I do agree with the basic premise that score aggregators and facebook likes and youtube thumbs are a functionally worthless measure of anything.
Film criticism isn't worth a warm plate of spit unless you actually read the review in question. Reducing it to a number and then aggregating those numbers will not tell you whether you are going to like or dislike a film, at all.
It only gets worse when people treat those scores like it's a battlefield in a culture war and start "voting" to influence the numbers.
I was considering going to see it, but I read a troubling review (on a reputable site) that discussed the nature of the villain.
Spoilers, obviously
Is it true that he's a neckbeard/geek stereotype?
Yes.
Is it true
They cross streams to blow his dick off in the last fight?
They do
shoot the "Boss" in the dick yes
Well they knew who their audience was, that's good writing.
It was a funny scene to tell you the truth. Spoilers Natch.
They have to distract the bad guy who's now a huge version of a ghost man and holding on to building to avoid getting sucked into a mega trap, so McCarthy calls out shoot him to distract him. And they all just happened to aim for the crotch.
"That's what you meant right?"
"Oh yeah totally." Paraphrased natch.
This movie feels like a more laid out origin story than the original GB, pretty much its own tale. No one is really aping any of the previous ghost busters at all and the story beats are not at all alike GB other than "people show up zap ghosts." Favorite cameo.
Got to go with Sigourney at the end, though Annie Potts was looking pretty good as well. Akroyd was just kind of there and Murray was all Murray is anymore.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Eh its still a movie to me. Whatever else people want to shit out its not like its trying to be anything more than just summer fun and to me it succeeded.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Eh its still a movie to me. Whatever else people want to shit out its not like its trying to be anything more than just summer fun and to me it succeeded.
It was pretty self aware. I think that thirty years from now, all of the winking self aware moments will still work, because all of them work in isolation without the larger cultural reference.
For example:
At a few points, they're reading comments online. While people might not have YouTube 30 years from now or be aware of the online backlash around the film, they'll still understand online comment sections.
Shadowhope on
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
How the ghost busters themselves were that guy, they even did the "we're not so unlike you and I" dialogue. Hell Holtzman clearly is on spectrum, but at no point is there a throw away line about it being a negative thing or even played for a joke beyond that she's clearly different from the rest of them.
I hope Melissa McCarthy does more roles like this, I figure with her slimmer figure now Hollywood might actually let her do it. It's like my wife was saying "Well all she does is fat woman comedy" and I'm like "That's all a person of her size can do in Hollywood even with her husband directing."
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Golden YakBurnished BovineThe sunny beaches of CanadaRegistered Userregular
Aah, it was alright. Pretty funny, not nearly as bad as all the fan-whiners who hadn't seen it yet were sure it was going to be.
In fact, I actually thought it was a bit too jokey - it probably ought to have taken itself a little more seriously. But, pretty enjoyable all the same. Holtzmann was my favorite part.
This conversation makes me feel like I need a guidebook just to present any opinions I have on the movie. And some form I need to fill out first. And a condition that I must be aware that horrible things X, Y, and Z exist in the world or else I cannot enjoy, comment, or discuss said movie. I'm so confused right now.
I have a solution to this.
Give your opinion. If anyone doesn't like that opinion and wants to deride it for any reason, that's too bad for them. They can fuck right off.
Problem solved.
EDIT: This isn't to say that you can never learn anything from people analyzing or criticizing your opinions and ideas, obviously. But if you have an opinion and want to present it, you should always do so. People will just have to deal with it.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
Aah, it was alright. Pretty funny, not nearly as bad as all the fan-whiners who hadn't seen it yet were sure it was going to be.
In fact, I actually thought it was a bit too jokey - it probably ought to have taken itself a little more seriously. But, pretty enjoyable all the same. Holtzmann was my favorite part.
I loved
Holtzmann's speech at the end when they were sitting around the table.
It's the kind of thing that's really difficult to do right, and it can be horribly painful to watch those sorts of things at the best of times, but IMO the movie absolutely nailed that moment. And it's in large part because that that moment was played completely seriously, not a "Ha ha, look at her, being abnormal."
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
Aah, it was alright. Pretty funny, not nearly as bad as all the fan-whiners who hadn't seen it yet were sure it was going to be.
In fact, I actually thought it was a bit too jokey - it probably ought to have taken itself a little more seriously. But, pretty enjoyable all the same. Holtzmann was my favorite part.
