[starri]

I recall the Psycho remake being thought of as pointless.  I do not recall anyone claiming their childhood had been raped.

Edited August 15, 2016 by starri

[methodwriter85]

Because Psycho isn't a childhood movie? Also, that remake came out in 1998 before social media was really a thing.

[starri]

Perhaps, but it is the best-known film from one of Hollywood's most legendary film-makers.  And while there may not have been Facebook and Twitter, the Internet has always had plenty of bridges for trolls to hide under.

Additionally, while I may be mistaken about this, I've had the distinct impression that quite a few of the "childhood rape" victims hadn't even been born when the original Ghostbusters was released.

[Joe]

Late to the party, I know. But are people genuinely using those words? That Ghostbusters raped their childhoods? Because I remember when people were saying that about George Lucas in reference to the Star Wars prequels. Are trolls just lacking in imagination these days? Standards have really slipped recently.

[supposebly]

2 hours ago, starri said:

I've had the distinct impression that quite a few of the "childhood rape" victims hadn't even been born when the original Ghostbusters was released.

Most likely. If it had affected their childhoods, they would be in their mid-forties by now. Pure trolling or people perpetually stuck in adolescence.

[Ms Blue Jay]

Some journalists/bloggers etc. are talking about how some articles have phrased Star Trek Beyond as a success, and we already know it's getting a sequel.
While articles discuss Ghostbusters as a "failure" and that the sequel's been scrapped.  Numbers from Wikipedia:

 

Star Trek Beyond

Budget$185 million[3]

Box office$211.4 million[3]

Ghostbusters 2016

Budget$144 million[2]

Box office$193.9 million[2]

 

Numbers wise Ghostbusters looks more successful:

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/custom-comparisons/Ghostbusters-(2016)/Star-Trek-Beyond

http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2016/08/11/ghostbusters-star-trek-beyond-and-the-cost-of-a-sequel/

A counterpoint:

Myles McNutt ‏@Memles  Aug 12

2) #StarTrekBeyond has yet to open in the largest overseas territory (China), where it has advantages as a Chinese co-production.

Myles McNutt ‏@Memles  Aug 12

3) #Ghostbusters will not release in China, and unlike #StarTrekBeyond has mostly finished its overseas rollout.

[Morrigan2575]

China is the 2nd biggest market and will add 50-60 million to ST Beyond's WW total. However, i don't think ST Beyond is a hit, not yet and I wouldn't bank on that sequel (even though i really, really want it).  Plenty of studios announce sequals in order to bolster confidence and then quietly kill them (Terminator and Fantastic Four most recently).

However, there is A LOT more riding on a brand new movie that is supposed to launch a franchise, then the 3rd installment of a franchise that has already started showing fatigue.

There is NO mistake that Ghostbusters is a flop for Sony. The MSM has been extremely supportive/defensive of Ghostbusters so the idea that they're unfairly calling it a flop doesn't hold water, IMO.

PS - Ghostbusters has apparently opened in all/most International markets while Star Trek Beyond is still being rolled out and has a lot of territories left to open in.

http://www.startrekmovie.com/_apps/releasedates/release-dates.html

Edited August 16, 2016 by Morrigan2575

[SimoneS]

On 8/15/2016 at 1:54 PM, NumberCruncher said:

Probably because Splash wasn't even remotely close to the zeitgeist Ghostbusters was back in the day.  While Splash may be considered a classic to some, it's not generally considered as iconic as Ghostbusters is today.  Long story short...people probably just don't give a f*ck.

The misogynists who hate on the casting of women in leading roles in these movies don't give a fuck because they hate women and people of color getting any leading roles in major movies like Star Wars or Ghostbusters or Mad Max or the Magnificent Seven. They root for these movies to flop. They were upset that Star Wars was a blockbuster success and cheered when Ghostbusters flopped. They want white men to continue to hog all the leading roles in Hollywood and society as a whole so they are happy that a white male actor is getting the leading role in the remake of Splash. They will never admit it, but notice that we don't have to endure their fake outrage about Hollywood remaking movies instead of creating "new" ones when it comes to Splash, Batman, Superman, etc. RME.

