|
Post by Afgncaap5 on Jul 15, 2016 18:18:31 GMT -5
Okay, so... I really liked this movie.
Wasn't sure what to expect from it, and I sorta wish that the acting had been different in a few places, but I really had fun watching this. I think they managed to make a good quality "popcorn flick", but I hate calling it that because most movies with that term are, frankly, bad. And this wasn't a bad movie. My stylistic complaints in the film consisted of less than thirty seconds, if not less than twenty seconds, and nearly all of them were, as I say, stylistic concerns rather than genuine complaints.
If all franchise reboots were half this good, I don't think people would complain whenever their childhood came back decades later.
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Jul 16, 2016 0:44:00 GMT -5
I had several different conversations today with people trying to convince me to see this movie, assuming of course I would see it because I adore the original movie and see movies on a constant basis. Disappointed them all, because I have absolutely no desire to see it.
I knew a Ghostbusters 3 would never happen the minute Harold Ramis passed. I am at peace with that. I am at peace with Ghostbusters being rebooted. I am at peace with it being an all-female team, even though it feels like a lame gimmick. I have no problem with this movie existing, and I have no problem with people enjoying it. Enjoy whatever you want, but I have no obligation to see something based on its brand name.
I can't stand Melissa McCarthy. I have never laughed at her once from anything she's ever been in. I like Kristen Wiig, mostly because I have fond memories of her as Dr. Pat on The Joe Schmo Show. I have no opinion on the other two cast members because I don't watch Saturday Night Live much anymore, though the promos make the blonde woman look even less funny than McCarthy. Speaking of the promos in general, there have been three trailers and none of them made me laugh. At all. This movie might be good, but it's Sony's job to sell it to me and they should have sold it on its best merits and not it's (presumably) lamest gags. Either the movie is half-assed or Sony's promotional department is, and I'm not supporting either to keep up such lousy work.
Plus I read a review that mentioned that one of the ghosts "busted" resembles the late Ramis, which I find absolutely tasteless.
Word of mouth is pretty positive, which means little to me. Last time I trusted an "It's better than it looks" word was that godawful Ninja Turtles movie from a few years ago (I still am pissy at a few people for recommending me to sit through that garbage). Also needing to be considered is that modern comedies have an uphill battle with me, as I tend to prefer classic comedies from the around the 20s or 30s while modern comedies tend to annoy me. The Hangover is one of the most popular comedies of the last decade, but I thought it was rancid and boring. The most recent comedies I have responded to positively at all were We're the Millers and Horrible Bosses. I've only seen bits and pieces of Paul Feig's past work, and honestly I have no desire to see one from beginning to end.
So I'm not seeing this movie. I don't say this as a statement of "look at me" defiance against rebooting a beloved movie of my childhood, I'm just stating a fact. Ghostbusters is perfectly capable of standing on its own two feet without the original cast, but this doesn't feel like a movie I would enjoy. This is someone else's Ghostbusters, I already have mine.
And I'm okay with that.
|
|
|
Post by Afgncaap5 on Jul 17, 2016 15:44:37 GMT -5
Torgo, friends who tell you that the recent Ninja Turtles movies are good aren't actually your friends.
|
|
|
Post by afriendlychicken on Jul 21, 2016 20:44:09 GMT -5
I had several different conversations today with people trying to convince me to see this movie, assuming of course I would see it because I adore the original movie and see movies on a constant basis. Disappointed them all, because I have absolutely no desire to see it. I knew a Ghostbusters 3 would never happen the minute Harold Ramis passed. I am at peace with that. I am at peace with Ghostbusters being rebooted. I am at peace with it being an all-female team, even though it feels like a lame gimmick. I have no problem with this movie existing, and I have no problem with people enjoying it. Enjoy whatever you want, but I have no obligation to see something based on its brand name. I can't stand Melissa McCarthy. I have never laughed at her once from anything she's ever been in. I like Kristen Wiig, mostly because I have fond memories of her as Dr. Pat on The Joe Schmo Show. I have no opinion on the other two cast members because I don't watch Saturday Night Live much anymore, though the promos make the blonde woman look even less funny than McCarthy. Speaking of the promos in general, there have been three trailers and none of them made me laugh. At all. This movie might be good, but it's Sony's job to sell it to me and they should have sold it on its best merits and not it's (presumably) lamest gags. Either the movie is half-assed or Sony's promotional department is, and I'm not supporting either to keep up such lousy work. Plus I read a review that mentioned that one of the ghosts "busted" resembles the late Ramis, which I find absolutely tasteless. Word of mouth is pretty positive, which means little to me. Last time I trusted an "It's better than it looks" word was that godawful Ninja Turtles movie from a few years ago (I still am pissy at a few people for recommending me to sit through that garbage). Also needing to be considered is that modern comedies have an uphill battle with me, as I tend to prefer classic comedies from the around the 20s or 30s while modern comedies tend to annoy me. The Hangover is one of the most popular comedies of the last decade, but I thought it was rancid and boring. The most recent comedies I have responded to positively at all were We're the Millers and Horrible Bosses. I've only seen bits and pieces of Paul Feig's past work, and honestly I have no desire to see one from beginning to end. So I'm not seeing this movie. I don't say this as a statement of "look at me" defiance against rebooting a beloved movie of my childhood, I'm just stating a fact. Ghostbusters is perfectly capable of standing on its own two feet without the original cast, but this doesn't feel like a movie I would enjoy. This is someone else's Ghostbusters, I already have mine. And I'm okay with that. Recently on an episode of Pardon the Interruption on ESPN, Tony Kornheiser mentioned something about a "new" movie coming out and Micheal Wilbon responded with a thought I totally agreed with. He said something to the effect that this movie generation can't find and create their own heroes, they just keep remaking and "recreating" everything that's come before. That's why my term for modern day Hollywood is The Regurgitation Factory. The Dream Factory is sadly long gone.