I loved
Holtzmann's speech at the end when they were sitting around the table.
It's the kind of thing that's really difficult to do right, and it can be horribly painful to watch those sorts of things at the best of times, but IMO the movie absolutely nailed that moment. And it's in large part because that that moment was played completely seriously, not a "Ha ha, look at her, being abnormal."
Yeah spoilers for the end of the movie.
That speech feels again like she's on spectrum, but it wasn't like "oh you wacky person" in fact they were all worried before hand belying that she's not exactly good at that part of things.
I also liked how no one ghost buster was really dominating the movie. Maybe Holtzman because she was clearly the best, but the movie was very balanced and that's something I appreciated.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Golden YakBurnished BovineThe sunny beaches of CanadaRegistered Userregular
I also really liked the final post-credits scene (btw there's a post-credits scene so make sure you stay for it).
Aside from being sequel-bait, it nicely explains why there's no other references to the earlier movies - this is a different dimension. These are the 'Earth-2' Ghostbusters. Neatly put a bow on a tiny gripe that I would have had otherwise.
So I'm not a Paul Fieg fan. Haven't really seen anything he's directed. Not the biggest fan of most of the actresses. And on the other hand, I'm not a member of the Cult of Ghosts and the Busting Thereof. So I guess, in today's age, I'm as neutral as anyone could reasonably be.
I thought this movie was fine. Enjoyable, even.
Jokes were fine. Yeah, they didn't all cause uproarious laughter that caused me to miss parts of the dialogue. But they elicited a smile, which is good enough for me.
Why is dumb Thor causing such a fuss? No one complained when Zoolanders did it. No one complains when it's any number of hot women playing dumb characters. Why, in this particular instance, is it such an issue?
The second act did seem to jump around a bit. Harsh cuts and jumps from location to location made it feel disjointed. But at least it kept to plot moving.
Bottom line: Whatever. I'm not going to convince anyone to change their mind. People have their own opinions, formed in part by way more influential people than me. Or maybe their stubborn and not going to listen to anyone anyway. If ever there was example of "you'll just have to see for yourself", this is probably it.
I liked this movie more then I expected to and I went in with fairly high hopes due to the reviews. It had a different style of humor then the originals, it was one of those movies that has a lot of rapid fire jokes and while not every joke hit the ratio was high enough that I thought it was really funny. I'd pretty much recommend this to anyone who feels like they can divorce themselves from the originals enough to give this a chance.
I really enjoyed that their take on the origins and the world of the Ghostbusters felt so different from the original movie. Whereas the original feels like a Murray vehicle this film feels much more like an ensemble piece, which I enjoyed. I can't help but compare it to the Force Awakens and how safe that movie played it versus this movie which feels much more like an original film, that while it has nods to the original, feels like it's own thing.
On the negative side they really lost that magic of Ghostbusters gear. In the original it feels like everything operates on a constant logic and the gadgets are cool and inventive, like the whole concept of having to wrangle a ghost into a trap. While they spent a lot of time of Holtzmen's gadgets in the new movie it just doesn't click the way the original gear does. It's never as compelling and it just seems like they are making too much of direct analogue to military gear versus the original's scifi style working class exterminator gear. It's such a nitpick but it's something special about the original films that I feel like they weren't able to capture.
Three other quick points:
There is a queefing joke about five minutes in to this film that (hopefully) sailed over the heads of all the little kids in the audience.
Wiig's character Erin is directly responsible for the death of Bill Murray and it's never addressed in the film. Feels like should have been more of thing for her character.
Ghosts murder people in this. That's a new one for Ghostbusters.
Oh and I think the funniest line in the movie for me was:
Them comparing the mayor of New York to the mayor from Jaws and having Andy Garcia, who had played the part completely sedate to that point, just flipping out. That was fantastic.
Got to go with Sigourney at the end, though Annie Potts was looking pretty good as well. Akroyd was just kind of there and Murray was all Murray is anymore.
RE: Murray
Dude played a character that looked he had wandered off the set of a Wes Anderson film, which is kind of fantastic.
Not anymore than Fury Road was. Sometimes films have subject matter that bleeds into our reality, when art films do this they're applauded for it.
Way more than Fury Road was.
Fury Road was completely one-sided in its social aspects, as in the MRAs fuming.
