Ghostbusters reviews are...positive!

[Casual Shinji]

True, each JP film has had a different theme and explored it with varying levels of success, but JP ends with the knowledge that Hammond's system can't work, JW's entire foundation is that it can, and things only go awry because of the I-Rex. JP1 has the theme of "the illusion of control," JW has the theme of "the want of more," but even so, it's a noticable divide.

Jurassic Park tries to have the theme of 'the illusion of control', but it really doesn't succeed at it. In the first movie everything also works fine (apart from certain bugs that the movie explains every major theme park and zoo has) until Nedry screws up the system.

It doesn't actually back that theme up with any sort of proof of a flawed system.

 

[DefunctTheory]

True, each JP film has had a different theme and explored it with varying levels of success, but JP ends with the knowledge that Hammond's system can't work, JW's entire foundation is that it can, and things only go awry because of the I-Rex. JP1 has the theme of "the illusion of control," JW has the theme of "the want of more," but even so, it's a noticable divide.

Jurassic Park tries to have the theme of 'the illusion of control', but it really doesn't succeed at it. In the first movie everything also works fine (apart from certain bugs that the movie explains every major theme park and zoo has) until Nedry screws up the system.

It doesn't actually back that theme up with any sort of proof of a flawed system.

With the release of Jurassic World, the theme of the 'series' now is that greed spoils everything. The first attempt to bring dinosaurs into the world is ruined when Dennis sells out the park, which starts off the whole sorry affair, and he's only in the position to do so because Hammond refused to pay for a properly cleared security engineer, going with the lowest bidder.

Jurassic World fails because of the park is constantly pushing for more corporate money, throwing caution to the wind to make a new form of brand advertisement - Literally making new animals for corporations to stamp their name on. Which also opens the way up for the military to come along and fuck things up.

Probably not intentional, but all things considered, it holds up better then what they were originally aiming for I think.

 

[JemothSkarii]

Look man, the trailer showed me Adam Sandler tier humour. All the critics in the world can tell me that's it's enjoyable but as long as stuff like Paul Blart and The Do Over continue to make bank I'm not touching it.
Ever.
You can tell me that the trailer is not indicative of the film, but it did show what kind of jokes that would be in it. That's enough to know that I'll try and fashion a noose out of Twizzlers before the movie ends.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Thew reviews don't even feel that positive to me. This is going to be one of those movies that ages poorly, and with hindsight will be highly railed against by everyone. Just like when Phantom Menace first came out with positive reviews, but is now considered one of the worst things ever. In a few years, we will know how good the movie is when people have to think back on it all a little more. Just like Jurassic World. That movie is also pretty awful all around. If it wasn't for that crazy over-the-top fight at the end, or the fact that Lost World and JP3 are so horrendous, we probably wouldn't even be talking about that movie, either.

I found JP 3 the only good movie out of the sequals.

I mean really why is that movie hated?

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

That's actually pretty damning if its true.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I found JP 3 the only good movie out of the sequals.

I mean really why is that movie hated?

Probably because it feels like someone's fanfiction, and because Tea Leoni is in it and doesn't get devoured.

The only cool thing about that movie was the big dino gun that they tease, and then promptly don't use for the rest of the movie.

 

[maninahat]

PS the vitriol is more a function as a result of the shilling that has gone on. Here's something that was censored off of reddit for example.

This thinking fascinates me. It's not enough for people to preemptively hate a movie they haven't seen, they have to also preemptively accuse the positive reviewers of being bribed via evidence they haven't seen either.

 

[EbonBehelit]

I do like the "where's the TMNT hate campaigns?" bit.

I mean, sure, there isn't a campaign against it per se, but the hate is there, and it's palpable indeed. There's just nothing political at play, so the collective anger is never going to tip over into furious debate territory.

 

[Captain Marvelous_v1legacy]

The gender politics surrounding this film means I can't trust any positive or negative reviews. The chances are too high that the game is being given a pass, or burned at the stake, because of the Ghostbusters' genders. That, coupled with the uninteresting trailers, means I wont be going to see this movie. But hey, kudos if they proved the "haters" wrong and made a good film.

 

[Schadrach]

Have you considered the idea that professional critics from (mostly) print journalism aren't all that invested in the debate, and more interested in honestly saying whether they like a movie about shooting ghosts with lasers?

