GHOSTBUSTERS 2016 REVIEW/DISCUSSION
- Thread starter Saltyk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
So basically it takes the reason why I hate RebootCop as a RoboCop movie but to an extreme while just being a mediocre movie?
I mean, I like it(RoboCop) as a movie in of itself, but the elements there only to say "Hey, we're a 'Reboot' to an awesome movie you liked!" held it back like all hell and actually worked to make you wish it was just its own movie, because the same elements that worked in the original just don't fucking work here and actually make you angry. Which seems like the case here but with just a truly meh movie as the vehicle. I just want my damn Blaxploitation movie of four angry black women dealing with the supernatural with maybe vague allusions to the source inspiration. Would have been leagues better.
Also doesn't this go in User Reviews?
I mean, I like it(RoboCop) as a movie in of itself, but the elements there only to say "Hey, we're a 'Reboot' to an awesome movie you liked!" held it back like all hell and actually worked to make you wish it was just its own movie, because the same elements that worked in the original just don't fucking work here and actually make you angry. Which seems like the case here but with just a truly meh movie as the vehicle. I just want my damn Blaxploitation movie of four angry black women dealing with the supernatural with maybe vague allusions to the source inspiration. Would have been leagues better.
Also doesn't this go in User Reviews?
I'll probably give it a look when it's on Netflix, but thus far it seems to be the same consensus as every Paul Feig movie I've seen: it's decent, but you pretty much forget every joke by the next day.
Bridesmaids, The Heat, Spy, all were decently entertaining, if not too long, but by the next day I had forgotten almost everything about them (with the notable exception of Jason Statham's character in Spy, who was a hilarious parody of himself).
Bridesmaids, The Heat, Spy, all were decently entertaining, if not too long, but by the next day I had forgotten almost everything about them (with the notable exception of Jason Statham's character in Spy, who was a hilarious parody of himself).
What's the line from Mitch Hedberg? 'They either loved it or they hated it, or they thought it was okay.'
Well, in regards to Spy, Statham did steal every scene he was in... EVERY scene!Ihateregistering1 said:
You know what? He should have been in this GB reboot! #StatamForGBSequel!
OT: I would probably give it a "Do.... Re.... EGON" when I see it on a premium channel [HBO, Showtime, Starz] during one of their free preview weekends... the same way I did with 2015's Jem and the Holograms and gave it a "Ke$ha"...
Other than that, on a related unrelated note, this is thread number 5, correct?
If you like Pixels, you probably enjoy Ghostbusters 2016. If you don't like Pixels, you probably won't like Ghostbusters 2016.
If you have already made up your mind, then seeing the movie will not change it.
Full disclosure, I'm a little burned out on Origin Stories and I feel the basic premise of a "reboot" to be short-sighted and flawed, so my opinion is probably biased. Ghostbusters 2016 is an Origin Story and a reboot/re-imagining/remake. The over-arching premise seems to pull a "Peter Jackson's The Hobbit" and stretch the story elements of the first Ghostbusters movie into a trilogy.
Since it's an Origin Story it gets a pass as "mediocre". If they don't significantly improve the story and characterization, I doubt the next movie will be even "average".
If you have already made up your mind, then seeing the movie will not change it.
Full disclosure, I'm a little burned out on Origin Stories and I feel the basic premise of a "reboot" to be short-sighted and flawed, so my opinion is probably biased. Ghostbusters 2016 is an Origin Story and a reboot/re-imagining/remake. The over-arching premise seems to pull a "Peter Jackson's The Hobbit" and stretch the story elements of the first Ghostbusters movie into a trilogy.
Since it's an Origin Story it gets a pass as "mediocre". If they don't significantly improve the story and characterization, I doubt the next movie will be even "average".
*I'm in a quandary. I didn't entirely hate the movie, but the parts I did are the part I think people wanted me to like. Somewhere in there there was a great bad movie to be loved ironically trying to get out, but so much in the area between Erin getting slimmed to Dan Akroyd's cameo just felt safe, by the numbers and boring. Jokes weren't landing or were easily predictable. Whereas the characters of the original was best characterized in Venkman's words "we came, we saw, we kicked its ass" the new one's two main characters seemed to constantly need (and only be there) to reassure each other about doing this, eating up a lot of time and chipping into the "strong female lead" bit. The villain, my total disdain for that nerd stereotype aside, probably would have worked better in the mood slime story. Patty, largely a tag along, seems to be there just for the extra voice in scenes and I'm less than sure she knew why she needed to be part of this any more than why they let her in so quickly. That left Holtzman, who stole the show with the kind of dry wit we liked from the original. Egon on acid, if sadly, delegated too much technobabble exposition. Still, especially during the lead into the end, she portrayed the badassness the other 3 sorely lacked.
It's not good enough to be good. It's not bad enough to be bad. If that's okay with you, I think you need higher standards in life. For me, call me for a Holzman solo project.
It's not good enough to be good. It's not bad enough to be bad. If that's okay with you, I think you need higher standards in life. For me, call me for a Holzman solo project.