Ghostbusters has a pushback and a rebuttal to the MRA jackoffedness.
And this is a bad thing because?
Fury Road is good because the text of the movie shows strong female characters and treats it as totally normal.
While I can't comment on the text of this movie, the surrounding hoopla didn't present this as normal. It was presented as some kind of slap in the face to misogynists that made it special and out of the ordinary. The spoilers on the last few pages suggest this may have leaked into the text.
Not anymore than Fury Road was. Sometimes films have subject matter that bleeds into our reality, when art films do this they're applauded for it.
Way more than Fury Road was.
Fury Road was completely one-sided in its social aspects, as in the MRAs fuming.
Ghostbusters has a pushback and a rebuttal to the MRA jackoffedness.
And this is a bad thing because?
Fury Road is good because the text of the movie shows strong female characters and treats it as totally normal.
While I can't comment on the text of this movie, the surrounding hoopla didn't present this as normal. It was presented as some kind of slap in the face to misogynists that made it special and out of the ordinary. The spoilers on the last few pages suggest this may have leaked into the text.
They may have been influenced a bit by it, this isn't a new trend so of course it'd be acknowledged in-universe (though part of that was also from the original GB set up as underdogs). I haven't seen the film either, but the reactions, and the spoilers I've read, were vastly over stated for what the movie was intending. Of course the studio was going to exploit the controversy for their own gain, they'd be stupid to passively let their opponents define them.
0
Options
Golden YakBurnished BovineThe sunny beaches of CanadaRegistered Userregular
Re. cameos
Favorite one was Ernie.
Also, I missed it, but apparently there was a bust of Harold Ramis in the university at the beginning.
Not anymore than Fury Road was. Sometimes films have subject matter that bleeds into our reality, when art films do this they're applauded for it.
Way more than Fury Road was.
Fury Road was completely one-sided in its social aspects, as in the MRAs fuming.
Ghostbusters has a pushback and a rebuttal to the MRA jackoffedness.
And this is a bad thing because?
Fury Road is good because the text of the movie shows strong female characters and treats it as totally normal.
While I can't comment on the text of this movie, the surrounding hoopla didn't present this as normal. It was presented as some kind of slap in the face to misogynists that made it special and out of the ordinary. The spoilers on the last few pages suggest this may have leaked into the text.
They may have been influenced a bit by it, this isn't a new trend so of course it'd be acknowledged in-universe (though part of that was also from the original GB set up as underdogs). I haven't seen the film either, but the reactions, and the spoilers I've read, were vastly over stated for what the movie was intending. Of course the studio was going to exploit the controversy for their own gain, they'd be stupid to passively let their opponents define them.
Yeah, I definitely can't say for sure it happened. If not it's a pretty striking coincidence, but certainly not impossible.
I'm a bit more upset about the villain. If the less charitable reading is true, they stumbled into THE hypocritical blind-spot of the feminism movement.
I'm going to chalk this one up to me more than the film, though; Ghostbusters is one of my favorite things and any film attempting to get into than pantheon is probably going to fail simply by virtue of not being one of the best films ever made (in my eyes).
The film's story did not feel credible - or at least, not as credible as the original films - because:
I understand what Kevin is intended to riff on... but Janine was not like that in the films. She was played straight as a receptionist who needed the work, and wasn't sold as a hot item or idiot at all; even in the sequel, Potts is never dressed to impress and isn't a heart throb character. I felt like this role was necessary to keep the film grounded, whereas the role of Kevin only cements the absurdity of the new film.
Patty does not sell credibility the same way Winston did, despite the same working class background & attitude, because the film focused on making her largely a black culture caricature. Do black women in NYC behave like Patty? Probably not, would be my guess. Again I'm reminded of the lucky break Akroyd / Ramis had in Hudson taking the Winston role over Murphy.
The mayor plot was cringe worthy.
The ghosts were not well done. I don't necessarily agree with the crowd that is tsk tsk'ing the use of CGI (FFS, look at the stop motion dogs in Ghostbusters and try telling me that a little CGI back then would have been a bad thing) vs puppets; there is good CGI & bad CGI, and this film has a lot of the latter and not much of the former.
