User avatar
By Kingpin
Moderator
#4871811
Image

It's been 32 years, 1 month, 8 days, and an incalculable number of hours since the original Ghostbusters first premiered, and a lot has come along, gone away and changed in that time.

Paul Feig's Ghostbusters had the unenviable task of following the fondly remembered and much-loved 1984 original, and even acknowledging the obvious comparisons between the two, the newest outing of the Ghostbusters does feature a lot of similar, if not identical story beats to its predecessor.

Going into the screening there was the apprehensive concern that the new film wouldn't live up to expectations, that it would re-tread of the original; bringing nothing new to the table, and that the cast would suffer from the stereotypes and preconceptions that had been presented or formed by the initial round of trailers.

Fortunately, that isn't all there is to the film.

Click here to read more.
AJ Quick, tito, J10kmn and 5 others liked this
User avatar
By Kingpin
Moderator
#4871812
Continued from previous post.

This Review Contains Spoilers!

While the 2016 reboot has adopted some lessons employed by The Force Awakens last year, it has also tried to bring in some new content which isn't derived from the original.

During the course of the movie we get a good look into the development, testing and evolution of the equipment, and for the first time in the films, we're shown how other members of the paranormal investigation community respond to the arrival and escapades of the Ghostbusters.

One of the strongest story elements at the heart of the 2016 film is friendship, and while the few moments of genuine discord from the 1984 offering were left on the cutting room floor, in the reboot they're front and center as Erin (Kristen Wiig) and Abby (Melissa McCarthy) first confront each other after spending years apart, and with their friendship on the rocks. While their friendship endures a few more bumps and strong disagreements during the course of the film, by the end credits it emerges stronger, thanks to the experiences from the battle against Rowan, its aftermath, and the vindication not just of their theories by of their efforts to save New York.

With Patty (Leslie Jones), it became clear that her character had suffered the most due to the early trailers, which had condensed her character to a shouting, angry stereotype. And while there are a scattering of moments where she lives up to initial impression, for the greater part of the film she proves insightful, and even helpful with her knowledge of New York's history, and her quickly-growing loyalty to her oddball teammates. In contrast to the original film, as Patty is introduced earlier into the plot than Ernie Hudson's Winston, she feels like an equal member of the team much sooner.

Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) will either end up being some watchers's favorite character, or least favorite, depending on their experience. Her eccentricity is consistent throughout, and often very strong, making her an incredibly memorable character from the reboot. McKinnon's delivery of the character shines brightest when in her technological element, but there are scenes where she's more reserved that help to diversify her performance.

Kevin (Chris Hemsworth) is another character with whom we've been given a reasonably accurate idea of how he'll be in the full film. While his character will prove divisive, he does end up being memorable, stealing a number of the scenes that he features in, and these will likely help establish his range as a comedic actor, building on 2015's National Lampoon's Vacation reboot.

Ed Mulgrave (Ed Begley Jr.) was a brief, but fun character role from the veteran actor, playing the Aldridge Mansion historian.

On the topic of visuals, this is where the reboot will shine. There are a lot of varied ghost designs in the film, most of which are visually impressive and vivid in color. The scene starting with the Times Square transformation and following battle sequence is one of the best moments in the entire film (benefiting also from the music) and the proton streams are as energetic and colorful as they should be, as we remember them to be.

As for the music, Theodore Shapiro's score presents an appropriate level of scale for the smaller, more personable scenes between the core cast members, and then builds up for the action and busting sequences. Of particular note were the little orchestral teases of the classic Ghostbusters theme song by Ray Parker Jr., which build up to something very special in the battle of Times Square.

The commercial music is used sparingly through the film, and even though there are three separate versions of the Ghostbusters theme (including Ray Parker Jr.'s original), they fitted the scenes they were used in, and helped set the tone.


While Ghostbusters has plenty of strengths, it does also have some prominent flaws.