Edited August 18, 2016 by SimoneS

[DollEyes]

My verdict: I liked it. The Ghostbusters reboot was flawed, but IMO the good way exceeded the bad. There was a little too much CGI & the script could have been tighter, especially regarding the villain, as in showing how he got possessed and who/what possessed him, but for the most part, it was a blast. This is the first movie I have ever liked Kristin Wiig in. Like her character in Bridesmaids-another Paul Feig movie-Wiig's Erin started out as an annoying loser who eventually took control of her life, even managing to save NYC, if not the world in the process, re this film. Melissa McCarthy impressed me as well. Her Abby was funny, smart and loyal, to the point of putting Abby's book online without her permission, which Erin was right to be pissed about since she got fired because of it, but it ultimately worked out for the best. Re Leslie Jones, while it was disappointing that her character wasn't a scientist, she was still an asset to the team in terms of toughness and loyalty, as proven when she literally beat the ghost out of Abby. As Jillian, the gadget girl, Kate McKinnon was a blast. Jillian's both a genius and a little batshit crazy, usually shown during the scenes with her new inventions, which worked, but if improperly used could lead to their users ending up in the hospital, dead, in a parallel universe- or all of the above.  

  As for the supporting players, Andy Garcia & Cecily Strong are perfect as Mayor Bradley and his assistant Jennifer Lynch,two idiots who were in deep denial about the serious threat to their city despite being warned that things would get worse until they couldn't deny it anymore, just like the Mayor in Jaws. Then again, that was typical of two knuckleheads who tried to play off the haunting at the concert as "mass hysteria," despite it happening in front of thousands of witnesses including Ozzy Osbourne-who, admittedly,to put it mildly, might not have been the most reliable-at least one of whom not only filmed what happened, it was on YouTube. Some of the original cast members playing original roles was clever and funny. Shame Rick Moranis and William Atherton weren't involved. The bust of the late, great Harold Ramis was a nice touch, as was dedicating the film to him. In Ghostbusters terms, the boys were the best partially because of Ramis, who not only played a Ghostbuster, he co-wrote the scripts, but when the girls got their shit together, they were fierce. The girls risking their lives to save each other and NYC showed that they were just as badass as the boys, when given the chance. 

However, as great as the ladies were, separately and together, the best performance in the movie for me belonged to Chris Hemsworth. Just like Hemsworth showed his dramatic chops in Rush, he holds his own in the comedy department, as he proved when he hosted SNL twice, in the viral video which explained why Thor wasn't in Captain America: Civil War and in the Vacation reboot, where Hemsworth's character and his character's huge dick weren't just the best things about it; they were the only good things about it. That Hemsworth could upstage veteran comic actors in that suckfest shows that he's not just another pretty everything. Meanwhile, back to his movie, IMO, the reason why Hemsworth's performance works is because he's spoofing himself, or rather, his image. As Kevin, the receptionist/struggling actor/moron, Hemsworth was comedy platinum, whether it was his shirtless headshots, wearing eyeglasses without lenses because he hated cleaning them, rubbing his eyes when he heard loud noises, his attempts to sound much smarter than he was or when he was possessed. Posessedkevin's being called a "Clark Kent 'Strip-O-Gram'" was a cute in-joke, as in someone who's most famous for playing a Marvel superhero being compared to the alter ego of a DC comics one. As if Hemsworth's performance wasn't awesome already, the end credits also showed that he's a great dancer. Re the box office, it's a shame that the film didn't do better and that there won't be a sequel, if only for the chances to see Hemsworth flex his comic muscles again. The fanboys' overreactions to the film were even funnier than the film itself. Those who disliked the film are entitled to their opinions, but the outright vitriol against it has some of the most sexist, racist and homophobic bullshit I've ever heard.  Many of them were not only against the reboot, they viewed the involvement of anyone who was in the original as an act of "betrayal," like the lonely, pathetic, basement-dwelling losers that most of them likely are. I agree that Hollywood could use more originality, but as Creed, Mad Max: Fury Road, Star Wars: The Force Awakens and this proves, reboots can work when done right. 

Edited September 11, 2016 by DollEyes
To add stuff.