The ghosts are dangerous and kill people. Name a single person that was killed in GB1 or GB2 by a ghost. I'll wait. They are pests, not demons, and this is an important thematic element of those films. Only the two big bads were dangerous (and even then, they didn't actually manage to kill anyone. Viggo is scary as fuck without ever killing anyone just because the writing & cinematography was that damn good).
There was too much exposition surrounding the equipment. GB never tries to explain to the audience how the guys built the equipment; it assumes the audience understands that these are super geniuses and moves along to the interesting parts.
The world does not feel lived in. GB has all sorts of little matter-of-fact references to made-up occult work like The Book of Tobin and Egon/Ray spew out little references to past historical paranormal events; new GB attempts to use real world New Age occult to the same effect but it just didn't work for me because I know that the real world contemporary occult shit is junk.
Rowan was not an effective villain. Gozer was interesting because most of the film there's nothing tangible about Gozer at all, while Viggo was simply menacing & a brilliant take on a common nightmare experienced by children (paintings or posters coming to life with malevolent intent). Rowan was just a generic villain with what I thought was a very weak throwback end performance.
I didn't like the gross-out jokes. I've never liked gross-out jokes and don't find them to be funny - it's a cheap way to get laughs out of teenagers, IMHO, and a sign that you're not confident about your work being good comedy.
Not anymore than Fury Road was. Sometimes films have subject matter that bleeds into our reality, when art films do this they're applauded for it.
Way more than Fury Road was.
Fury Road was completely one-sided in its social aspects, as in the MRAs fuming.
Ghostbusters has a pushback and a rebuttal to the MRA jackoffedness.
And this is a bad thing because?
Fury Road is good because the text of the movie shows strong female characters and treats it as totally normal.
While I can't comment on the text of this movie, the surrounding hoopla didn't present this as normal. It was presented as some kind of slap in the face to misogynists that made it special and out of the ordinary. The spoilers on the last few pages suggest this may have leaked into the text.
They may have been influenced a bit by it, this isn't a new trend so of course it'd be acknowledged in-universe (though part of that was also from the original GB set up as underdogs). I haven't seen the film either, but the reactions, and the spoilers I've read, were vastly over stated for what the movie was intending. Of course the studio was going to exploit the controversy for their own gain, they'd be stupid to passively let their opponents define them.
Yeah, I definitely can't say for sure it happened. If not it's a pretty striking coincidence, but certainly not impossible.
I'm a bit more upset about the villain. If the less charitable reading is true, they stumbled into THE hypocritical blind-spot of the feminism movement.
Which is?
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Yeah there is a girl slimer that hangs out with traditional slimer.
The dance number is in the credit sequence. It looks like something they filmed and then cut out of the actual film and decided to just put in the credits. I assume you mean that one. There is also a point when they do a little dance back at the office after catching a ghost, but I doubt that's what you mean as it's not a dance number, it's just some characters doing an in character celebration.
I'm going to chalk this one up to me more than the film, though; Ghostbusters is one of my favorite things and any film attempting to get into than pantheon is probably going to fail simply by virtue of not being one of the best films ever made (in my eyes).
The film's story did not feel credible - or at least, not as credible as the original films - because:
I understand what Kevin is intended to riff on... but Janine was not like that in the films. She was played straight as a receptionist who needed the work, and wasn't sold as a hot item or idiot at all; even in the sequel, Potts is never dressed to impress and isn't a heart throb character. I felt like this role was necessary to keep the film grounded, whereas the role of Kevin only cements the absurdity of the new film.
Patty does not sell credibility the same way Winston did, despite the same working class background & attitude, because the film focused on making her largely a black culture caricature. Do black women in NYC behave like Patty? Probably not, would be my guess. Again I'm reminded of the lucky break Akroyd / Ramis had in Hudson taking the Winston role over Murphy.
The mayor plot was cringe worthy.
The ghosts were not well done. I don't necessarily agree with the crowd that is tsk tsk'ing the use of CGI (FFS, look at the stop motion dogs in Ghostbusters and try telling me that a little CGI back then would have been a bad thing) vs puppets; there is good CGI & bad CGI, and this film has a lot of the latter and not much of the former.
The ghosts are dangerous and kill people. Name a single person that was killed in GB1 or GB2 by a ghost. I'll wait. They are pests, not demons, and this is an important thematic element of those films. Only the two big bads were dangerous (and even then, they didn't actually manage to kill anyone. Viggo is scary as fuck without ever killing anyone just because the writing & cinematography was that damn good).