The first, and one of the biggest flaws will be the trailers, in aiming to set the tone of the film and its characters, the trailers have done an absolutely terrible job. Employing footage which has subsequently been cut, editing and butchering the dialogue, they've presented a warped narrative and made the characters more stereotypical and less likable than they actually are.

Rowan (Neil Casey) does suffer from a lack of character development, becoming a stock Hollywood villain, bitter at the world for how he's been treated. It is the understanding of this reviewer that the tie-in books to the film reveal more details about Rowan's past, and depending on their execution, his character could have benefited from their inclusion.

Mayor Bradley (Andy Garcia) will prove to be one of the biggest disappointments, as it soon becomes apparent that he is an incompetent buffoon, and a sad waste of a talented actor.

Jennifer Lynch (Cecily Strong), serving as the Mayor's aid, proved to be least likable character in the reboot, and not for the reasons that were likely intended. While Lynch's character comes off as abrasive, slimy, unlikable and a bit of a bitch, Strong's delivery felt awkward, resulting in a poor imitation of the superior Walter Peck (William Atherton).

The dance sequence, which had proven as a point of concern for many in the run up to the film has thankfully been removed from the main plot, but does play out during the end credits, leaving the impression that it should have been left on the cutting floor entirely.

The film will also suffer from the same criticism that affected The Force Awakens: that it is too similar in points of the plot to a previous installment in the franchise.

Additional, though smaller criticisms include some plot holes - not gigantic, but enough to upset the flow or story a little, as well as some continuity issues with some of the skyline shots and the equipment and uniforms.


Despite its flaws however, Ghostbusters: Answer the Call had a convincing feel of friendship, good camaraderie between the four Ghostbusters, great visuals and music, fun cameos and references, and a lot of promise. The reboot universe has gotten off to a rocky start, with much controversy, but if they can iron out the wrinkles... should Feig and his cast be given a sequel, they might be able improve on both the bad points and the good.

A final note, while sticking around for the scene at the end of the credits, keep your eyes open for an additional tribute to Harold Ramis, and to Ryan Kemp, a Ghostbusters fan who sadly passed away late last year.
Troy, Alphagaia, Scum and 11 others liked this
By spynet315
#4871849
I was against this movie from the beginning, but I did go see it to be fair and give it a chance. I tried very hard, but I have to say this movie was mediocre at best. I liked the style of humor, but the deliveries were all wrong. Hemsworth's character was cringe worthy. Oh, he put the phone in the fish tank? Har dee f****g harr harr.... It was disappointing because I could see the potential that this film had! It could have actually been very good, but they fell a bit short.
deadderek liked this
By SlimerBobblehead
#4871854
Good review. I enjoyed the movie even if I felt it was lacking in certain areas. I think the 4 women did a great job, though. I'll probably go see it again just because Ghostbusters. Oh, and it was great in 3D!

I will say that I missed the intelligent, non stop witty humor of the original.

Edited because my comment was totally TL; DR
Last edited by SlimerBobblehead on July 15th, 2016, 10:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By Styrofoam_Guy
#4871861
I just came back from seeing it and I did enjoy it. The commercials were terrible and I was afraid it wold be a flop.

Previews of the equipment made them look unimpressive and I think added to the negativity to the movie. When they first announced the movie I was not for it and the all female cast seemed like a gimmick. However i was going to go see the movie and didn't want to judge until I saw it. The same with Star Wars TFA.

I am happy to say I and my friends who were there with me enjoyed it. Now to look for reference photos to think about all the props that were in the movie.
User avatar
By Tyrael
#4871865
Very well-stated, Kingpin. It was enjoyable in its own sense, I think. If you go in expecting it to be Ramis and Akyroyd's style of humor, you'll be disappointed. If you enjoy Feig's brand of humor, you'll enjoy this film.
Scum liked this
User avatar
By Kingpin
Moderator
#4871891
spynet315 wrote:Oh, he put the phone in the fish tank? Har dee f****g harr harr....


The phone was already in the fish tank before he was hired.