[Proclone]

On 9/10/2016 at 2:57 PM, DollEyes said:

However, as great as the ladies were, separately and together, the best performance in the movie for me belonged to Chris Hemsworth. Just like Hemsworth showed his dramatic chops in Rush, he holds his own in the comedy department, as he proved when he hosted SNL twice, in the viral video which explained why Thor wasn't in Captain America: Civil War and in the Vacation reboot, where Hemsworth's character and his character's huge dick weren't just the best things about it; they were the only good things about it. That Hemsworth could upstage veteran comic actors in that suckfest shows that he's not just another pretty everything. Meanwhile, back to his movie, IMO, the reason why Hemsworth's performance works is because he's spoofing himself, or rather, his image. As Kevin, the receptionist/struggling actor/moron, Hemsworth was comedy platinum, whether it was his shirtless headshots, wearing eyeglasses without lenses because he hated cleaning them, rubbing his eyes when he heard loud noises, his attempts to sound much smarter than he was or when he was possessed. Posessedkevin's being called a "Clark Kent 'Strip-O-Gram'" was a cute in-joke, as in someone who's most famous for playing a Marvel superhero being compared to the alter ego of a DC comics one. As if Hemsworth's performance wasn't awesome already, the end credits also showed that he's a great dancer. Re the box office, it's a shame that the film didn't do better and that there won't be a sequel, if only for the chances to see Hemsworth flex his comic muscles again. The fanboys' overreactions to the film were even funnier than the film itself. Those who disliked the film are entitled to their opinions, but the outright vitriol against it has some of the most sexist, racist and homophobic bullshit I've ever heard.  Many of them were not only against the reboot, they viewed the involvement of anyone who was in the original as an act of "betrayal," like the lonely, pathetic, basement-dwelling losers that most of them likely are. I agree that Hollywood could use more originality, but as Creed, Mad Max: Fury Road, Star Wars: The Force Awakens and this proves, reboots can work when done right. 

I will agree that Hemsworth was by far the best thing in the movie.  In fact his parts are probably the only things about the movie I remember after watching...and that's the problem.  Ghostbusters had iconic lines that I still quote today (don't cross the streams, she's the kind of woman who sleeps above the sheets...four feet above the sheets! etc) while I found this movie a pretty forgettable comedy.  I didn't hate it and  even chuckled a few times while watching it but I couldn't tell you a single line a dialogue from the movie.  It certainly doesn't the deserve the ire directed at it but I don't think it really deserves praise either.

I think the best reboots are taken from movies that aren't really that successful, and I don't just mean financially unsuccessful.  There needs to be something that needs to be improved on or changed for the movie to work better for it to really warrant a remake or reboot.  I haven't seen the new one, but the recent remake of Pete's Dragon seems to be a good example.  The original was an interesting idea that was poorly executed, the new one fixed its problems. If we're going to have remakes, lets do remakes that fix problems with the originals

The movies listed above aren't really remakes or reboots but rather sequels, but even they do fix some of the problems that previous entries in the franchises had.  Creed helped bring the Rocky movies back to a move grounded feel (which had happened in Rocky Balboa but this continued it), and frankly Creed could have worked without it being part of the Rocky franchise.  A boxer working to get his shot has been told many times in many ways.  Fury road took the best part Beyond the Thunderdome (the chase through the desert) made that pretty much the entire movie and added kick ass characters.  TFA helped wash the taste of the prequels out of our mouths by giving us something that finally felt like Star Wars plus introduced new likable characters.  

Ghostbusters 2016 did nothing to improved on anything from the original.  I didn't even think the effects were that much better.  It wasn't a terrible film, it wasn't even a bad film, but I do think it was a completely forgettable one.

[DollEyes]

On 9/12/2016 at 6:26 PM, Proclone said:

I will agree that Hemsworth was by far the best thing in the movie.  In fact his parts are probably the only things about the movie I remember after watching...and that's the problem.  Ghostbusters had iconic lines that I still quote today (don't cross the streams, she's the kind of woman who sleeps above the sheets...four feet above the sheets! etc) while I found this movie a pretty forgettable comedy.  I didn't hate it and  even chuckled a few times while watching it but I couldn't tell you a single line a dialogue from the movie.  It certainly doesn't the deserve the ire directed at it but I don't think it really deserves praise either.

