Ghostbusters reviews are...positive!

[Quellist]

I wont lie, the trailers looked like shit and pretty much every scene with Leslie Jones' character made me cringe because in a movie that's supposed to be so forward thinking and feminist how the fuck can they play into such obvious racial stereotyping?

But hey, i'll give it a chance on video...it can't be as bad as Paul Blart 2 can it?

 

[sky14kemea]

Okay Sky, could you nuke this one on principal too?

Honestly I'm very tempted, but I'm gonna give it a chance.

So how come the other thread was locked and this one wasn't?

...or hasn't been yet at least, I suppose.

Because I'm on vacation. Time zone changes are a *****.

Also because the OP asked people questions to start off a discussion, which the other one didn't. But just in case..

[HEADING=2]Mod voice[/HEADING]

Try to keep it civil in here guys. I don't want people fighting over a movie that's barely even out yet.

 

[Vault101]

snip.

there's a difference between someone have opinions/their own political leanings and "having an agenda" to push....it's beyond frustrating (not to mention insulting)having one's existence apparently being part of an "agenda"

I'll say it again, professional reviewers don't give a shit about petty internet drama

(mainly, the "core" Ghostbuster fans)

"core" ghostbusters fans...that's a thing now XD

People keep saying this as though it's a common thing, rather than a few outgroups nobody likes.

it is....

Spoiler: ON THE INTERNET

[img/] https://media.riffsy.com/images/867a7ac40dbdc03d11dfe95f8663d324/raw[/img]

 

[K12]

I'm pretty sure that all the over the top whinging and moaning about this film well before it's release has given it a bit of a boost. Not because of the secret feminist conspiracy in the mainstream media but simply because the bar was set so low that it seems like a miraclous achievement for it to turn out as a moderately enjoyable by-the-numbers action blockbuster remake/reboot instead of the universe-ending, franchise-sodomising flop that everyone seemed to expect.

 

[Achelexus]

Unsurprisingly, if you filter to "top critics only", the Rotten Tomatoes score goes to 50%. Lol

 

[RaikuFA]

I'll still wait to rent it.

 

[UberGott]

I'm not sure why it's particularly surprising: the MO of basically all reboots over the past decade seems to be 'it's ok, but you'll forget about it a day later', which seems to be the general consensus of the reviews. Total Recall, RoboCop, the Hitcher...

Couldn't agree more!

Hills have Eyes

...what.

While the Alexandre Aja remake has a few issues, the original Wes Craven movie is a dull TV movie by comparison. Craven is a great writer, but a mediocre director, which makes how bad the Nightmare on Elm Street remake turned out to be that much worse in the scheme of things.

Ironically the worst thing about the 2004 version of Hills Have Eyes is the fact that it keeps resurrecting twists and characters from the original film that don't quite logically fit in the new film the way they did in the original. When it becomes its' own thing, it's pretty much perfect. Even so, it sits next to The Descent as one of the absolute best horror films of the last decade.



Now as for the Feigbusters flick - I'm sure I'm just dripping with misogyny by any reasonable stretch, but as someone who always liked Rule 63 and wished he had the pocket change to justify getting the Shunya Yamashita figure of some bizarro-universe Jeannine, I had no issue with the advertised premise.

I'm just not especially interested in what Paul Feig and Melissa McCarthy have to add.

Like I've said before, had the same cast been given to Edgar Wright or those two guys who made the Lego Movie, any number of film makers who's talents actually lend themselves to these cheeky genre mash-up movies, maybe we'd have something that didn't look so bland and lazy.

Oh I know - it's currently sitting at a 75% Fresh on RT (with fluctuations up and down a point or two each day), but keep in mind that RT uses a "Pass/Fail" rating. With that in mind, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has a 77% Fresh, and Revenge of the Sith has a 79% Fresh... which means that even by the metrics of "The critics like it!", this is still worse than these two abominations.

Not saying it the movie is or isn't better than the worst Indy and Star Wars movies, respectively. Just pointing out how hollow a victory that seems.

As others have pointed out, those reviews that talk about "YouTube Trolls" and "Sexism" tend to rate the film notably higher than those who just came at it as a comedy sans controversy. Not saying those people are necessarily wrong, but it's an interesting common thread, and I wouldn't be surprised if people who agree with the idea of this movie's behind-the-scenes struggle are more forgiving to the actual media that produced it.