|
|
|
Post by Afgncaap5 on Aug 13, 2016 13:44:02 GMT -5
Recently on an episode of Pardon the Interruption on ESPN, Tony Kornheiser mentioned something about a "new" movie coming out and Micheal Wilbon responded with a thought I totally agreed with. He said something to the effect that this movie generation can't find and create their own heroes, they just keep remaking and "recreating" everything that's come before. That's why my term for modern day Hollywood is The Regurgitation Factory. The Dream Factory is sadly long gone. I can agree with that to an extent, though I also think it's worth noting that even the great ones cribbed story concepts from pre-existing works. Most of the films of Walt Disney, nearly all the plays of Shakespeare, the concept for the geography of Pratchett's Discworld, all came from pre-existing things, and had new life breathed into them through the takes of different artists. So, to denounce something just on the merits of being a remake isn't sufficient for me (even if I agree that Hollywood has a *huge* problem with that.) I also think there's some good to be had if you really look at some of the movies out there, especially if you go to the independent markets. I think the idea factory is more in the hands of smaller studios and, weird as it sounds, television producers. As the Nostalgia Critic put it, we're sort of in the golden age of cartoons with shows like Wander Over Yonder, Steven Universe, Gravity Falls and the like, and independent films like Her are receiving more and more attention while big-budget blockbusters are starting to realize that viewers are savvier than ever thanks to the quick-exchange of information. I think this problem is a self-solving one. We'll always have bad movies (MST3K proved that pretty handily) but I think their viability is severely diminished.
|
|
|
Post by afriendlychicken on Aug 17, 2016 3:14:04 GMT -5
Recently on an episode of Pardon the Interruption on ESPN, Tony Kornheiser mentioned something about a "new" movie coming out and Micheal Wilbon responded with a thought I totally agreed with. He said something to the effect that this movie generation can't find and create their own heroes, they just keep remaking and "recreating" everything that's come before. That's why my term for modern day Hollywood is The Regurgitation Factory. The Dream Factory is sadly long gone. I can agree with that to an extent, though I also think it's worth noting that even the great ones cribbed story concepts from pre-existing works. Most of the films of Walt Disney, nearly all the plays of Shakespeare, the concept for the geography of Pratchett's Discworld, all came from pre-existing things, and had new life breathed into them through the takes of different artists. So, to denounce something just on the merits of being a remake isn't sufficient for me (even if I agree that Hollywood has a *huge* problem with that.) I also think there's some good to be had if you really look at some of the movies out there, especially if you go to the independent markets. I think the idea factory is more in the hands of smaller studios and, weird as it sounds, television producers. As the Nostalgia Critic put it, we're sort of in the golden age of cartoons with shows like Wander Over Yonder, Steven Universe, Gravity Falls and the like, and independent films like Her are receiving more and more attention while big-budget blockbusters are starting to realize that viewers are savvier than ever thanks to the quick-exchange of information. I think this problem is a self-solving one. We'll always have bad movies (MST3K proved that pretty handily) but I think their viability is severely diminished. Yeah, Hollywood has always done sequels & remakes; in the 1930s you'd get 3-4 years in a row with a film that had the same story line but with a different title or you had the fun Thin Man series with Myrna Loy and William Powell; but I do believe it's the ratio of re-makes and sequels that has changed. I think Michael Wilbon's comments were more in the line of instead of creating new super heroes they're just using the older ones like Batman, Superman, Iron Man and others or just "re-imagining" older things like Star Trek and Star Wars. The archetypes will always be there to create new heroes if only they made the effort. It's like Robert Altman's The Player, they've killed the writer and become a product line. Since I'm more into art house films I shouldn't complain too much. I would just love to enjoy commercial films again instead of only liking something polarizing like Terrence Malick's Knight of Cups, but I've never been a true American comic book super hero fan (living in Hawai'i I grew up with Japanese super heroes like Kamen Rider V3, Kikaida and Inazuman) and a lot of the remakes are of films I already love: the two Ben Hurs, 3:10 to Yuma, The Magnificent Seven, The Haunting...although like you said a remake can work because the new Pete's Dragon looks to be very good even if the title is all they seemed to borrow from the original, so it doesn't even seem to be the same movie. I did love Shaun the Sheep Movie though I still have hope. Except for Stephen Universe I have never seen the other animated TV shows you mentioned. I haven't watched Stephen Universe since it came out so I'll give it another go and check out the rest of those. And I like Discworld... PS: And since this was about the new Ghostbusters I give them credit for at least bringing in new characters. They could have just used to same characters with different actors like the new Hawai'i Five-0 TV series. I mean come on, the division couldn't get new officers? McGarrett and Dano can't retire or something? And they got younger as the years went on, who knew they were immortal!