It's worth noting that reviews from outlets that were pushing the whole "not liking the trailer is sexism" angle previously tend to be noticeably higher than reviews from outlets that weren't doing that.

What the ever-loving fuck was that atrocity? Is that supposed to be the theme song for the new film?

Nevermind whatever else I said, I'm not seeing this film ever, solely on the principal that someone actually greenlit that song as the new theme. Holy shit...

So, what you are saying is that you hate women? =p

There are plenty of reviews that say it is exactly what you've pegged it as and some of the positive reviews directly mention "basement dwelling gamergate types," leading me to believe that perhaps some portion of their review was politically motivated.

We are talking about a movie where they went back for reshoots to have a scene where the main cast read negative YouTube comments about the trailer. The political motivation of the reviews is reflecting the political motivation of the film. Which is largely to excuse being not good by putting up the misogyny shield, so that if you don't like it, you must just hate women.

That's actually pretty damning if its true.

For reference, you can see most things that have been deleted from reddit by the mods by replacing reddit.com in the URL with r.go1dfish.me. It's handy for that.

In this case though, it's not necessary as an edited version of it is still on the thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/4s6of5/_/d573ypg

 

[hentropy]

In some ways it feels like the movie simply being "meh" to "average" seems like the worst possible outcome. Anyone can convince themselves that an average movie is horrible or great rather easily, and political stuff makes it that much easier. I don't like aggregates myself, I think the content of the reviews are more important than numbers when you're talking about qualitative analysis, and it seems like that's the consensus. Not a home run, but also not a strikeout. Just a bloop-single I guess.

Despite the "social justicey" aspects of Fury Road or The Force Awakens, those movies stood well enough as great movies on their own. If the movie was really bad, even feminists could write it off as just an experiment gone awry.

As someone who never liked the original Ghostbusters movie, I probably won't be seeing it regardless, but it is an entertaining social experiment to watch where simply turning "all dudes" into "all women" makes everyone on the internet flip their shit even before the movie is available to watch to the general public. .

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

I found JP 3 the only good movie out of the sequals.

I mean really why is that movie hated?

Probably because it feels like someone's fanfiction, and because Tea Leoni is in it and doesn't get devoured.

The only cool thing about that movie was the big dino gun that they tease, and then promptly don't use for the rest of the movie.

Fanfiction?

The plot is rather simple, its a rescue mission and the charcaters have an adventure.

That is what JP3 really was, a theme park ride.

And hey man Tea Leoni's face is too cute and sexy to eat:

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

You can check the evidence for yourself if you wonder. I don't think it's about bribery, I think it's about people having a political investment in the movie being good. As in my previous post, you can see that at least one of the reviewers views the movie through a political lens.

Everybody views a movie through a political lense. Specifically, their political lense.

 

[starbear]

When you have to trot out the old cast and threaten them with lawsuits to help promote your movies

Can you stop repeating this as if it has some basis in fact? Because no-one, including Bill Murray, were threatened with lawsuits.

There were a couple of emails sent around where the possibility of a suit was discussed.

https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/104704

However sensible heads prevailed.

"Personally, while I?m fine with aggressive, I think we are in much worse shape if this goes public so seems to me we should look for someone who isn?t seeking the spotlight." -David Steinberg

As for Bill Murray: from words he actually said:

"I thought about it for a very long time. Like, many, many months. No, that?s not right. I was seriously thinking about this for years, really ? It kept eating at me, and I really respect those girls. And then I started to feel like if I didn?t do this movie, maybe somebody would write a bad review or something, thinking there was some sort of disapproval [on my part]."

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Bill-Murray-Gives-His-Most-Honest-Reaction-Yet-Ghostbusters-Remake-135947.html

So Bill Murray didn't cameo in the New Ghostbusters because of a threatened lawsuit. He did it because he respected the cast, and didn't want his non-appearance in the movie to be viewed as disrespectful of the movie.

TLDR: Bill Murray cameoed in Ghostbusters because of the haters. Well done guys: you made an apparently great movie even better.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

You can check the evidence for yourself if you wonder. I don't think it's about bribery, I think it's about people having a political investment in the movie being good. As in my previous post, you can see that at least one of the reviewers views the movie through a political lens.