I think the best reboots are taken from movies that aren't really that successful, and I don't just mean financially unsuccessful.  There needs to be something that needs to be improved on or changed for the movie to work better for it to really warrant a remake or reboot.  I haven't seen the new one, but the recent remake of Pete's Dragon seems to be a good example.  The original was an interesting idea that was poorly executed, the new one fixed its problems. If we're going to have remakes, lets do remakes that fix problems with the originals

The movies listed above aren't really remakes or reboots but rather sequels, but even they do fix some of the problems that previous entries in the franchises had.  Creed helped bring the Rocky movies back to a move grounded feel (which had happened in Rocky Balboa but this continued it), and frankly Creed could have worked without it being part of the Rocky franchise.  A boxer working to get his shot has been told many times in many ways.  Fury road took the best part Beyond the Thunderdome (the chase through the desert) made that pretty much the entire movie and added kick ass characters.  TFA helped wash the taste of the prequels out of our mouths by giving us something that finally felt like Star Wars plus introduced new likable characters.  

Ghostbusters 2016 did nothing to improved on anything from the original.  I didn't even think the effects were that much better.  It wasn't a terrible film, it wasn't even a bad film, but I do think it was a completely forgettable one.

I respectfully disagree. Re the first point, I remembered several lines from the movie that were pretty funny, such as the scene when Abby complained about one of her wonton soups looking like someone's laundry, two Patty scenes (the mosh pit scene and the "exorcism" scene, to be specific) and the Kevin headshot scene, when he asked which shirtless headshot was better; the one when he played the saxophone or the one with him listening to it-as in holding it up to his ear. As for Pete's Dragon, I'd have to see it first before I decide whether or not it's an improvement on the original.

  As for the other movies I mentioned, while they're technically sequels, since they tell their stories in new ways, they're also considered reboots. Re Creed, given the title character's name, it would have been considered as both whether Rocky was there or not. About Mad Max: Fury Road's borrowing from Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome,   the chase scenes were great, but IMO the Thunderdome was the best thing about it. About Star Wars: The Force Awakens, while it's also a sequel, I think it worked because the new characters made it feel both brand new and like the old-school Star Wars all over again.  Back to Ghostbusters, while it wasn't a "perfect" film, it wasn't "forgettable" either, as far as I'm concerned. 

Edited September 14, 2016 by DollEyes
To fix stuff.

[Bruinsfan]

Leslie Jones had a few memorable lines, like "I guess he's going to Queens - he's going to be the third scariest thing on that train!"

[Proclone]

2 hours ago, DollEyes said:

I respectfully disagree. Re the first point, I remembered several lines from the movie that were pretty funny, such as the scene when Abby complained about one of her wonton soups looking like someone's laundry, two Patty scenes (the mosh pit scene and the "exorcism" scene, to be specific) and the Kevin headshot scene, when he asked which shirtless headshot was better; the one when he played the saxophone or the one with him listening to it-as in holding it up to his ear. As for Pete's Dragon, I'd have to see it first before I decide whether or not it's an improvement on the original.

  As for the other movies I mentioned, while they're technically sequels, since they tell their stories in new ways, they're also considered reboots. Re Creed, given the title character's name, it would have been considered as both whether Rocky was there or not. About Mad Max: Fury Road's borrowing from Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome,   the chase scenes were great, but IMO the Thunderdome was the best thing about it. About Star Wars: The Force Awakens, while it's also a sequel, I think it worked because the new characters made it feel both brand new and like the old-school [/b]Star Wars[/b] all over again.  Back to Ghostbusters, while it wasn't a "perfect" film, it wasn't "forgettable" either, as far as I'm concerned. 