Spoiler

All I know for sure is they kill the series logo by shooting it in the dick.

I just realized that's why they gave it a bow tie. So you KNEW it had a ghost dick.

Did I mention how out of character for the original film the notion of is KILLING GHOSTS is?

I guess if people try really hard they can pretend to like this movie and its theme song. More power to them.

You'd have to pull some Clockwork Orange sh*t to get me to listen to that again.

Forget the trailers, forget the controversy; if there was one thing to hate here, this is it.

Edit: I can grammar. Honest.

 

[happyninja42]

Nah, I don't think you've been paying attention to the news coverage. If you don't like this movie, you're sexist, apparantly.

How strange then, that you can find any number of people who have been critical of the movie without being accused of sexism.

I wonder what sets apart the people being accused of sexism from the ones who aren't....

Movie critics are not an accurate gauge of popular public opinion. [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1289401/reviews?ref_=tt_urv]

Why do I care about popular public opinion in the first place? 2014's top grossing movie was Transformers: Age of Extinction. 2015's was The Force Awakens, which I imagine would also be controversial to many. We would also have to give legitimacy to 50 Shades of Grey, Twilight. Taylor Swift is one of the best musicians of all time, and Call of Duty deserves those high marks every year. This is what happens when you democratise criticism.

That's why I prefer specific critics when deciding on if I should spend my limited entertainment budget on a movie/game. I watch their reviews of things that I've already seen, and if they express similar tastes on why they liked/disliked a film/book/game, then I will take their opinion with more weight than just Rotten Tomatoes, or Metacritic. I don't care what some polling system says, I do care what *Insert Person's Name* has to say, because I've already established we look for the same kinds of things in our entertainment.

I don't see how this is any different from talking to your friends about a movie, and them telling you "It's shit, don't go see it." They likely know what your tastes are in entertainment, if your friends are anything like mine, the reason they are my friends is our shared interests in entertainment. So their opinions have more merit. I still might disagree with them, and sometimes do, but that initial discussion might at least prevent me from taking a risk and seeing it at full price on opening weekend, and instead waiting several months and seeing it at the dollar theater.

Considering how expensive movies are, and how limited my budget is, I'll be damned if I'm just going to go to every thing Hollywood churns out, paying full price, just so I can have some false sense of self satisfaction that I came to my opinion independent of any outside influence. I hate wasting money on shit, so I am selective in what I spend my money on, to try and minimize the amount of shit entertainment that I toss my money at. To do that, I have to get a sense of the material in question from an outside source. This is hardly new to human behavior, or exclusive to entertainment.

Do you go out and buy every car there is, because don't let someone else tell you this is a good/bad car. MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION! Spend your money and drive it, and then spend your money and drive the other car, and the next one, and the next. No, nobody does that. We read reviews of the cars, check publications that rate the quality of the product compared to others of it's similar make/model, and then, after taking that information into consideration, we may or may not spend our money on it. This is considered a practical consumer behavior, and yet somehow, when it comes to movies/games/books/etc, some people tell us to toss this logic out the window, and just spend your money and make your decision. No, I refuse to do that. The individual purchases might be less money each (15 bucks for a ticket compared to 10,000 bucks for a car), but when I'm buying comic after comic, and book after book, and movie after movie, regularly, week after week, year after year, the amount of total money invested adds up quick. There's a reason the entertainment industry is a multi-billion dollar industry. Because we toss LOTS of our money at our entertainment. So no, I'm not just going to ignore the trailers (designed to try and convince me to spend my money by showing me their product), and I'm not going to ignore the reviews. To ignore any outside input just because you don't want to hear it is ludicrous thinking.

Note: The you's used above were the plural use of you, not you specifically Amyss. Sort of went on a rant there, responding to some previous comments by other people, but your post was the original kernel that got me thinking.

 

[Pyrolithic]

In the other, locked thread, I got a bit snarky about being right that it was a soulless failure. I'll take this chance to apologize for being wrong, and not doing my part to double check the sources provided in the thread.