Everybody views a movie through a political lense. Specifically, their political lense.

You'll have to point out the political lens used for this review then: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-2001-a-space-odyssey-1968

That would be the political lense of one Mr. Roger Ebert.

Sorry, but I do not see a political lens applied when I read that article.

"Only a few films are transcendent, and work upon our minds and imaginations like music or prayer or a vast belittling landscape. Most movies are about characters with a goal in mind, who obtain it after difficulties either comic or dramatic. ?2001: A Space Odyssey'' is not about a goal but about a quest, a need. It does not hook its effects on specific plot points, nor does it ask us to identify with Dave Bowman or any other character. It says to us: We became men when we learned to think. Our minds have given us the tools to understand where we live and who we are. Now it is time to move on to the next step, to know that we live not on a planet but among the stars, and that we are not flesh but intelligence."

Huh. Interesting.

 

[lacktheknack]

Normally, I'm not an especially spiteful person.

But now that this movie is "Certified Fresh", I have melted into a giddy pile of spite for the dedicated hatefans.

Take THAT. And THAT. And THAT.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Normally, I'm not an especially spiteful person.

But now that this movie is "Certified Fresh", I have melted into a giddy pile of spite for the dedicated hatefans.

Take THAT. And THAT. And THAT.

But it's only certified fresh if you don't filter to show the "real" critics and cut out any of the non-top critics. Granted, doing that still shows more positive reviews than negative, but it still proves the point that the movie is crap...somehow.

 

[starbear]

So far bill murray had refused every time, but now they got him to agree. Of course neither they nor bill murray will admit as such.

In simpler words: no there is no evidence that Bill Murray or any of the cast were actually threatened with a lawsuit, and we have Bill Murray on camera explaining why he decided to cameo in the movie. But you are not going to retract your claim, because "neither they nor bill murray will admit as such."

Just another conspiracy theory. THERE WAS NO LAWSUIT.

Besides, you can absolutely see the enthusiasm (read: forced smile) when he was out promoting the movie. You can hear how hard he finds it to get it out of his throat and how he frames it like cheering at a sporting event. He makes it sound like a parent cheering for his kid, regardless of whether they'll do well, they'll love it. But hey, believe what you want to believe.

Oh for gods sakes, when the hell has Bill Murray ever sounded enthusiastic about something?

But hey, if you want to believe in non-existent law suits feel free. Just stop claiming that it actually happened unless you happen to have any proof.

 

[Hawki]

True, each JP film has had a different theme and explored it with varying levels of success, but JP ends with the knowledge that Hammond's system can't work, JW's entire foundation is that it can, and things only go awry because of the I-Rex. JP1 has the theme of "the illusion of control," JW has the theme of "the want of more," but even so, it's a noticable divide.

Jurassic Park tries to have the theme of 'the illusion of control', but it really doesn't succeed at it. In the first movie everything also works fine (apart from certain bugs that the movie explains every major theme park and zoo has) until Nedry screws up the system.

It doesn't actually back that theme up with any sort of proof of a flawed system.

Don't forget that Grant and co. discover eggs in the wild, proving that the dinosaurs are breeding despite the scientists' efforts to keep them mono-gendered. Also, they can't make the diloposaurs turn up when they want, nor make the T-Rex show up for the goat at the right time, or even keep a triceratops healthy. I'd say the theme rings true because while Nedry does sabotage the park, a lot of it is based on Hammond's hubris, the idea of them knowing how these creatures will act and what that means in the wider scientific and ethical context. The film pretty much nails this over and over again (Malcolm's "life finds a way," Grant's "you can't suppress 65 million years of gut instinct," etc.

With the release of Jurassic World, the theme of the 'series' now is that greed spoils everything. The first attempt to bring dinosaurs into the world is ruined when Dennis sells out the park, which starts off the whole sorry affair, and he's only in the position to do so because Hammond refused to pay for a properly cleared security engineer, going with the lowest bidder.

Jurassic World fails because of the park is constantly pushing for more corporate money, throwing caution to the wind to make a new form of brand advertisement - Literally making new animals for corporations to stamp their name on. Which also opens the way up for the military to come along and fuck things up.

Probably not intentional, but all things considered, it holds up better then what they were originally aiming for I think.