To each their own.   I had a friend tell me that she thought that this Ghosbusters was better the original.  Now that makes me question her taste in movies, but she's welcome to that opinion.  I really don't understand it, but whatever.  Like I said I don't think this was a bad movie, it just wasn't one I found particularly memorable, especially considering I can quote extensively from the original.  Maybe that's because I've seen the original at least a dozen times, but also nothing about this one makes me want to watch that often.  It was a typically comedy.  I laughed while I was there but didn't take anything out of the theater with me.  I honestly probably would have liked it a lot more if it hadn't been called Ghostbusters.   Then of course would have been accused of ripping off Ghostbusters, so the movie probably just can't win.  I would like to see all four ladies back in something else, I think they're funny, I just hope it isn't called Ghostbusters.

Like I said I haven't seen Pete's Dragon (the new one) either, but considering the original was pretty terrible the remake would have to light years better in order to get the good reviews it got.  Which brings me back to let's re-do movies that need fixing, not movies that don't.  Ghostbusters didn't need to be fixed.  Nor did I think that this one even tried to really put their own spin on anything except, "Hey look it's chicks, instead of dudes," which in my mind doesn't warrant a remake.  The original Ghostbusters wasn't particularly misogynistic (especially for the eighties), even if the cast was predominantly male.  If anything this one leaned way to hard on the original.  I do remember the cameos and I remember thinking if there was another one I was going to scream. Especially Bill Murray's went on way too long and made me hate him a little bit.  It also made Erin look really stupid and did't really go anywhere (You could have just cut to the cops picking them up and bringing them to the mayor there didn't really need to be an excuse to take them).

I'm not against movies being remade, but give me a reason to watch your remake.  If you're not going to fix a problem or give me a new spin on the story then why should I spend money to see you in the theater when I can watch the original on blue ray? 

*Edited to correct Erin from Abby (the fact that I mixed up their names should show you how little impact the film had one me).

Edited September 13, 2016 by Proclone

[Hybridcookie]

See, the original did nothing for me. I saw it when I was a kid, and I again when I was older, I thought it was alright, but nothing special. I guess it could be a generational thing (I was born in '89), but The Lost Boys is my favourite film and that was made in '87.

But I did love the remake, I heard quite a few people say they liked it more than the original, some said they preferred the original. Some people thought it was funny, some people didn't.

I hated the Lost Boys sequel (the first one anyway, never saw the second sequel) which was largely a reboot/sequel with a different cast and pretty much the same storyline - but I'm sure it has its fans. If people see the new one first and like it, they might check out the original, then that's great. More fans.

I'm glad the new Ghostbusters exists and I'm glad I saw it. And that a whole new generation can watch it and become fans. I hope it leads to a rise in little girls dressed as Ghostbusters. It was amazing going to conventions after the new Star Wars, and seeing lots of little girls dressed up as Rey!

(Also full length jumpsuit female Halloween costumes! http://www.halloweencostumes.co.uk/women-s-deluxe-ghostbusters-movie-costume.html)

[Bruinsfan]

Please tell me they're not making a sexy Ghostbuster half-costume like they do with every other women's costume?

[stealinghome]

On 9/13/2016 at 11:57 AM, Bruinsfan said:

Leslie Jones had a few memorable lines, like "I guess he's going to Queens - he's going to be the third scariest thing on that train!"

Oh my goodness, I cackled so hard at that line.

I also got a real kick out of Patty's "Please tell me that mannequin is not following me." Patty really did get the best lines!

[Mom x 3]

On September 13, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Proclone said:

 The original Ghostbusters wasn't particularly misogynistic

Heh.  You lost me there.  Venkman was completely creeptastic for the entire movie.  It may not have been full on misogyny, but definitely stalker-like and disrespectful.  Venkman was a huge jerk.  

Edited October 10, 2016 by HospiceDoc
Because at midnight I can no longer spell.

[Proclone]

On 10/10/2016 at 2:48 AM, HospiceDoc said:

Heh.  You lost me there.  Venkman was completely creeptastic for the entire movie.  It may not have been full on misogyny, but definitely stalker-like and disrespectful.  Venkman was a huge jerk.  