That being said, no, I wont see it. I've seen other movies with Melissa Carthy starring that were rated highly by critics and viewers alike, and I disliked them all. I assume this will be the same, so I'll still pass. Congrats to the people who do like her, though.

That's very big of you.

I'm going to wait and see if the reviews hold, but it seems to me as though this one's just going to be an okay movie. Not an atrocity, but probably not the sequel fans were hoping for. Just the generic "eh" you can expect from a summer reboot.

 

[Something Amyss]

That's why I prefer specific critics when deciding on if I should spend my limited entertainment budget on a movie/game. I watch their reviews of things that I've already seen, and if they express similar tastes on why they liked/disliked a film/book/game, then I will take their opinion with more weight than just Rotten Tomatoes, or Metacritic. I don't care what some polling system says, I do care what *Insert Person's Name* has to say, because I've already established we look for the same kinds of things in our entertainment.

Yeah, I sometimes look at aggregate sites for a brief sort of heads up, but I prefer critics who are known entities, because I usually have a feel for what they like and whether or not I will enjoy a movie based on their recommendations. I used to love 1Up, because I had a good read on their staff and could tell with a good probability whether I'd like an RPG based on what they wrote (even if it was a negative review). I don't have any use for MovieBob, however, because what he likes seems largely a crap shoot (or based on 80s nostalgia I don't share on that level).

To trot out a recent example, I kept checking aggregates on BVSADOJ: Alphabet Soup because I was curious about how it was being received. Granted, I would have been surprised if the movie got like, great reviews, but my interest was deflated by its trailers (it's almost like there's a parallel here) and I was curious as to how it panned out.

Of course, the biggest problem with aggregate sites appears to be the bias they suddenly develop when the scores aren't ones I like. Which is weird to me, because I don't think I've ever thought that a movie I didn't like got good scores because people were paid, or the same for bad scores on a movie I liked. Those accusations always seem to swirl around movies like BVS (it's almost like there's a parallel here).

This is what I find curious about the hunt for the "objective" review, as all reviewers inherently have biases and taste in genre is one of them. Especially since objectivity seems to mean "has views I don't disagree with," since bias appears to only be an issue when people don't like what a reviewer is saying.

Considering how expensive movies are, and how limited my budget is, I'll be damned if I'm just going to go to every thing Hollywood churns out, paying full price, just so I can have some false sense of self satisfaction that I came to my opinion independent of any outside influence. I hate wasting money on shit, so I am selective in what I spend my money on, to try and minimize the amount of shit entertainment that I toss my money at. To do that, I have to get a sense of the material in question from an outside source. This is hardly new to human behavior, or exclusive to entertainment.

Indeed. And even if I had all the money in the world, my time is finite and I don't want to spend all my time just watching every new movie on the chance it might be good. As it is, I'm in the boat where I only really keep up with a handful of shows and I'm struggling to find time to try new ones out. Ones that actually look interesting to me. And this is digital streaming, so I don't have to plot extra time to get to a theater or even a store to be involved.

Note: The you's used above were the plural use of you, not you specifically Amyss. Sort of went on a rant there, responding to some previous comments by other people, but your post was the original kernel that got me thinking.

You might want to remember that in the future.

 

[Cheesy Goodness]

When browsing for a Rotten Tomatoes score, you are usually better off by looking at the average rating instead of the Tomatometer [http://www.mtv.com/news/1939097/rotten-tomatoes-youre-doing-it-wrong/]. The mobile site seems to suspiciously omit that information for some reason. I've learned that the hard way over the years. A 90% fresh rating might not necessarily indicate it is a great movie.

With that in mind, the average rating from RT for Ghostbusters(2016) is 6.5/10, while the Metacritic rating is 60/100. I've said in the past that I don't take much stock in movie scores anymore and find them counterproductive. I tend to trust reviewers I personally like and respect. However, based on these scores, it appears that this movie is probably nothing special whatsoever, but not the plague that the trailers made it look. I read through a few of the written reviews, and they mostly come off a tad wishy-washy, or abysmal in Richard Roeper's case.

I doubt this new movie will break any new ground. The way Sony went about getting it made is morally dubious and cannot be easily ignored by me. I love the original Ghostbusters and will not support what is likely a cheap knockoff.