Styrofoam_Guy wrote:Now to look for reference photos to think about all the props that were in the movie.


It struck me this morning that tbe Mark 3 Proton Packs didn't really receive any detail/close-up/beauty shots, leaving us a bit in the dark about the animation of the animated elements, and the function of the switches on the Proton Gun. I don't even think we see anything on-screen that reveals the vent actually lit up.
User avatar
By robbritton
#4871910
Fair review. I would argue that the Andy Garcia and Cecily Strong characters are much stronger once you accept that this is a universe where everyone is playing it broad, rather than just the three start up GBs and Rick Moranis in the original. the
Eat, Pray, Love and Jaws
This Post Contains Spoilers
lines are great, for example.

Overall, I honestly loved it. I laughed out loud, so did other people in the four screenings I have seen so far. It's a very different beast, but it's a very, very funny one and that's what I'm in for, really.
By spynet315
#4871963
Kingpin wrote:
The phone was already in the fish tank before he was hired.


That doesn't really make it any better, but instead of that how about when he was trying to grab the phone through the glass, or when he was covering his eyes because there was a loud sound... He was dumb to a degree that went past comedy and landed on stupid.

I did really like Holtzman, though. She was one of the few things that made me laugh in the movie. The action scenes were pretty good too, but there weren't enough of them. They just tried too hard to be funny, and the result was that it wasn't funny for me. Kids might like it, though. I liked a lot of questionable stuff when I was a kid.
deadderek liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4871983
Kingpin wrote:
spynet315 wrote:Oh, he put the phone in the fish tank? Har dee f****g harr harr....


The phone was already in the submarine for fish before he was hired.


FTFY.
Kingpin, EJLambert liked this
User avatar
By Demon Vice Commander
#4871986
Kingpin wrote:It struck me this morning that tbe Mark 3 Proton Packs didn't really receive any detail/close-up/beauty shots, leaving us a bit in the dark about the animation of the animated elements, and the function of the switches on the Proton Gun. I don't even think we see anything on-screen that reveals the vent actually lit up.


There's that close-up shot in the first trailer of the Mk. III, but other than that we don't have a lot to go on. Hopefully there will be some useful stuff in the deleted scenes/extras on the DVD.
By Ryusui
#4872028
When the movie was first announced, I was lukewarm about it, at best. As we got more info, it at least started looking interesting. And then the first trailer came out - I felt as if the movie was going to be utter garbage. I absolutely hated it. But then we got a few more trailers and it started looking better, and I felt like I still wanted to give it a chance.

I'm really glad I did.

I still find the first trailer absolutely deplorable, and some of the gags from it which made it into the final cut ("power of Patty") are still awful in my mind. But overall I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It made me laugh a lot, and I really liked each actress' portrayal of their Ghostbusters characters a lot more than I thought I was going to. And in similar fashion, though I didn't like (and on some level, still don't) the Fall Out Boy version of the theme song, I felt that it fit quite well in its placement of the movie. It worked.

Speaking of music, I was very impressed with their score being so closely tied to the original movie. It didn't even sound like a 1908s score in a modern movie. It just sounded like a score that was written for a movie of this type and it really was amazing.

I also thought that it was fantastic to see the development and testing of the gear. Really, I just liked seeing it in action more than we did in the original movie. That was always my only complaint about the original two movies - not enough busting. This one provided a great amount of actual busting work. And though I know it would have been hard to fit it in based on the storyline and runtime, I still would have liked at least 1 or 2 more actual busting cases like the concert.

The gear design is fantastic. I will always love and prefer the original equipment, but this new generation still has that same "we built it with what we had" feel, while feeling like it could actually be a real piece of equipment out there in the world. It just looks cool.

I hated Kevin's character, though. He was just a level of stupid that surpassed my ability to believe. The mayor and his aide were also quite annoying and rather extreme in their portrayals. William Atherton did very well at playing an abrasive character, without seeming as if he was completely over-the-top. Not os much with these two. Also, I did find the cameos and references a bit forced.

