Ghostbusters reviews are...positive!

[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.

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.

Well I wasn't suggesting that a person needs to find a critic who matches their every opinion, that is a ridiculous standard. But finding a critic who has similar tastes can help one know very much what they'll think of a film. If you can find several, all the better. If you can find one who's opposite day you, that works too. I think you took my meaning more literally than I intended it. The point is, find a critic who helps you make good decisions about what movies to see instead of raging against the RT/Metacritic machine.

 

[cikame]

I've learned over time that the movies i enjoy most review poorly, and that high to very highly rated films are full of scenes with extended talking.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

It was always going to be needlessly and nastily condemned because of the all female cast.

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

Sure, completely agree, I don't think it was an event of mass sexism from "every day folk" (whatever that means) or anything but the way it was presented was, to my mind, deliberately intended to created controversy or interest, and that was always going to bring out the fringe reactionary morons - the "outgroups" you mention.

Pretty much that, yeah. It's like with the latest Star Wars movie. Nobody really gave a shit about a black storm trooper or Rey.

I must admit I personally was wearied by the "look an all female cast" approach, it would have been much classier to have just released it without comment.

I started actively hating the movie by the time Sony attempted to cover their asses by saying that all critics of the movie were mysoginists.

It's shame because I don't feel the film cannot be judged on its merits now, I just don't believe that critics were ever going to say it was awful, they were always going to challenge that very, very small minority.

I don't know. If the trailers were anything to go by they were really, really bad, and later stuff I've read by Feigh first made me even more angry and then made me pitty the man (he seems to believe that male bonding is all bullying, for example).

Furthermore, I actually think the movie is kind of racist, with making the large black woman stupid and highly aggressive.

 

[stormtrooper9091]

I think that's bullshit. The highly aggressive media campaign made it so if you don't like the movie, it HAS to be misogyny and SURELY not because the movie is out of place for the current times

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I might see it out of curiosity, but I'll admit my interest is pretty low. The trailers didn't sell me on it, the "dreamboat male secretary getting possessed because Cheap Zuul callback" plot device kind of slightly irks me - but I'm leagues and bounds away from the howler monkeys calling it a failure because "teh wimminz".

 

[stormtrooper9091]

teh wimminz is actually a smoke screen to cover up the raging racism the movie gets away with, you know, the black person being "streetsmart" and wise cracking

 

[Mangod]

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.

Look, can we all just stop spreading the lie that a Highlander sequel exists? Because there isn't one.

And... you've met people who defend Ghostbusters 2? It's just Ghostbusters - The Shit Version; how does anyone defend a movie who's only distinguishing attribute is that it's a worse version of an already existing movie?

 

[Cap'nPipsqueak]

The movie's theme is an offence to the ear.

 

[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.

Look, can we all just stop spreading the lie that a Highlander sequel exists? Because there isn't one.

And... you've met people who defend Ghostbusters 2? It's just Ghostbusters - The Shit Version; how does anyone defend a movie who's only distinguishing attribute is that it's a worse version of an already existing movie?

Has no one at all on this website, or more broadly in this hobby, heard the phrase, "De gustibus non disputandem est"

Anyone?

The Internet is no fun without hyperbole. I mean, no one actually believes Highlander 2: the Sorcerer doesn't exist, but it's a fun thing to pretend.

 

[happyninja42]

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.

Look, can we all just stop spreading the lie that a Highlander sequel exists? Because there isn't one.

And... you've met people who defend Ghostbusters 2? It's just Ghostbusters - The Shit Version; how does anyone defend a movie who's only distinguishing attribute is that it's a worse version of an already existing movie?

I like Ghostbusters 2. Got a problem with that? Come at me bro!

