Ghostbusters reviews are...positive!

[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.

 

[Vigormortis]

Once again, I'm going to repeat what I said in the other (now locked) thread:

I feel like the whole 'controversy' surrounding the film can best be summed up by the RT review summary from Stephen Whitty -
"None of it adds up to much more than an average summer entertainment - never bad enough to warrant the chauvinist hatred, rarely good enough to deserve the feminist support."

There. See? It sides with no one. See it if you want to. Ignore it if you don't.

Can we all calm the fuck down now?

No? Okay then. But, if that be the case, I'll be damned if I'm not gonna try enjoying the train wreck of a shitstorm that'll brew from the reviews.

I'll get the popcorn. Someone wanna bring the drinks?

So I was just at IMDB and the reviews are abysmal. Like 3.6 bad.

Relying on IMDB for objective feedback is like expecting the sun to go nova in our lifetime. It isn't going to happen.

Now, see...you had to just go and say it, didn't you?

I swear, Hawki, if the sun goes nova at some point this week, I will hunt you down and poke you with a pen...

snip

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...

 

[Derekloffin]

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?

Yep, although very likely not in theaters as I don't pay money for movies I'm not very confident in liking. Doesn't say much though, as I'm very picky when it comes to seeing movies in the theaters.

 

[Saltyk]

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?

Your post made me curious so I went and checked.

Ghostbusters ratings as of the time of this post:
All Critics: 78% Fresh: 67 Rotten: 19
Top Critics: 48% Fresh: 10 Rotten: 11

 

[Hawki]

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'd hardly say that "it's not as good as the first" is much of a criticism. Also, while I've never seen anyone claim that GB2 is better than one, I'd say it's a far cry away from being "shit."

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

Anyone?

You're new to the Internet aren't you?

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.

Filtering top critics is the filtering, viewing the aggregate as it is is the non-filtered version. Also, by definition, 59% is still positive, and there's still more positive than mixed reviews on Metacritic.

I'll hand it to people who filter by "top critics." That's a new standard of trying to prove their point.

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.

Um, Jurassic World isn't a reboot. A soft reboot, maybe, but it explicitly takes place after the original Jurassic Park.

I'll agree with it being so-so (albeit still enjoyable). Also, quite liked the Total Recall remake, though admittedly I saw it before the original. Both are "good" movies in my mind, even if the original slightly wins out. The bile to the TR remake is also baffling to me - both ultimately owe their existence to a short story by Phillip K. Dick, and the remake has enough differences aesthetically and in terms of worldbuilding and characterization to make it stand on its own IMO.

So I was just at IMDB and the reviews are abysmal. Like 3.6 bad.

Relying on IMDB for objective feedback is like expecting the sun to go nova in our lifetime. It isn't going to happen.

Now, see...you had to just go and say it, didn't you?

I swear, Hawki, if the sun goes nova at some point this week, I will hunt you down and poke you with a pen...

Heh, good luck finding me. But on the bright side, if the sun does go nova, my thoughts will probably be very short, very painful, and along the lines of "oh God oh God oh God oh IT BURNSSSS!"

 

[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.

Um, Jurassic World isn't a reboot. A soft reboot, maybe, but it explicitly takes place after the original Jurassic Park.

I'll agree with it being so-so (albeit still enjoyable). Also, quite liked the Total Recall remake, though admittedly I saw it before the original. Both are "good" movies in my mind, even if the original slightly wins out. The bile to the TR remake is also baffling to me - both ultimately owe their existence to a short story by Phillip K. Dick, and the remake has enough differences aesthetically and in terms of worldbuilding and characterization to make it stand on its own IMO.

To be fair, I previously got corrected when I refereed to Jurassic as a sequel, so I give up and can't keep up with the changing definitions.

The aesthetic is different enough, but it's always going to be compared to it's name sake regardless. The PKD story was We Can Remember It for You Wholesale, so no need for the 2012 movie to be called Recall for anything other than branding.

I'm not the least bit upset by these sequel/reboots, just a little cynical of them. I enjoyed the originals more (especially when we talk about the 2014 Robocop), and think the best bet with these things is to wait for a cheaper alternative than cinema; if it's bad I haven't lost out much, if it's good it's a nice surprise.

 

[Hawki]

A ghostbusters movie could have worked. A reboot is just essentially less interesting than a movie that builds upon what there already is.