If I were to rank this movie, it would be at least a 7/10. I'd definitely like to see it in theaters again.
User avatar
By Kingpin
Moderator
#4872102
spynet315 wrote:That doesn't really make it any better


Probably not, no... but if something's going to be criticised, it's better it's criticised accurately. :) He was a dumb character, but not without his amusing moments.

Demon Vice Commander wrote:There's that close-up shot in the first trailer of the Mk. III, but other than that we don't have a lot to go on. Hopefully there will be some useful stuff in the deleted scenes/extras on the DVD.


Hopefully, yeah.
User avatar
By joeghostbuster
#4872899
my 2 cents....

when I saw an advanced screening last Thursday, it was a full house, everyone was laughing, it seemed to go over really well, and I was swept up in the magic of a new Ghostbusters film, it was like being a kid again. I told myself that I enjoyed it, that it wasn't the dumpster fire of a train-wreck that a lot of fanboys were claiming it was. it seemed like things were gonna be okay...

but yesterday I drove an hour to the closest 3D IMAX theater to watch it again.

there were 10 people in the theater. a few teenage girls who were most likely there to see Chris Hemsworth in 3d, a group of 50-somethings, and me and my nephew and his friend. TEN people. in a massive IMAX room.

hardly anyone laughed out loud, including myself. the 3d effects are a nice touch, they have the letterbox black bars on top & bottom of the screen, and they did the effects so that the proton beams & other fx went past the bars, to make it feel like they were jumping off the screen into the room. very cool.

of course I am in love with Kate McKinnon in this role, she stole the show. overall the acting wasnt bad, Leslie Jones isnt anywhere near as annoying as people make her out to be (she certainly didnt deserve the amount of racism & hate she received on her twitter page, that is just totally disgusting behavior for someone who calls themselves a human being).

the idea of female Ghostbusters appeals to me, I dont know if it was necessarily this particular group of girls that I would have liked (they werent bad by any means, but I think I would prefer to see these roles given to actors and actresses who are funny, as opposed to giving the roles to comedians who are also actors), maybe someone else could have done better with what they were given for a script and direction.

basically as a Ghostbusters fan I was let down. it's garbage compared to the original, it's more of a kids movie than a movie for long time fans. it was nice seeing cameos by the originals, and of course the NY firehouse facade combined with a gorgeous movie set that looks exactly like the interior of the LA firehouse did in '84.

apparently the original cut was over 3 hours long, so they left alot out for this 2 hour theatrical release, I do plan on buying it when it comes to bluray, so I can see what wasnt included.

so basically Sony may have tried their darndest to make this a good movie, but it was a stinker. I give it 2 out of 5 stars. Harold Ramis deserved better. We all deserve better. Hopefully SONY doesnt wash their hands of Ghostbusters and we never see anything again, whether it's movies or merchandise. Hopefully they give the next film to a better writer, director and a group of actors (AND actresses) that can really do something wonderful with it.
User avatar
By Ivo Shandor
Supporting Member
#4873029
The dance number was fine in the credits. I enjoyed it. If it were in the film it would have been awful, though.

I loved the movie, surprisingly. I am stoked for a sequel featuring Zuul (and Gozer).
User avatar
By Ivo Shandor
Supporting Member
#4873145
I like Feig and Dippold sticking around. Someone new would have to use the same characters, anyway. The odds are they would write them worse.

If it's a new director and writer, they should just use new characters.

After seeing the movie I am willing to give this director and writer another crack.
User avatar
By portugueseGB
#4873245
It's premiered yesterday here in Portugal. I went to see it on the afternoon session. And I loved it.

Did I feel let down? Yes, at certain moments. For example, the opening scene for me wasn't scary enough. It needed a more "mundane" look and less light effects and more suspense so that I felt drawn into a believable universe where luminous ghosts exist. The opening door behind Erin, later in the story, was much more effective than all those effects in the beggining. For me this is important because it was the opening scene of the original that grabbed me!

