Ghostbusters reviews are...positive!
- Thread starter maninahat
- Start date
In all fairness the one thing i have less faith then RT scores are IMDB scores. When i was there at lunch there was at least one thread encouraging people to vote 1 whether the user had seen the movie or not.Silentpony said:
...And, again, I'm still waiting until more reviews come out before making an assessment; one day hasn't changed much, and given the amount of noise surrounding the thing, I'm not even entirely sure I'll ever be able to get a solid and trust-worthy summary judgment on the thing.
RT has gone up a point since I last looked; Metacritic has gone down a point. By and large, the people who like it don't love it, and the people who dislike it don't hate it. It's a steady 2-3.5 out of 5 by most critics' scales.
I will probably see it, but at this point, I'm waiting for a second-run showing.
RT has gone up a point since I last looked; Metacritic has gone down a point. By and large, the people who like it don't love it, and the people who dislike it don't hate it. It's a steady 2-3.5 out of 5 by most critics' scales.
I will probably see it, but at this point, I'm waiting for a second-run showing.
It reads like a classic "Meh", which is (lets be honest) what any of us would expect from a PG-13 summer blockbuster comedy.
Never mind one that's a reboot of an 80's franchise.
Never mind one that's a reboot of an 80's franchise.
I'd like to take this opportunity to re-iterate a bit on what I've said about this film in the past, and what I see going forward now that the first reviews are coming out.
When they announced it and declared it would be "Ghostbusters, but with women!" I was vaguely antipathetic because if your first, biggest selling point is 'Rule 63' you aren't exactly showing a lot of /content/. It's like if someone advertised for "Jem and the Holograms, but with dudes!" Y'know, okay, sure, but what can you tell us you're actually going to do with it?
And the answer, the whole time it's been in production, has basically been "Nothing new, really, but we're going to politicize the shit out of it because Feminism is a hot button issue right now and it looks good in the media. Plus, we can ignore critics who don't like it because obviously they're just a bunch of woman-haters!"
Which, I don't know, I feel like exploiting the gender of your cast like that to score points with the press is a pretty sexist and degrading thing, the way they've seemed to emphasize their femininity over their talent.
They /could/ have expanded on the series. They could have broken the Ghostbusters out into franchises, like they foreshadowed in the original (and, y'know, have basically never delivered on, not that I'm bitter or anything). Shown us how the business works in milieus that aren't New York, Again. They didn't do that. They re-booted it with what the trailers suggested was a watered-down, beat-for-beat rehash of the original, so 'production values' and 'but with women' really seem to be all they brought to the table.
It's got decent production values (I don't much care for the ghosts, but someone seems to have put a fair amount of work into them (even if they don't /work/, they at least /tried/, and I can respect that), the cinematography looked decent in the trailers, etc.). It's got a measure of star power, though the trailers made them feel awkward together rather than consonant with one another.
Unfortunately, everything good about it is buried under a trash fire of politicization, raging nontroversy and insufferable pretension. I've heard little so far that would convince me otherwise, especially since most of the positive reviews waffle between nice, safe, low-calorie word salad and sexism more than they actually talk about the dang /film/.
It could still be good. And I still kind of hope it is, you know? I love the series, warts and all (the last big game, the one that /did/ star the original cast? I could go /on/ about how badly the script clunked along...but it was still fun enough for a pass through.) so I hope, sincerely, that the worst thing about this is the media circus that's grown up around it. I'd like to think I can watch it at some point and not feel like I'm going to be wasting my time and money, or encouraging people to think they can get away with cinematic shovelware if they just get people mad and distracted enough about it that they don't /think/ about it as a product.
I'm just not willing to get my hopes up about it anymore.
Prediction continues to be 'Mediocre at Best'.
Guess we'll see what happens when it's properly out.
When they announced it and declared it would be "Ghostbusters, but with women!" I was vaguely antipathetic because if your first, biggest selling point is 'Rule 63' you aren't exactly showing a lot of /content/. It's like if someone advertised for "Jem and the Holograms, but with dudes!" Y'know, okay, sure, but what can you tell us you're actually going to do with it?
And the answer, the whole time it's been in production, has basically been "Nothing new, really, but we're going to politicize the shit out of it because Feminism is a hot button issue right now and it looks good in the media. Plus, we can ignore critics who don't like it because obviously they're just a bunch of woman-haters!"
Which, I don't know, I feel like exploiting the gender of your cast like that to score points with the press is a pretty sexist and degrading thing, the way they've seemed to emphasize their femininity over their talent.
They /could/ have expanded on the series. They could have broken the Ghostbusters out into franchises, like they foreshadowed in the original (and, y'know, have basically never delivered on, not that I'm bitter or anything). Shown us how the business works in milieus that aren't New York, Again. They didn't do that. They re-booted it with what the trailers suggested was a watered-down, beat-for-beat rehash of the original, so 'production values' and 'but with women' really seem to be all they brought to the table.
It's got decent production values (I don't much care for the ghosts, but someone seems to have put a fair amount of work into them (even if they don't /work/, they at least /tried/, and I can respect that), the cinematography looked decent in the trailers, etc.). It's got a measure of star power, though the trailers made them feel awkward together rather than consonant with one another.
Unfortunately, everything good about it is buried under a trash fire of politicization, raging nontroversy and insufferable pretension. I've heard little so far that would convince me otherwise, especially since most of the positive reviews waffle between nice, safe, low-calorie word salad and sexism more than they actually talk about the dang /film/.