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Sept 28, 2016 0:14:35 GMT -5
Months later, friends are still bugging me about this movie. I told them at the most I was willing to spend on this film was a dollar. So guess who got sucked into dollar Tuesday at the cheap theater?
In short, I HATED this movie.
This...thing...this entire movie is a prime example of why I hate modern comedies. This movie was a nonstop barrage of hammy upstaging from actors and actresses who come across as five-year-olds desperate for any sort of attention. Melissa McCarthy was predictably unfunny, that much was a given. But this Kate McKinnon that everybody seems to be glowing about, I don't know what movie they watched, but the Kate McKinnon I saw in Ghostbusters was the worst thing in it. She seems to have humor confused with doing random crap. Just doing odd things randomly isn't funny, there needs to be a context, and all the context I can get from her is that she's a Z-grade comedian who desperately wants somebody to like her. Chris Hemsworth fares just as poorly, as he's given the classic dimwit role that comedies enjoy, but he really has no sense of executing it. For a role like this to work there needs to be a sense of how their brain works for their character to come to life, something we can see in popular acts from the Three Stooges all the way down to Harry and Lloyd in Dumb and Dumber. There's really no rhythm to what Hemsworth does with the role, as he just shoots off random nonsense in a poor impersonation of a "dumb blonde." Paul Feig's direction is atrocious. He seems to have little sense of comic timing and his few attempts at playing up the "horror" part of horror-comedy just amount to FOLEY GUY MAKES LOUD SCREECHING NOISE!
All this and more, as it's such a MODERN comedy that uses tired cliche safe laughs like "That's gonna leave a mark!" "Say hello to my little friend!" and "ANGRY BLACK WOMAN SCREAMS REALLY LOUD!" Um...haha?
What did I like about it? I do usually enjoy Kristen Wiig in whatever I see her in. She's not given very good material here, but her enthusiasm for the project is infectious. I almost wished I enjoyed the movie more for her, but this enthusiasm is at war with my common sense for comedy. I enjoyed portions of Leslie Jones in the film, as well. Some of the new plot points were pretty clever, with the city government patting the Ghostbusters on the back in private but denouncing them in public. The cameos were cute, but not really that funny (except Ernie Hudson thinking "the other side" meant New Jersey, that was easily the most amusing moment in the movie). To be honest, I enjoyed the movie the most when it was trying harder to be a flashy action movie, but it was overwhelmed by what it did poorly.
In the end, I came out of the theater thinking one thing: "I laughed more at Schindler's List than I did at that damn movie." That's really sad.
|
|
|
Post by The Mad Plumber on Oct 1, 2016 21:11:53 GMT -5
I wanted to chime in earlier, but I have been busy. Excuse this for being disorganized.
Let me explain what I found frustrating, and maybe somebody might explain why my frustration is misplaced. On my YouTube front page feed, there would be videos that are supposedly reviews of the new Ghostbusters; naturally, the thumbnails for said videos were formatted in the nauseating "click bait" format where the video host has a schmuck look on his or her face and is Photoshopped next to the Ghostbusters logo. And there just seemed to be an endless stream of these videos. So, all these folks doled out $20 to see this movie, and I strongly believe the only reason they did so was to make their money back in Google bucks. I know of at least one channel where the host already had a negative opinion of the trailer and the politics behind the movie, and he still went to see the movie to review it. If you thought the movie was going to be bad, why go see it? Why not go to the COMPETITION and review THAT? I can understand the value of reviewing a movie for others, but you don't need to send the ARMY to scope out the situation when ONE SCOUT will suffice. When I see all of these YouTube schmucks throwing away their $20 to see this film, I see it as rewarding the film, endorsing the movie-making techniques, and guaranteeing the sequel.