There was too much exposition surrounding the equipment. GB never tries to explain to the audience how the guys built the equipment; it assumes the audience understands that these are super geniuses and moves along to the interesting parts.
The world does not feel lived in. GB has all sorts of little matter-of-fact references to made-up occult work like The Book of Tobin and Egon/Ray spew out little references to past historical paranormal events; new GB attempts to use real world New Age occult to the same effect but it just didn't work for me because I know that the real world contemporary occult shit is junk.
Rowan was not an effective villain. Gozer was interesting because most of the film there's nothing tangible about Gozer at all, while Viggo was simply menacing & a brilliant take on a common nightmare experienced by children (paintings or posters coming to life with malevolent intent). Rowan was just a generic villain with what I thought was a very weak throwback end performance.
I didn't like the gross-out jokes. I've never liked gross-out jokes and don't find them to be funny - it's a cheap way to get laughs out of teenagers, IMHO, and a sign that you're not confident about your work being good comedy.
Murray was my favorite personality/actor in the original. Winston was my favorite Ghostbuster, Ernie Hudson sold that world and character in a huge way.
Still optimistic I'll enjoy the new one, but I'm going to have try hard to treat it as it's own thing.
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Yeah there is a girl slimer that hangs out with traditional slimer.
The dance number is in the credit sequence. It looks like something they filmed and then cut out of the actual film and decided to just put in the credits. I assume you mean that one. There is also a point when they do a little dance back at the office after catching a ghost, but I doubt that's what you mean as it's not a dance number, it's just some characters doing an in character celebration.
Okay, that's a lot better than what I was thinking...
It's easy to just skip out on that part, and it was very clearly just a studio insert for kids to enjoy.
I mean, Jesus. 99% of the film panders to 20-30+ year old grognards with fond memories of the old films, but oh no 1% of it panders to younger children that have been taken to the theater by their parents. How horrible!
With Love and Courage
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
It's easy to just skip out on that part, and it was very clearly just a studio insert for kids to enjoy.
I mean, Jesus. 99% of the film panders to 20-30+ year old grognards with fond memories of the old films, but oh no 1% of it panders to younger children that have been taken to the theater by their parents. How horrible!
Yeah there is a girl slimer that hangs out with traditional slimer.
The dance number is in the credit sequence. It looks like something they filmed and then cut out of the actual film and decided to just put in the credits. I assume you mean that one. There is also a point when they do a little dance back at the office after catching a ghost, but I doubt that's what you mean as it's not a dance number, it's just some characters doing an in character celebration.
Okay, that's a lot better than what I was thinking...
Girl slimer is on screen for a whopping 5 seconds or so and is in a pretty decent gag
where during the chaos of the ghosts invading the city Slimer has stolen the Ecto 1 for a night out on the town and later joyrides back through with girl slimer and a dozen other ghosts partying.
It was a kinda silly gag and nowhere near the best in the movie but I chuckled.
Murray was my favorite personality/actor in the original. Winston was my favorite Ghostbuster, Ernie Hudson sold that world and character in a huge way.
There exists an alternative dimension where Ghostbusters (1984) stars John Belushi and Eddie Murphy.
With Murphy there were actually storyboards with his version of Winston present with the rest of Ghostbusters at the hotel. I believe he was originally the one that got slimed and not Murray. Once Murphy backed out of the project they recast with Hudson and scaled back the part.
I believe Peter was original written with Belushi in mind, though I might be misremembering that. At the very least on the DVD commentary, Ramis and Reitman refer to Slimer as the "ghost of John Belushi" and say something about his gluttony existing past his death (it sounds really cruel written out but they are joking around on the commentary when they say that).
It's easy to just skip out on that part, and it was very clearly just a studio insert for kids to enjoy.
I mean, Jesus. 99% of the film panders to 20-30+ year old grognards with fond memories of the old films, but oh no 1% of it panders to younger children that have been taken to the theater by their parents. How horrible!
Who would bring their kid to a movie
where the opening joke is about queefs?
Ghostbusters (1984) is a movie I watched a lot as a kid. Watching it as an adult now there are a lot of jokes that are pretty dirty / adult in it that completely went over my head as a kid. I imagine it's going to really similar with this new movie.