 

[Chanticoblues]

I'm afraid I'll have to disregard IMDB user reviews whenever a film is even slightly controversial.

You should just ignore them anyways. Have you seen the Top 250? Yikes.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Eh... Seen some decisively negative reviews too.

None of the people whose opinions I care about have actually weighed in yet. Reserve judgement for a rainy day spent on netflix about a year from now.

 

[Gorrath]

Yeah, I sometimes look at aggregate sites for a brief sort of heads up, but I prefer critics who are known entities, because I usually have a feel for what they like and whether or not I will enjoy a movie based on their recommendations.

As someone who really wanted to be a film critic, I wish I could get more people to understand this. Instead of getting mad because a particular critic didn't like something someone liked, the should just find a critic who shares their tastes! Unless someone's in it for film study, criticism is one of the precious few places where only listening to people who think like you is a GOOD idea.

OT: I will see it once it's on Netflix or something. Don't much care about the outpouring of goodwill for it because it plain ass does not look entertaining to me. It doesn't look any less stupid/annoying to me just because some critics cracked a smile at parts.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I just want this average-to-slightly-above-average movie to have it's fun then fade into the background a bit so that next year I can call it "Ghostbusters 2" while pointedly pretending the original GB 2 never happened.

It was surreal watching Ghostbusters 2 get defended as some kind of actually good movie. It's slightly better than Highlander 2, but that's a very low bar.

 

[maninahat]

Unsurprisingly, if you filter to "top critics only", the Rotten Tomatoes score goes to 50%. Lol

I do find that quite surprising, because I see 74% when I filter by top critics (14 fresh, 5 rotten). Am i missing something with RT?

 

[jklinders]

For whatever it's worth, 20 top critics have weighed in on Rotten Tomatoes. Only half of them rate it fresh. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ghostbusters_2016/reviews/?type=top_critics Given how politicized this has become I can easily see how the number may have been skewed by a large number of lesser critics with axes to grind.

If this was not the case then I would suspect that the more established/respected critics would not be quite so divided.

*shrug* Maybe I'll catch it on netflix when my wife isn't home. She's not interested in this shit at all and I'm only interested in the same way i would be a train wreck.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

And if the popularity of Transformers and Call of Duty are anything to go by, neither are user reviews like the ones you posted.

Really, this is the last movie I would ever put any stock into the user reviews for, if its not people who haven't seen it review bombing it, then its defenders who haven't seen it giving it perfect 10's.


As Hawki said, the controversy has made user review aggregates less reliable than they usually are, and their reliability is questionable at the best of times as any sort of controversy tends to draw review bombing, and this movie had stupid amounts of controversy online.

If user reviews were an accurate gauge of public opinion, then Adam Sandler movies wouldn't make money, Call of Duty games wouldn't get made any more, and Michael Bay would be broke.

How much a movie makes at the box office has much more to do with advertising and how well-known it is than any actual overall good will toward the film.

 

[maninahat]

Yeah, I sometimes look at aggregate sites for a brief sort of heads up, but I prefer critics who are known entities, because I usually have a feel for what they like and whether or not I will enjoy a movie based on their recommendations.

As someone who really wanted to be a film critic, I wish I could get more people to understand this. Instead of getting mad because a particular critic didn't like something someone liked, the should just find a critic who shares their tastes! Unless someone's in it for film study, criticism is one of the precious few places where only listening to people who think like you is a GOOD idea.

OT: I will see it once it's on Netflix or something. Don't much care about the outpouring of goodwill for it because it plain ass does not look entertaining to me. It doesn't look any less stupid/annoying to me just because some critics cracked a smile at parts.

I'm not sure I agree. I think it is less important to find critics who's tastes match yours, than to find critics who's opinions are familiar enough that you know when and when not to act on their recommendation. You are going to have trouble finding a critic who's opinions are going to 1:1 match with yours, so you might as well refer to a few familiar critics and draw a decision from them. I tend to disregard Moviebob's opinions specifically on comic book movies, because I find he tends to oversell them, but I will trust Mark Kermode's views on the same movies because he shares my fatigued optimism for them. But with other types of movies, it may be the other way around.