Comicbookgirl19 did a great video about this, where she essentially said: "where's the ghostbuster movie that takes place 20 years after the previous events, where ghostbusters has grown to a giant merchandise and kid's toys corporation, someone comes across the ghost capturing device in the basement, nobody knows what it does, so it is unplugged and all the ghosts come out and they have to figure out how to stop them with old riggedy equipment."

And sure, while you're at it, you could make it an all female team. Instead they made it an all female team and called it a day. Omg so progressive so 2016. They even rehashed the hearse joke and put itin the trailer.

I think that may be at work why the jurrassic park sequel works better than the robocop and total recall reboots. The artists aren't stimulated in the same way if it isn't new ground, some will refuse to work on it, those that do usually do it with less enthusiasm.

"you're going to be the thousandth on the moon" just doesn't hold the same appeal as being the first. It is just a creativity killer.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that. At the end of the day, I'd have preferred a Ghostbusters sequel to a reboot/remake, but I can't get that upset about it, even if were that big a fan of the original.

Thing is, Ghostbusters has always had more than one continuity. The original movie kicks things off. The plot then branches into the two cartoon series on one side, and GB2 and the game on the other. That's not even including every other piece of spinoff media (e.g. comics) that's been done. So when you're starting a new continuity in the Ghostbusters franchise, there's long been a precedent for that. So it's why I've never been one to jump on the bandwagon in this case. Sure, it's another remake/reboot, but how Ghostbusters of all things gathered such vitriol has been a bit beyond me.

As for the other examples...well, I actually consider both Total Recall films to be better than JW, though in the case of the TR remake, I'm almost certainly in the minority there. In my mind, JW is actually slightly problematic as a sequel because it suffers from thematic dissonance when compared to the first film. 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. Like I said, I actually like JW, but if someone announced a remake of JP, I wouldn't be that upset. Miffed, perhaps, but for a film that was adapted from a book, a re-adaptation is fair game to me.

Both Total Recall films work IMO for the reasons I described above. I know Total Recall the original got a pseudo-sequel, but given how TR (original) ends, I don't see how you could do a satisfying sequel. The ending of the film is based on ambiguity, and even if a sequel doesn't even mention Quaid, I don't see how it could exist without mentioning that either a) Mars not has a breathable atmosphere and is independent, thus making Quaid's actions real, or b) Mars is still an arid, airless world, thus explaining that Quaid was dreaming. Alright, technically you could avoid all that, but then I'd feel you'd be getting into "in name only" territory. To contrast it, Blade Runner, while in no need of a sequel IMO (and there's always the Jeter books for those who wanted one), still has a rich enough world and a plenthora of concepts to work with.

So, yeah. At the end of the day, would I have preferred a Ghostbusters sequel rather than a remake? Yeah, pretty much. Do I think there needed to be this level of vitriol over the existence of said remake? No, not at all. There's always been a precedent for more than one Ghostbusters continuity.

 

[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?

Your post made me curious so I went and checked.

Ghostbusters ratings as of the time of this post:
All Critics: 78% Fresh: 67 Rotten: 19
Top Critics: 48% Fresh: 10 Rotten: 11

Hmm, I think their tomatometer on the movies mainpage is buggered. Your count is correct, but it is still showing as 68% on there.

 

[VoidWanderer]

For the few reviews I did read, they emphasis how funny the movie is, and how good the comedians are. Everything else was less impressive, but the comedians were good, and the movie was funny. And the movie drew no attention to the fact that they were women. Which makes me wonder, where the hell the trailer footage came from?

 

[Amir Kondori]

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.

You don't know that you are wrong. 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.

This one will be a Netflix watch for me.

 

[DarthCoercis]

I saw it and the only bits that were entertaining in any way were Chris Hemsworth's scenes. The rest was like an SNL sketch done in front of a green screen. It just wasn't possible to suspend disbelief.

 

[sXeth]

Having seen it now.

Aside from the post-Sandler unsubtle comedy styling of slapstick and toilet humor that I have a particular dislike. Its uhm, a movie?

Its basically the same sequel of any movie that follows ye olde sequel checklist. Most of its rehashing or referencing the original, except slightly weaker characterization and writing. Its higher budget, but whether that marks any improvement is going to depend on your aesthetic taste in CGI vs Practical and so on.