The queef joke is subtle enough that adults are going to get it but it's going to sail right by kids without them noticing. I don't want to ruin the setup for the joke, but the punchline isn't like, "then I queefed" or anything obvious like that.
One that stood out the other day when I was watching the original was the bit where Signory Weaver tells Billy Murray that she wants her inside of her and Bill Murray is like "sure go ahead". Not really a joke as it is a funny interaction but as a kid I totally didn't understand what was going on there.
Quasi related, as a kid I had no idea what Egon shouts at Peck when he rushes him. As an adult "Your Mother" and the delivery by Ramis as a character who doesn't usually insult people is fucking hilarious.
It's easy to just skip out on that part, and it was very clearly just a studio insert for kids to enjoy.
I mean, Jesus. 99% of the film panders to 20-30+ year old grognards with fond memories of the old films, but oh no 1% of it panders to younger children that have been taken to the theater by their parents. How horrible!
Who would bring their kid to a movie
where the opening joke is about queefs?
Who would bring their kid to a movie with a blowjob joke, a bukkake joke, a joke about the lady secretary getting head, etc?
Kids either miss most of those jokes because they're subtle or don't care or - *gasp* - also think the sex jokes are funny.
That's a good set. I don't know about them addressing the initial reaction as pure sexism but honestly the politics surrounding this film bore me.
Kate McKinnon has this thing going on where I think she is goofy looking and attractive at the same time. She was really good in the film. I think there is a good chance this film is what jumpstarts her film career.
Leslie Jones is also really good when she is given good lines to work with. A lot of her lines from the trailer that fell flat fall just as flat in the context of the film.
Her "I don't know if it's a lady thing or a race thing" line straight up doesn't make sense since Melissa McCarthy stage dives successfully right before that happens.
Thankfully there are better lines for her in the film that they didn't highlight in the trailer.
Posts
Film criticism isn't worth a warm plate of spit unless you actually read the review in question. Reducing it to a number and then aggregating those numbers will not tell you whether you are going to like or dislike a film, at all.
It only gets worse when people treat those scores like it's a battlefield in a culture war and start "voting" to influence the numbers.
It was a funny scene to tell you the truth. Spoilers Natch.
They have to distract the bad guy who's now a huge version of a ghost man and holding on to building to avoid getting sucked into a mega trap, so McCarthy calls out shoot him to distract him. And they all just happened to aim for the crotch.
"That's what you meant right?"
"Oh yeah totally." Paraphrased natch.
This movie feels like a more laid out origin story than the original GB, pretty much its own tale. No one is really aping any of the previous ghost busters at all and the story beats are not at all alike GB other than "people show up zap ghosts." Favorite cameo.
Got to go with Sigourney at the end, though Annie Potts was looking pretty good as well. Akroyd was just kind of there and Murray was all Murray is anymore.
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net
It was pretty self aware. I think that thirty years from now, all of the winking self aware moments will still work, because all of them work in isolation without the larger cultural reference.
For example:
How the ghost busters themselves were that guy, they even did the "we're not so unlike you and I" dialogue. Hell Holtzman clearly is on spectrum, but at no point is there a throw away line about it being a negative thing or even played for a joke beyond that she's clearly different from the rest of them.
I hope Melissa McCarthy does more roles like this, I figure with her slimmer figure now Hollywood might actually let her do it. It's like my wife was saying "Well all she does is fat woman comedy" and I'm like "That's all a person of her size can do in Hollywood even with her husband directing."
pleasepaypreacher.net
In fact, I actually thought it was a bit too jokey - it probably ought to have taken itself a little more seriously. But, pretty enjoyable all the same. Holtzmann was my favorite part.
I have a solution to this.
Give your opinion. If anyone doesn't like that opinion and wants to deride it for any reason, that's too bad for them. They can fuck right off.
Problem solved.
EDIT: This isn't to say that you can never learn anything from people analyzing or criticizing your opinions and ideas, obviously. But if you have an opinion and want to present it, you should always do so. People will just have to deal with it.
I loved
It's the kind of thing that's really difficult to do right, and it can be horribly painful to watch those sorts of things at the best of times, but IMO the movie absolutely nailed that moment. And it's in large part because that that moment was played completely seriously, not a "Ha ha, look at her, being abnormal."
Yeah spoilers for the end of the movie.