Seriously though, you seem baffled that someone can *gasp* like that movie. I am equally baffled that someone can be so hateful of what was basically an ok movie. It's not shit, it's not great, it's a decent movie. It's a rehash of the original, but you can say that of every Indiana Jones movie. They've got the same plot structure, just different paint job. Yet somehow those movies are beyond reproach, and yet GB 2 is gleefully shit on by original movie fanboys for 3 decades? Seems a bit overzealous to me. You don't like the movie, fine. But please don't act like it's some atrocity to humanity, and vilify people that simply liked it and thought it was an enjoyable movie. If you really have to center your sense of self on "GB 2 is HORRIBLE and fuck anyone that likes it!" Then you've got some serious issues. It's a movie, get over it. It didn't rape your childhood, it didn't devalue the quality of the original. It didn't do anything other than not live up to your likely unrealistic standards of a sequel, something most sequels fail to do historically. It's not like it's a unique thing to GB 2 that it's not as good as the original. But that's not the same thing as it being terrible or some affront to the world.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

Fans really need to make peace with the fact that that sequel was never going to happen. And there's some irony in the fact that so much of the fanbase cheered Murray on for basically filibustering the chance for it to happen. MovieBob actually called this happening, BTW, years ago saying something like they needed to get their act together and get Murray onboard before one of the principles died and there was an inevitable reboot.

And here we are.

Look, can we all just stop spreading the lie that a Highlander sequel exists? Because there isn't one.

Hey, Highlander 2: The Final Dimension was okay. Though...

And... you've met people who defend Ghostbusters 2? It's just Ghostbusters - The Shit Version; how does anyone defend a movie who's only distinguishing attribute is that it's a worse version of an already existing movie?

...it was basically that. But at least it had Mario Van Peebles and Mako hamming it up for the camera.

I think part of the fondness people have for Ghostbusters 2:Getting the Band Back Together was based on timing. I'm 36, and most of the big fans in the franchise seem to be in my age range. Ghostbusters came out when I was 4. I was 9 when the sequel came out. While I had seen the first one by then (thanks, HBObama!) 2 was the one I saw first in theaters, like many of my peers. It was a more kid-friendly version, driven no doubt partially by the cartoon and toys. The characters were somewhat flanderised (mostly Peter), the bad guy wasn't an androgynous sex god(dess), Peter was less ambiguously rapey, there were more catchphrases, and the message was more overtly positive (emphasis on overtly).

I'm betting parents preferred this version for their kids, and so it's what people grew up with.

 

[Something Amyss]

If it was utter garbage or undeniably brilliant then it'd finally put this stupid fucking argument to rest. The winning side would crow about it for a few weeks then we'd all move on, maybe bring it up every now and again to score internet points.

Come on, do you think that was gong to stop anybody?

I mean honestly.

 

[stormtrooper9091]

teh wimminz is actually a smoke screen to cover up the raging racism the movie gets away with, you know, the black person being "streetsmart" and wise cracking

So you're another who's overwhelmed with outraged at the perceived racism perpetrated by a black woman against black women? I'll say to what I said to the other guy who expressed that dubious view, and that's the fact that you've chosen a bizarrely contrived and inconsequential ground to fight that battle on.

So I doubt your sincerity too.

I've learned over time that the movies i enjoy most review poorly, and that high to very highly rated films are full of scenes with extended talking.

More of a Michael Bay fan?

you're using buzzwords unironically, therefore I have nothing more to tell you

 

[Eliam_Dar]

If you filter top critics only, it goes down to 50%. Additionally metacritic is 59%. So no, reviews are not positive. Only positive when you filter them out in a certain way.

 

[CaitSeith]

Unfortunately, given all the politics of this movie, it is one of those movies that I'll just have to ignore reviews for on both sides. The haters are determined to hate it, but the defenders are determined to find it worthy at all costs. This means I can't know if the politics are shaping the reviews or not.

Does that mean you'll watch it and evaluate it by yourself?

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

of the reboots I've watched, the 3 most recent that spring to mind are Robocop (hated it), Total Recall (hated it), Jurassic World (so so). So although its great this reboot is meant to be doing well, I'll wait for it to be on a streaming service until I watch it.

 

[RJ 17]

Well of course the critics are going to like it...as has already been made abundantly clear: anyone who says anything bad about it will be absolutely crucified while any legitimate points of criticism they bring up will be hand-waved as just being the remarks of someone who's clearly sexist.

Could it be good? Sure, why not? I haven't seen it so I can't judge it. Don't intend to see it for pretty much all the reasons James Rolfe laid out.

Just saying I'm not surprised at all that it's being well received by the critics. If it's well received by audiences as well, then good for them, they made a movie that people were able to enjoy.