Paul Feig's 'Ghostbusters' Reboot

Just saw it too.
There seemed to be some kind of script, but it also seems that the actors were just put in front of the cameras and told to adlib some funny. It didn't work. This movie --- well, I'd say more, but the Gorts would not like it.

 

Reviews like Vidiot's actually make me even MORE curious about seeing it ...cuz now I'm like, "It can't possibly be THAT bad, can it?" Hahaha!

My kids still wanna see it; maybe we'll do it this weekend since it just hit the Redbox machine around the corner from us.

 

I admit I don't get the hate, especially in terms of the thought there's a badly flawed script. I think the movie tells a surprisingly coherent story - it's not episodic or joke-based, IMO.

And I think it's funny! It's not as good as the original, but it's better than "GB 2".

I've seen it 3 times - once theatrical, once 3D Blu-ray, once extended Blu-ray - and enjoyed it every time:

Ghostbusters [Blu-Ray 3D] (2016) »

 

It's worth watching just to make up your own mind. I wouldn't say it was haaaaarible but close. I'd give it a 2.5-3 out of 5. Kids might get a bit scared at a couple of points but depends on how young they are. Wouldn't worry about it though, the zaniness soon takes over. The kids will probably enjoy it. There were some funny bits.

I liked the cast but thought they could do much better. I really like Kate McKinnon but thought she hammed it way up as the kooky scientist. I also don't mind men playing dumb receptionist roles either but the writing was just garbage. The dumb man receptionist jokes were idiotic. They weren't funny and no it's not because my white male privilege was hurt. I won't give them away but they were rather childish and not clever.

I think Feig tried too hard. Didn't think of his audience, head disappeared up his own ass. But this movie, based on the leaked emails, seemed like a cluster**** from day one. Lots of different scripts, cast ideas...I think the original idea of a GB3 acting like a passing of the baton would've been a better idea. Make them all female, that's fine, but just make it into a great movie.

 

Keep in mind "haaaaarible" isn't exactly an original description. I've lost count of how many times vidiot has used that phrase.

I thought I remembered that one of the complaints about the movie was that a number of scenes seemed incomplete or missing. Does the extended version rectify this?

 

I don't recall any scenes I thought were incomplete or absent, honestly - I'd be curious to know what scenes were viewed that way.

I won't claim "GB16" is the world's tightest narrative, but I think the movie makes sense - when I saw it theatrically, I didn't think it seemed confusing or disjointed.

As for the extended cut, I didn't think it changed much - the story remains the same, and I don't recall any scenes that made anything clearer. My summary:

"The changes mostly revolve around short additions to existing scenes, as many of these add little jokes.

A few more substantial alterations take place, though, with the biggest connected to Erin’s co-worker/boyfriend Phil. In the theatrical cut, we see no signs of Phil at all, but he plays a moderate role in the extended version.

One other scene shows Rowan at work – and the burgeoning impact of the ghosts – while another lets us see Abby and Erin as they relive their shared past. The only other minor excised plotline includes a skeptic who harasses Erin – and the aftermath when she punches him.

As a fan of the film, I’m happy to see these scenes, but I’d be hard-pressed to cite any that truly add to the movie. On their own, they’re fun, but I don’t think they improve the film."

 

i truly can't think of any reason on planet earth that would make me watch this movie, not a single one.

 

the set up is so so, but the actual ghostbusting delivers some fun CGI, just do not go for the story

 

melissa mccarthy is not funny in the least bit. other than taking a dump in the sink in 'bridesmaid".

 

I'll watch it when I can get it from the library for free. Expectations are low, at least I can gawk at Kristin Wigg.

 

I said that, too, after reading a lot of bad reviews over the summer and the comments here. You think, "oh, it couldn't really be that bad!"

Yes. Yes, it is that bad.

 

The movie was okay, nothing more...in 2D. However, it's a GREAT 3D movie. Lots of depth and effects that break the letterboxing. Your mileage will vary, of course, but it's worth seeing in 3D if you have the capability. Obviously, if you do not like 3D it won't change your mind about it.