That speech feels again like she's on spectrum, but it wasn't like "oh you wacky person" in fact they were all worried before hand belying that she's not exactly good at that part of things.
I also liked how no one ghost buster was really dominating the movie. Maybe Holtzman because she was clearly the best, but the movie was very balanced and that's something I appreciated.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I thought this movie was fine. Enjoyable, even.
Why is dumb Thor causing such a fuss? No one complained when Zoolanders did it. No one complains when it's any number of hot women playing dumb characters. Why, in this particular instance, is it such an issue?
The second act did seem to jump around a bit. Harsh cuts and jumps from location to location made it feel disjointed. But at least it kept to plot moving.
Bottom line: Whatever. I'm not going to convince anyone to change their mind. People have their own opinions, formed in part by way more influential people than me. Or maybe their stubborn and not going to listen to anyone anyway. If ever there was example of "you'll just have to see for yourself", this is probably it.
Not anymore than Fury Road was. Sometimes films have subject matter that bleeds into our reality, when art films do this they're applauded for it.
Way more than Fury Road was.
Fury Road was completely one-sided in its social aspects, as in the MRAs fuming.
Ghostbusters has a pushback and a rebuttal to the MRA jackoffedness.
And this is a bad thing because?
I didnt pass a judgment on bad or good. Simply stating what is.
I really enjoyed that their take on the origins and the world of the Ghostbusters felt so different from the original movie. Whereas the original feels like a Murray vehicle this film feels much more like an ensemble piece, which I enjoyed. I can't help but compare it to the Force Awakens and how safe that movie played it versus this movie which feels much more like an original film, that while it has nods to the original, feels like it's own thing.
On the negative side they really lost that magic of Ghostbusters gear. In the original it feels like everything operates on a constant logic and the gadgets are cool and inventive, like the whole concept of having to wrangle a ghost into a trap. While they spent a lot of time of Holtzmen's gadgets in the new movie it just doesn't click the way the original gear does. It's never as compelling and it just seems like they are making too much of direct analogue to military gear versus the original's scifi style working class exterminator gear. It's such a nitpick but it's something special about the original films that I feel like they weren't able to capture.
Three other quick points:
Oh and I think the funniest line in the movie for me was:
RE: Murray
Fury Road is good because the text of the movie shows strong female characters and treats it as totally normal.
While I can't comment on the text of this movie, the surrounding hoopla didn't present this as normal. It was presented as some kind of slap in the face to misogynists that made it special and out of the ordinary. The spoilers on the last few pages suggest this may have leaked into the text.
They may have been influenced a bit by it, this isn't a new trend so of course it'd be acknowledged in-universe (though part of that was also from the original GB set up as underdogs). I haven't seen the film either, but the reactions, and the spoilers I've read, were vastly over stated for what the movie was intending. Of course the studio was going to exploit the controversy for their own gain, they'd be stupid to passively let their opponents define them.
Also, I missed it, but apparently there was a bust of Harold Ramis in the university at the beginning.
Yeah there is when she walks out of Tywin Lannister's office.
Also Harold Ramis' son(?) Daniel Ramis is in this as "Metalhead". Saw that while sitting through the credits for the end scene stinger.
Yeah, I definitely can't say for sure it happened. If not it's a pretty striking coincidence, but certainly not impossible.
I'm a bit more upset about the villain. If the less charitable reading is true, they stumbled into THE hypocritical blind-spot of the feminism movement.
I'm going to chalk this one up to me more than the film, though; Ghostbusters is one of my favorite things and any film attempting to get into than pantheon is probably going to fail simply by virtue of not being one of the best films ever made (in my eyes).
I understand what Kevin is intended to riff on... but Janine was not like that in the films. She was played straight as a receptionist who needed the work, and wasn't sold as a hot item or idiot at all; even in the sequel, Potts is never dressed to impress and isn't a heart throb character. I felt like this role was necessary to keep the film grounded, whereas the role of Kevin only cements the absurdity of the new film.
Patty does not sell credibility the same way Winston did, despite the same working class background & attitude, because the film focused on making her largely a black culture caricature. Do black women in NYC behave like Patty? Probably not, would be my guess. Again I'm reminded of the lucky break Akroyd / Ramis had in Hudson taking the Winston role over Murphy.
The mayor plot was cringe worthy.