The main thing that is drastically different is that this has a human villain (as oppposed to Goza, who was barely even in the first movie) or Vigo the talking painting/pink slime. Who is probably the weakest character on board, and has the approximate character oft he protagonist of "Hatred" (PG-ified of course) "I'm awkard and misunderstoood! Thereby EVERYTHING ENDS NOW!"


On the Highlander scale, its prettymuch a 3.

 

[happyninja42]

Having seen it now.

Aside from the post-Sandler unsubtle comedy styling of slapstick and toilet humor that I have a particular dislike. Its uhm, a movie?

Its basically the same sequel of any movie that follows ye olde sequel checklist. Most of its rehashing or referencing the original, except slightly weaker characterization and writing. Its higher budget, but whether that marks any improvement is going to depend on your aesthetic taste in CGI vs Practical and so on.

The main thing that is drastically different is that this has a human villain (as oppposed to Goza, who was barely even in the first movie) or Vigo the talking painting/pink slime.

Well to be fair, both original movies had a human be possessed by an evil spirit, and that actor was a victim/antagonist for most of the movie, so it's not too out of place I would say? Yes eventually the badguy became some evil spirit/god thingy, but as you said, that is usually at the end.

On the Highlander scale, its prettymuch a 3.

Define your scale Are you saying it's as good as Highlander 3? Or on a Highlander scale, with the original being 10/10, this is a 3?

 

[Orga777]

The 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.

 

[sXeth]

On the Highlander scale, its prettymuch a 3.

Define your scale Are you saying it's as good as Highlander 3? Or on a Highlander scale, with the original being 10/10, this is a 3?

Highlander 3 - Mostly rehash. Odd character additions/subtractions. But mostly forgettable and didn't really try anything new (4), do bizarre things with the lore that made no sense (2), or turn into a random CGI acid trip of WTFIsGoingOn (5)

 

[Areloch]

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?

Your post made me curious so I went and checked.

Ghostbusters ratings as of the time of this post:
All Critics: 78% Fresh: 67 Rotten: 19
Top Critics: 48% Fresh: 10 Rotten: 11

Hmm, I think their tomatometer on the movies mainpage is buggered. Your count is correct, but it is still showing as 68% on there.

I've seen some comments of people supposing that some reviews may be filtered out by region respective of who's viewing the page. That may be related?

Having seen it now.

Aside from the post-Sandler unsubtle comedy styling of slapstick and toilet humor that I have a particular dislike. Its uhm, a movie?

Its basically the same sequel of any movie that follows ye olde sequel checklist. Most of its rehashing or referencing the original, except slightly weaker characterization and writing. Its higher budget, but whether that marks any improvement is going to depend on your aesthetic taste in CGI vs Practical and so on.

The main thing that is drastically different is that this has a human villain (as oppposed to Goza, who was barely even in the first movie) or Vigo the talking painting/pink slime. Who is probably the weakest character on board, and has the approximate character oft he protagonist of "Hatred" (PG-ified of course) "I'm awkard and misunderstoood! Thereby EVERYTHING ENDS NOW!"


On the Highlander scale, its prettymuch a 3.

So, how do the characters actually fare? Because the trailers basically highlighted them as "The mad scientist/nerd, the fat crazy one, the sassy black and....that other one that's there".
The herse scene that's been used in teasers felt like they were doing a comedy skit for a show instead of an in-character scene from a movie.

 

[sXeth]

So, how do the characters actually fare? Because the trailers basically highlighted them as "The mad scientist/nerd, the fat crazy one, the sassy black and....that other one that's there".
The herse scene that's been used in teasers felt like they were doing a comedy skit for a show instead of an in-character scene from a movie.

Venkman/Egon merged for the main character, Ray-expy, Hudson-expy (except more slapsticky), and yeah, just kind of there because they combined two characters rehash into one main.

 

[Areloch]

So, how do the characters actually fare? Because the trailers basically highlighted them as "The mad scientist/nerd, the fat crazy one, the sassy black and....that other one that's there".
The herse scene that's been used in teasers felt like they were doing a comedy skit for a show instead of an in-character scene from a movie.

Venkman/Egon merged for the main character, Ray-expy, Hudson-expy (except more slapsticky), and yeah, just kind of there because they combined two characters rehash into one main.

Ah, unfortunate. Was hoping the trailers were just bad cuts and the characters weren't as 'eh' as the trailers made it all seem.