I loved how dense the story felt, so much happening, so many busts, so many tech shots, testing in alleys, in subway tunnels. It is very well written, for me. And I felt it treated my love for the original movie with respect and care.

I feel mixed about the ghosts: too much neon lighting but I like that they're (for the most part) less cartoonish than the original. The first ghost was actually very good and I just felt it was over too soon.

And all the GB characters are extremely likable. The personalities surely aren't reversed gendered copies of the originals, they are unique on their own.

I'll go see it again, this time in 4D.

This was worth it and I am looking forward to a sequel and to seeing threads of fans building the new props.
Sav C liked this
By Scuba Steve
#4873258
I talked about it my review, but I'd also want to mention the 3rd act; from the moment Rowan dies and the 3rd act begins, the film is a mess. This is probably half the fault of the writing and the story having a weak climax, and the fact that it's the action heavy moment of the film. Paul Feig is not an action director and it shows. The fight scenes are a mess and the actions of the characters are completely unbelievable; characters roll around and fight like ninjas breaking the film's early narrative about how heavy and dangerous the equipment is supposed to feel.

Worse is the complete deus ex machinas that litter the ending. Beyond, as you said, Rowan's motivation being trite and unbelievable, absolutely no explanation is given why he now has special powers other ghosts don't have. Possession is set up in the film, but it's shown Ghosts must inhabit bodies... but now Rowan can possess whole groups of people by waving at them (never mind not freezing the Ghostbusters). Even more bizarre is he asks them to choose his form; at no point does this make any sense and it is simply a "Hay remember Gozer and the Stay Puft choosing a form!?" reference added for plot development.

Finally, the ending portal scene comes out of nowhere. "Oh right, the top of the car is a nuclear bomb, shoot it." I get it tries to parallel the "Cross the streams are bad" but there's no setup. In the very FIRST encounter with the proton weapons in the first film, Egon lays out the rule "it's bad, NEVER do it" and you remember this in every encounter until the end when he tells you to "cross the streams" recalling the viewer to earlier in the film who remembers "that's bad". In this... she casually mentions it's a nuclear bomb minutes before they decide to just blow it up.

Despite Casey's lackluster and motivationless antagonist, the first 2 acts manage to hold together, but the last third of the film is an incomprehensible mess.

Joeghostbuster is right; if they make a sequel, they need to ditch Feig and Diapold. Stick with the same characters, but hand it to a more competent action director who will hopefully work with a more comprehensible script.
User avatar
By joeghostbuster
#4874772
saw it again today for the third and final (until bluray) time today, at the same theater as my first viewing - there were about 20-30 people and it was a livelier crowd, with laughter peppered throughout - I think that makes a difference. when we saw it in Imax 3d, there were like 10 people in a massive room and hardly anyone laughed out loud. I dunno. I want to like it, but at the same time I want to hate it. it could have been much much better. maybe the longer directors cut will be better.
User avatar
By kind2311
#4876051
what an awful abortion of a film. I hope this dismal piece of crap opens up the door for someone else to come along and properly reboot the franchise. I had to stop watching the movie and come back to it the next day it was so bad.
EJLambert liked this
User avatar
By Ivo Shandor
Supporting Member
#4876129
portugueseGB wrote:It's premiered yesterday here in Portugal. I went to see it on the afternoon session. And I loved it.

Did I feel let down? Yes, at certain moments. For example, the opening scene for me wasn't scary enough.


My problem with the opening scene was no animation wipe-in of the logo. GB1 did it, GB2 got that right, but no logo on ATC. Frankly, I don't know what Feig was thinking, the logo goes at the beginning of a GB movie.
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Kingpin
Moderator
#4876142
Ivo Shandor wrote:Frankly, I don't know what Feig was thinking, the logo goes at the beginning of a GB movie.