To be fair, I said it wasn't particularly misogynistic for a movie made in the eighties.  Venkman is hardly the only male in a movie who basically stalks his romantic interest though.  And yes he is a jerk to everyone including his friends...a jerk who makes me laugh. And while I do think the movie expects you to root for him and Dana to get together I don't think that it expects you see him as anything but a jerk (perhaps with ultimately a heart of gold...perhaps not).  He's a terrible person who I would never want to actually know in real life but he works for me as a fictional character. I thought both Erin and Abby were jerky in there own ways in this one too and not really in a fun way for me.  Kevin, if I had actually had to deal with him for more than ten seconds in real life, I would probably want to kill him, but he works on screen in much the same way Venkman does for me.

Is the original the most enlightened work about gender politics? No, but I don't think it's the worst especially considering the decade it was made (and I can name quite a few movies made in the last few years that have more objectionable depictions of woman and romantic relationships than Ghostbusters).  Dana is at least an intelligent woman with a career, who does for the most part see through Venkman's BS.  She is a character and not just a plot device.  In my mind Ghostbuster didn't need to be remade (with or without a primarily female cast) to correct rampant misogyny within the movie because it didn't really exist in the movie.  The problem is with a remake is that it's going to inherently be judged against the original.  If it's not at least as good, if not better than the original, it's going to be seen as failure.  Ghostbusters 2016 wasn't as funny or memorable (to me) as the original, so in my mind that makes it a failure overall. That's why filmmakers would be better off remaking movies that had major issues.  There's just more chance of success.

[PatternRec]

[Lantern7]

Honest Trailers answers the call; Voiceover Guy nearly loses his mind.

[Mom x 3]

57 minutes ago, Lantern7 said:

Honest Trailers answers the call; Voiceover Guy nearly loses his mind.

Oh my.  That was hilarious!

[Morrigan2575]

Ok, that was hilarious 

[Spartan Girl]

At least they acknowledged that the hyped hate was more ridiculous than anything.

[Kel Varnsen]

On 12/09/2016 at 6:26 PM, Proclone said:

 It wasn't a terrible film, it wasn't even a bad film, but I do think it was a completely forgettable one.

I watched it last night and i would agree with that statement. I thought it was ok but considering it was a Paul Feig movie starring  Melissa Mccarthy I was expecting it to be a lot funnier. I thought The Heat and Spy were way funnier (if people were expecting that level of laughs i could see them being disappointed, wonder if it's because those other movies were rated R). 

I also found it kind of slow, i mean at the beginning it seemed to take forever for them to actually start hunting the ghosts. Also the version i watched on demand was the extended  edition, and i am not sure how much longer they made it, but i don't  think a movie with that thin a plot needs to be 2 hours and 14 minutes long.

[Lantern7]

Kristen Wiig is hosting SNL next week. Seeing how Leslie and Kate are on the cast, what are the odds four-time host Melissa McCarthy pops up? "Seriously, you guys, what is 'Zuul'?!?"

[Lantern7]

Nope. I was wrong. If Melissa comes back to host, I'd still expect Kristen to show up. Probably won't happen, since the film could be seen as a litmus test towards what was to come.

[ChelseaNH]

I saw a connection to the original in the way the Ghostbusters talk to each other -- most movie dialogue delivers either exposition or jokes, but their conversations were about revealing character, and the humor comes from the amusingly random stuff they say.  I don't know if it's a sketch comedy or improv thing, given the background of the two sets of actors.

I'm not fond of humor about stupid people, but Chris Hemsworth's comedy chops cannot be denied.

[DrSpaceman73]

I have seen Kate McKinnon in a number of other things this year besides this movie and my unpopular opinion is she is much funnier in just about everything else than in this Ghostbusters movie.  I know the fans and critics and everyone loved her in it.  The movie was OK.  I don't think she was bad in the movie, she was funny.  Just not as great in it as everyone thinks who is raving over her performance. 

She was much funnier this year in a number of other things besides this movie

[Bruinsfan]

I agree, Kate did not appeal to me with this particular performance, which should have been a walk in the park considering how much I enjoy her in general. Conversely, for once I liked a Kristen Wiig character when she normally makes me roll my eyes like someone having a seizure. (No surprises that I liked Melissa and Leslie's characters best, as I love both actresses.)

[ClareWalks]

Finally watched this because I got a free rental with my Marco's pizza. It wasn't worth all the hate, but it also wasn't funny. It badly, badly needed jokes. The script was devoid of jokes. They did the best they could with a really dull script.