When the RoboCop remake was gearing up, I expressed my severe skepticism and my annoyance at remaking a film that did not need to be remade. I saw the news of it being remade as a cruel slap in the face, as the original RoboCop is my second favorite film of all-time and one of the catalysts of my interest in cyborgs existing in real life. However, when the RoboCop remake came on Netflix, I watched it and found that it was a decently entertaining film. Many of the predictions I had were wrong, such as Murphy's wife being a crotch-stomping feminist idol or Lewis being the only competent female officer in a precinct full of piggish men (Lewis was actually changed to a man, go figure). In short, now that I have eaten crow, I would not be opposed to seeing a sequel to the remake.
I have to admit that I am not a person who goes to theaters and I do not see that as something I am going to be adopting soon. $20 in general is not a lot of money to me, but it does tend to be a lot of money when I spend it on a bad movie. In 2005, I went with my sister to see Fantastic Four. While we were driving back after the movie, I did go on a rant about how bad the film was and how frustrating it was to spend $20 to see it when I was making less than minimum wage at the time. When we got back home, she was in tears and upset that she coerced me to see the movie. And that left me regretting my rant. She still takes me to the theater on occasion, and the movies tend to be hit-and-miss with me, and it seems she really fishes for a positive responsive from me every time we go. Years later, I would tell her that within he first few minutes of watching The Hunger Games with her, I wanted to throw down my popcorn and leave. However, I doubt she would be so cruel as to coerce me to see this new Ghostbusters film, and I suspect that she has no interest in the movie either.
As a tangent, I have to question as to who would be the audience that was being appealed to by changing the Ghostbusters into women. My sister was already a fan of Ghostbusters to begin with. It would be like somebody telling me that they were remaking Alien to appeal to men.
Perhaps I should suggest that there should not be general outrage that films are being remade since this has been a practice that has been going on for a long time. The only justification for outrage is that they are not being remade for the better and that modern film is a joke. I would argue that Cronenburg's Fly is an improvement on the original. I cannot comment on Carpenter's Thing because I have never seen the original Thing from Another World, but I suspect Carpenter would still have been an improvement. In those cases, I would note filmmaking as being a young artform and not having matured as it did in the 1980s. However, the point to make about Cronenburg's and Carpenter's films is that, remake or not, they are entertaining films nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by crowschmo on Oct 2, 2016 13:34:06 GMT -5
Wow. Where the frig are you going where you're plopping down $20 for a movie? (Or are you counting the candy/popcorn, and soda in that equation?). Anywho: Did they remake this as if the new characters thought up the idea and the original people never existed? Or, was it like they were just taking up the torch? Because if it were the former, I could see people getting pissed about it. If it were the latter, and it was like the old guys retired and these new people just took over the company, I don't think people going to see the movie would have as much of a problem with it. For all the hate it gets, I'm assuming it's the former. I don't know because, I, too, have no desire to see this or read up on what it's about or anything. The trailers held no interest for me. It looked like a complete crap fest. As for it being all women, well, there have been movies where all the leads have been men, so, so what? But, I can see if it's just a marketing thing and characters aren't drawn out well or anything, and it's just like a big, in-your-face girl power piece of schlock. Then I could see someone having a problem with it. Like: Look! We're women! And we're doing stuff! Isn't that neat! Anyway, no thanks. I'll pass.
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Oct 3, 2016 12:27:02 GMT -5
Did they remake this as if the new characters thought up the idea and the original people never existed? Or, was it like they were just taking up the torch? It's a reboot in a new continuity alluding that this group of women are the first Ghostbusters. Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, and Annie Potts all have cameos in it though, as different characters. I liked Hudson and Potts' in it, and Murray gets the most screentime out of the group (and even pushes the plot a bit), while Aykroyd is a bit wasted.
|
|
|
Post by crowschmo on Oct 3, 2016 16:20:24 GMT -5
^^^^^ Well, that's dumb. They should've just had them take over for the old guard after they retired. Now I'm disappointed in the old cast who actually did cameos, furthering the "the other movies never happened" theme.
Maybe they just think of it as an alternate universe.
|
|
|
Post by crowschmo on Oct 19, 2016 17:36:40 GMT -5
|
|