 

I liked the movie, but there was a big plot hole that appeared to be due to scenes left on the cutting room floor. Specifically, there is a scene where we see Kristen Wiig's character waking up at home and going about her day as if she is no longer a Ghostbusters. The rest of the crew is battling towards the climax of the movie without Kristen Wiig, until suddenly Wiig shows up in her gear, ready to fight. It seems like there was a subplot involving Wiig temporarily quitting the Ghostbusters that was removed from the final cut.

 

The plot hole I mentioned above is fixed in the extended version:

The Extended Ghostbusters Cut Fixes The Film's Biggest Plot Hole »

So, she didn't quit the Ghostbusters, she just went home. Not the plot point I believed it would be, but I'll take it.

 

RedBox just texted me a promo code for $1.00 off a rental. I may use it to check out Ghostbusters '16 this weekend...

 

So I RedBoxed the new Ghostbusters last night, aaaaand .…. It was okay. I had been keeping my expectations low after all the bad reviews and online hate I'd read and I think that actually worked in the movie's favor, cuz I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. My 9 year old son and 13 year old niece watched it with me and they laughed all the way through it.

It's definitely a "rent," not a "buy," and I doubt I'll ever bother to see it again, but overall I had no major complaints.

As for the ridiculous controversies that surrounded this film; I did not feel like any sort of supposed liberal or feminist agendas were being shoved down my throat while watching "Ghostbusters '16," nor did I feel that a precious part of my childhood had been destroyed, so I didn't have to go look for a "safe space" when it was over. (shrugs)

 

I thought that the new Ghostbusters was OK. I enjoyed it but I doubt I'll ever re-watch it as much as the original.

 

Let me first say that I was and still am very open to the idea of a reboot with an all female cast. That was never a concern for me. Despite the nearly unanimous negative reviews, I decided I would have to see it for myself and form my own opinion.

Ghostbusters' biggest fault -and there are many- is in the script itself. It's just not funny. At all. The funniest moments are in the trailer. They're not even that funny. I read one reviewer's opinion that Chris Hemsworth's lines were the funniest bits. I wouldn't agree. The only thing that made me laugh was how awful the film is. It is awful beyond belief.

This is the kind of film that can damage careers. It is an absolute turd and should not have been released.

 

I finally saw this movie a couple of nights ago and I hated it. Every scene seemed like "you're funny, and you're funny, go say something funny, and ACTION!". Hard to even get motivated to give the 'I don't hate women, really I don't' soliloquy.

 

Just watched this - free rental. Your thoughts mirror my own...it wasn't bad and definitely better than I expected, given the crappy reviews. It could have used a few less cameos perhaps (although I liked Ernie Hudson's short screen time and the Jersey comment). And I didn't generally get a "we hate men" vibe either. Maybe the whole independent / strong woman thing puts some people off. Plus it's a friggin' comedy...lighten up.

If it had any major flaws at all, it was the lack of character development.....

[SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS] perhaps we could have seen Kristen Wiig's character have a more slow path from meek to assertive / independent. It happened but if it was more of a "what am I doing here?" deal where she eventually comes to accept herself, that would have been more satisfying - and she would have anchored that film in a similar way that Bill Murray did in the original film. The portal rescue part was nice touch though. And I actually really liked Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones in their supporting roles, more than I thought I would.

[END SPOILERS]....yeah, I'd watch it again if it dropped on Netflix or cable.

 

They showed the making of it on Starz when it was in the theaters. I'll just wait until it comes on there, probably in December.

 

I watched this on a recent airline flight (Lufthansa) and I can't say it was the train wreck portrayed by some, but I don't think it was very good or funny either. I did smile and chuckle a few times, but no lol moments.

 

Actually, "GB2016" got pretty good reviews - 72% on Rotten Tomatoes...

 

OK then..."SHTV" reviews.

 

Point taken!

To be sure, the Internet as a whole was brutal toward "GB2016" - and I'm betting a lot of the nastiest voices came from those who never saw the movie...