I think others have touched on this already, and I think I can also see what the intent was: the logo was shown with the title at the end of the film, rather than the start to show that by the end of the film, they really were the Ghostbusters - they'd earned the right to have the no-ghost logo - it's kinda like how at the end of the second Daniel Craig Bond film, he had his full "gunbarrel" sequence, rather than the "sorta" version at the start of Casino Royale.
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Ivo Shandor
Supporting Member
#4876166
Kingpin wrote:
Ivo Shandor wrote:Frankly, I don't know what Feig was thinking, the logo goes at the beginning of a GB movie.


I think others have touched on this already, and I think I can also see what the intent was: the logo was shown with the title at the end of the film, rather than the start to show that by the end of the film, they really were the Ghostbusters - they'd earned the right to have the no-ghost logo - it's kinda like how at the end of the second Daniel Craig Bond film, he had his full "gunbarrel" sequence, rather than the "sorta" version at the start of Casino Royale.


I suppose...but I thought the opening scene was effective and would have loved to see the logo sweep in just after the closeup of the tour guide's horrified face. When I first saw GB2 and the logo swept in as Dana lifts Oscar out of the possessed carriage and the music hit I remember thinking how awesome it was.
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By MightyAni
#4876555
Kingpin wrote:
Ivo Shandor wrote:Frankly, I don't know what Feig was thinking, the logo goes at the beginning of a GB movie.


I think others have touched on this already, and I think I can also see what the intent was: the logo was shown with the title at the end of the film, rather than the start to show that by the end of the film, they really were the Ghostbusters - they'd earned the right to have the no-ghost logo - it's kinda like how at the end of the second Daniel Craig Bond film, he had his full "gunbarrel" sequence, rather than the "sorta" version at the start of Casino Royale.


Yes, exactly. If the logo had shown up at the beginning of the film, and then they went and spent time in the film trying to nail down a logo, I feel like people would be griping about that. A logo was not shown at the beginning of the film because they didn't even *want* to be called Ghostbusters until the 2nd half.

About the dance sequence:

I think it was meant to be shown during the credits. Think about how grumpy Rowan is/was. Is he going to be dancing around with the absolute joy Chris Hemsworth was in the dance sequence? It doesn't fit. It wouldn't have fit in the movie. It was meant to be a part of the credits.

I should confess that I've seen the film 5 times, once in 3D. I loved it. But, I am a woman scientist and engineer, so....
portugueseGB liked this
User avatar
By Ivo Shandor
Supporting Member
#4876571
No, it wasn't meant to go in the credits. Feig tweeted about this. He made the decision to move it when he realized it didn't fit the tone of the movie's climactic sequence.
User avatar
By portugueseGB
#4876865
MightyAni wrote:About the dance sequence:

I think it was meant to be shown during the credits. Think about how grumpy Rowan is/was. Is he going to be dancing around with the absolute joy Chris Hemsworth was in the dance sequence? It doesn't fit. It wouldn't have fit in the movie. It was meant to be a part of the credits.

I should confess that I've seen the film 5 times, once in 3D. I loved it. But, I am a woman scientist and engineer, so....


Maybe because Kevin's abilities and "dim lighbulb-ness" passed on to Rowan a little, and he was taken by his new dancing moves capabilities :).

I saw it 4 times, once in 3D (actually 4D, never to repeat again with any movie - the only slightly worthwile moment was being sprayed on the face when Gertrude Aldrigde dislocated her jaw and ectoprojected herself onto the screen). *EDIT* Oh and when they are making out with what was left of that "weird sparky thang" in the subway, and smelling it, we could actually smell something weird in the air).

I didnt see it more because it was taken off this last Wednesday. I did manage to get the doublesided vinyl movie poster (from the lightbox) and an awesome 6ft+ teaser vertical banner with only a Who you gonna call?, the logo and the ecto-1 under it from the theater manager. It's beautiful.
Kingpin liked this

Please forgive me, the thread title in the previou[…]

Here's where I stand on the whole Black and White […]

Recently, I noticed my front handle was a bit loos[…]

RGB cartoon mistakes

What the TC said about noticing Ray s voice saying[…]