It could still be good. And I still kind of hope it is, you know? I love the series, warts and all (the last big game, the one that /did/ star the original cast? I could go /on/ about how badly the script clunked along...but it was still fun enough for a pass through.) so I hope, sincerely, that the worst thing about this is the media circus that's grown up around it. I'd like to think I can watch it at some point and not feel like I'm going to be wasting my time and money, or encouraging people to think they can get away with cinematic shovelware if they just get people mad and distracted enough about it that they don't /think/ about it as a product.
I'm just not willing to get my hopes up about it anymore.
Prediction continues to be 'Mediocre at Best'.
Guess we'll see what happens when it's properly out.
Did you dislike those movies because of McCarthy's performance? Or because of what they had her doing in those slapstick comedies? Because I personally dislike the movies she's been in, but not because of her. I think she's actually a pretty talented and funny lady, she just gets cast in some really shit movies, playing some really shit roles.AccursedTheory said:
OT: Cool. Glad to hear it's not shit, or at least some think it's not shit. As in the other thread, I don't really have any plans on seeing it. The trailers did not look funny to me, like at all, so I doubt it's for me. But we'll see. If the reviewers that I share similar tastes with seem to think it's worth watching, I might go see it. But that's a big if.
One could say the same for MetaCritic and RT though. And was it not Jim Sterling who said there's no such thing as an objective review?Hawki said:
Both, really. I can't recall seeing a movie she's been in that I liked in any regard, and I can't think of any performance she's given that was enjoyable either.Happyninja42 said:
You could, but relying on them is far less problematic than IMDB. IMDB's star score has over 4000 user rankings for a film that hasn't even been released for the general populace yet. Of those rankings, over 50% are 1/10. The second highest percentage (nearly 20%) is 10/10. Anyone with any understanding of statistics can tell you that something doesn't add up, because statistics in this case usually follow the bell curve (cluster of results in the centre). Factor in fan rage/love, and suddenly it all adds up. Remember when Batman v Superman was getting 10/10 scores on IMDB before it even released? This is just the opposite.Silentpony said:
Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic at least separate the critic score from the user score, and at least RT and Metacritic don't allow user reviews until after the movie is released. And while there may not be such a thing as an objective review, critics at least have to make the effort to articulate their view and give a rationale for their judgement. User reviews are under no such obligation. It's why I rarely, if ever trust user reviews, and even YouTube personalities are people that I watch more for entertainment rather than informed consent. Metacritic is especially infamous for "review bombing."
If the movie is truly good, Sony should have a rather stern word with the people behind the marketing and trailers since they took a good movie and sold it to their audience in a terrible manner. The kind of stern word a mafia boss (or in the case of Sony, a Yakuza oyabun) has with an underling who accidentally shot his boss' beloved mother. Its one thing to fail at selling a bad movie, there just was not much to work with in the first place so it takes quite a good marketing team to pull the wool over the eyes of the public. To fail at marketing a good movie is pretty much feeding your star racing horse laxatives with the idea that explosive diarrhea might make it run faster. It speaks of incompetence and a hindrance to the project as a whole.
From what I've been told from a review by someone who actively wanted it to be terrible (because terrible movies have their own entertainment value) the trailers are apparently made up of not only some of the worst parts of the movie, but some parts aren't even in it. Like the green laser trap thing, that was at the end of the post-credit scene.Mechamorph said:
Skimming across the internets, the general line seems to be thats it not awful, but probably not beating down the door as an optimal choice to spend your movie money on. The rating generally seems to be stabilized in the 60-70 range.
That and maybe 1 in 10 reviews (positive or negative) have much to say about the actual movie.
That and maybe 1 in 10 reviews (positive or negative) have much to say about the actual movie.
I think there was actually a rationale behind that trailer though. First trailer is designed to appeal to non-Trek fans, selling the film as an action movie. The second (and, IMO, much better) trailer is far more "Treky" and character-focused.undeadsuitor said:
Still has a motorbike in the depths of space in the 23rd century though. 0_0
So, that lst thread was locked because it was too negative, correct?
OT: Unless I'm seeing this movie for free and/or my money's directly going toward the theater I'm watching this in, I still don't see a need to watch this movie any time soon, for example... Then again, I don't think this movie would be as funny, let alone funnier, than Spy... But,that's just me...
Other than that... uh... I got nothing...
OT: Unless I'm seeing this movie for free and/or my money's directly going toward the theater I'm watching this in, I still don't see a need to watch this movie any time soon, for example... Then again, I don't think this movie would be as funny, let alone funnier, than Spy... But,that's just me...
Other than that... uh... I got nothing...
The Hills Have Eyes Remake was great; the sequel to the remake on the other hand...awful and pointless. As far as Ghostbuster's go, I don't care, and have not much interest. If I do see it, I'll go to a Matinee or early morning showing. Sony's underhanded attitude (and encouraging and enabling the media as well) is not helping either. For those who don't understand, take a look at this:Ihateregistering1 said:
<spoiler=Ghostbusters: Sony Hits Back at Fan Backlash>
I still don't want to see it, and honestly I feel like maybe the critics reviewing it are the same people who were trying to crush the complaints of people saying we don't want ghostbusters turned into the PC poster child.