[Amethyst]

Finally saw it, and I gave it a B.  I have no emotional ties to the original, but after the disgusting hate parade done on this one, I was rooting for it to be great and make tons of $$$.  

That said, there were some flaws.  The beginning dragged and improved once they really started going after the ghosts.  Character-wise, I liked Leslie Jones a lot.  I wish they could have made Patty a fellow scientist, but she got a hell of a lot more to do than Winston, and her knowledge of NY was relevant to the plot. The most cringe-worthy scenes of her was basically in the trailers; her work in this movie was more understated than anything she's done on SNL.  The bit with the ghost sitting on her shoulders cracked me up so hard.  Despite the popular opinion, Holtzmann didn't do much for me, she was too over the top and never felt like someone real.  She was funny, but not grounded at all and I got tired of her shtick fairly soon.  I think they could have spread some of her humor around a bit instead of making her the walking joke machine.  The long-suffering Erin was pretty funny, and I'm glad they didn't dwell on her loser ex-boyfriend and focused on her friendships.  Abby was probably my second favorite, because she really was the heart of the team.  Enjoyed the running gag about the Chinese food.  The bit where she was pretending to dance like Erin's boyfriend was one of the funniest in the film.  Kevin really surprised me in the end, I had no idea that Hemsworth had such great comedic timing.  Seeing him dance and control the crowd like puppets was delightful.  Definitely makes me look forward to Thor: Ragnarok even more.

The cameos were great except Bill Murray's.  It was so obviously shoehorned in as a way to give him a substantial role and it wasn't necessary at all.  Didn't care for the Mayor and his assistant, loved the FBI guys.

I think the film suffered in tone and direction.  I liked the villain but he was little more than a cipher, and only became interesting once he was actually dead.   Seeing the women kick ass in the end was awesome, and there were some nice tributes to the first (Stay-Puft, the infamous GB logo being the chosen villain).  It's a pity that it did so poorly (figuratively speaking) because there were some genuine strengths in the movie, and a sequel would give them a chance to tweak any mistakes.  It's a movie that gets better upon re-watch.  

[Anduin]

After all that talk about the Snyder Cut, Paul Feig says that there's a 3.5 hour cut of Ghostbusters that he's happy to share.

I suspect he's joking, but no thanks. The 2 hour cut really didn't land for me. I went in with a positive frame of mind. Some bits were good. But I can't see a longer version doing anything better. I mean, unless he cut out the best jokes and plot elements. But I'm skeptical.

[Kel Varnsen]

9 minutes ago, Anduin said:

After all that talk about the Snyder Cut, Paul Feig says that there's a 3.5 hour cut of Ghostbusters that he's happy to share.

I suspect he's joking, but no thanks. The 2 hour cut really didn't land for me. I went in with a positive frame of mind. Some bits were good. But I can't see a longer version doing anything better. I mean, unless he cut out the best jokes and plot elements. But I'm skeptical.

The only cut of this version of Ghostbusters I might want to see is of there was an R rated cut. I don't know what it is but R rated Melissa McCarthy movies have generally been hilarious (Bridesmaids, the Heat, Spy) but the PG-13 ones haven't been nearly as good. Hell the Melissa McCarthy scene in This is 40 is funnier than anything she did in Ghostbusters.

[moonorchid]

Bumping this cause my kids and I randomly watched it last night and then this morning in my Facebook memories it reminded me it was this time four years ago I took my daughter to see it.

personally I think this movie gets a lot of unfair criticism. The humor may not be for everyone and heck a lot of it is immature and slap sticky, it’s a Feig movie with Kristin wigg and Melissa McCartney for crying out loud!

but I genuinely enjoy it every time I see it. I love Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones as Holtzman and patty. And I think that last fight sequence holds up with anything else out there. I legit get excited every time holtzman licks her guns and says “let’s go” before letting it rip. It’s a fun movie.

 

[Mabinogia]

10 hours ago, moonorchid said:

It’s a fun movie.

That's what I expected it to be and it delivered for me. I found it very enjoyable and have watched the movie several times now.