"Greed spoils everything" certainly applies to JW, but for the other films? I dunno. First film, true, Nedry's greedy and Hammond isn't paying him well (granted, we only really have Nedry's word for that), but the others? Maybe you could argue that it applies to The Lost World (InGen trying to bring the dinosaurs to San Diego), but how does that factor into JP3?

I'll specify now that I see the theme of each film being:

*JP: "The illusion of control."
*JP2: "The separation of Man and nature."
*JP3: "Evolution" (albeit with very botched execution)
*JW: "The want of more" (Or "greed spoils everything")

I found JP 3 the only good movie out of the sequals.

I mean really why is that movie hated?

Speaking personally, "hated" is a strong word, but it's easily my least favorite. And I can sum it up as the following reasons:

-It's unnecessary. First film exists fine on its own. The Lost World isn't a necessary sequel, but it does feel like a sequel that rings true to the original while also exploring its own theme and ideas. JP3 is basically "people are stuck on Isla Sorna again, dinosaurs chase them, cue running and screaming." JP3 is mostly an action movie. Not that the other JP films lacked action, and JW is certainly largely an action movie, but JP3 just feels tacked on.

-By extension, its theme is botched, and has some bizzare pacing issues. When they're sailing down the river and the "da dum daaa...da dum daaa" theme plays, it's too little, too late. We've spent all movie running from dinosaurs, you can't just say "look at all the nice herbivores now. Likewise, when the ending theme plays and it shows the pterasaurs flying away...this isn't moving, this is terrifying. Who are they going to attack now?

-This doesn't bother me as much, but it arguably resets Grant's character development. JP1 confirms that there's a 'thing' between him and Ellie, but by film 3, she's married some other guy, and he's back to being commited to his work. I'm not that peaved off, because the real world doesn't always allow 'true love' to work, but I can understand why some people would. And while Grant's character arguably changes (e.g. "I'm evolving," per the theme), I feel that I'm giving the writers too much credit.

-The characters are...mixed. The Kirbys for instance outright lie to Grant to get him to the island, and they get multiple people killed while looking for their son. Understandable actions, true, but still, y'know...It doesn't help that there's a lot of screaming and whatnot.

-Minor point, but what's up with the raptors? Officially their look was changed to better reflect what we understand about raptors today, but that goes against the first film, that they're not going to look like actual dinosaurs because a) inserted DNA, and b) I think it's stated in the novel that the dinosaurs are designed to look how they 'should be,' rather than they actually were.

-The Spinosaurus isn't that great a villain. JP1, there was no real central villain, but it did highlight the raptors specifically, how intelligent they are, and how they can outthink the very people that made them. JP2, it was the T-Rexes - retrieving their child, Roland Tembo's desire to hunt them, cue the theme. JW, it's the I-Rex, highlighting the "greed ruins everything" motif by creating an absolute monster. The Spinosaurus is just...there. It shows up, and keeps showing up for...reasons. This is a nitpick, true, but the other films worked better in conveying certain dinosaurs as adversaries in certain ways.

At the end of the day, is JP3 a bad film? No, not really. But I do find it a very average, unnecessary, and just plain uninteresting film. Even though JW skewed more towards the action side, it had far more likable characters to be invested in.

 

[Stewie Plisken]

Normally, I'm not an especially spiteful person.

But now that this movie is "Certified Fresh", I have melted into a giddy pile of spite for the dedicated hatefans.

Take THAT. And THAT. And THAT.

Yeah, time to un-melt. The reviews for this thing are entirely unreliable, simply because there are people who really want you to get spiteful. Top Critics is at 52%, average rating is a little over 6/10 and even in the top critics, there are at least three reviews referencing "brobabiez" (very professional), GamerGate and "angry nerds". That's not even accounting for past articles on the same outlets that may or may not have run with "not liking the trailers makes you a misogynist" (such as the Salon, which does belong to "Top Critics").

This isn't the mark of a good movie, it's the battlefield for shit bloggers to peddle their narrative. Which, in turn, HURTS the movie, because it makes the reviews unreliable. Which in turn hurts movie criticism as both a business and an art, which is bad through and through.

There is not a single reason to find pleasure in this mess. It's bad for everyone involved.