The ghosts were not well done. I don't necessarily agree with the crowd that is tsk tsk'ing the use of CGI (FFS, look at the stop motion dogs in Ghostbusters and try telling me that a little CGI back then would have been a bad thing) vs puppets; there is good CGI & bad CGI, and this film has a lot of the latter and not much of the former.
The ghosts are dangerous and kill people. Name a single person that was killed in GB1 or GB2 by a ghost. I'll wait. They are pests, not demons, and this is an important thematic element of those films. Only the two big bads were dangerous (and even then, they didn't actually manage to kill anyone. Viggo is scary as fuck without ever killing anyone just because the writing & cinematography was that damn good).
There was too much exposition surrounding the equipment. GB never tries to explain to the audience how the guys built the equipment; it assumes the audience understands that these are super geniuses and moves along to the interesting parts.
The world does not feel lived in. GB has all sorts of little matter-of-fact references to made-up occult work like The Book of Tobin and Egon/Ray spew out little references to past historical paranormal events; new GB attempts to use real world New Age occult to the same effect but it just didn't work for me because I know that the real world contemporary occult shit is junk.
Rowan was not an effective villain. Gozer was interesting because most of the film there's nothing tangible about Gozer at all, while Viggo was simply menacing & a brilliant take on a common nightmare experienced by children (paintings or posters coming to life with malevolent intent). Rowan was just a generic villain with what I thought was a very weak throwback end performance.
I didn't like the gross-out jokes. I've never liked gross-out jokes and don't find them to be funny - it's a cheap way to get laughs out of teenagers, IMHO, and a sign that you're not confident about your work being good comedy.
Which is?
Yes?
That seems like a rather petty complaint.
Uuuuuugh...
The dance number is in the credit sequence. It looks like something they filmed and then cut out of the actual film and decided to just put in the credits. I assume you mean that one. There is also a point when they do a little dance back at the office after catching a ghost, but I doubt that's what you mean as it's not a dance number, it's just some characters doing an in character celebration.
Murray was my favorite personality/actor in the original. Winston was my favorite Ghostbuster, Ernie Hudson sold that world and character in a huge way.
Still optimistic I'll enjoy the new one, but I'm going to have try hard to treat it as it's own thing.
Okay, that's a lot better than what I was thinking...
I mean, Jesus. 99% of the film panders to 20-30+ year old grognards with fond memories of the old films, but oh no 1% of it panders to younger children that have been taken to the theater by their parents. How horrible!
Who would bring their kid to a movie
There exists an alternative dimension where Ghostbusters (1984) stars John Belushi and Eddie Murphy.
With Murphy there were actually storyboards with his version of Winston present with the rest of Ghostbusters at the hotel. I believe he was originally the one that got slimed and not Murray. Once Murphy backed out of the project they recast with Hudson and scaled back the part.
I believe Peter was original written with Belushi in mind, though I might be misremembering that. At the very least on the DVD commentary, Ramis and Reitman refer to Slimer as the "ghost of John Belushi" and say something about his gluttony existing past his death (it sounds really cruel written out but they are joking around on the commentary when they say that).
Ghostbusters (1984) is a movie I watched a lot as a kid. Watching it as an adult now there are a lot of jokes that are pretty dirty / adult in it that completely went over my head as a kid. I imagine it's going to really similar with this new movie.
One that stood out the other day when I was watching the original was the bit where Signory Weaver tells Billy Murray that she wants her inside of her and Bill Murray is like "sure go ahead". Not really a joke as it is a funny interaction but as a kid I totally didn't understand what was going on there.
Quasi related, as a kid I had no idea what Egon shouts at Peck when he rushes him. As an adult "Your Mother" and the delivery by Ramis as a character who doesn't usually insult people is fucking hilarious.
Who would bring their kid to a movie with a blowjob joke, a bukkake joke, a joke about the lady secretary getting head, etc?
Kids either miss most of those jokes because they're subtle or don't care or - *gasp* - also think the sex jokes are funny.
That's a good set. I don't know about them addressing the initial reaction as pure sexism but honestly the politics surrounding this film bore me.
Kate McKinnon has this thing going on where I think she is goofy looking and attractive at the same time. She was really good in the film. I think there is a good chance this film is what jumpstarts her film career.
Leslie Jones is also really good when she is given good lines to work with. A lot of her lines from the trailer that fell flat fall just as flat in the context of the film.