Off Topic: Ghostbusters

Image: Columbia Pictures

So after seeing much of the coverage and dabbling in ice skating for the first time — which was both as uncoordinated and frightening as I'd anticipated — I had the opportunity to check out the Ghostbusters reboot.

Let's talk about it. I Have Opinions.

Perhaps one of the best parts of the movie came at the end when my partner tweeted how much she liked it. Which, because of course, immediately resulted in strangers telling her she was wrong and how much Sony paid her under the table.


But I had a lot of fun. That said, the editing was bizarrely bad. I understand now when people say Paul Feig makes "ugly" movies. It's most obvious in the second half, where the cuts are so brisk that you're not given time to enjoy or absorb the jokes.

Some of the jokes are still great though — especially in the opening when the first footage of the new Ghostbusters hits YouTube.

Seen the film? What did you think?


    It was completely fine. I mean, not the best film, but by no means terrible. I enjoyed myself.
    And I probably will never watch it again....

    Overall I thought it was a lot of fun, only thing I didn't enjoy was some of Kate McKinnon's parts.

    I thought it was pretty fantastic. I didn't expect a cinematic masterpiece, but I think it did what it set out to do pretty well.

    Kate McKinnon pretty much steals the movie, though.

    I told you mofos that this will be the greatest filim ever made.

    Last edited 19/07/16 11:25 am

    I don't get out to movies enough (shit, I missed Zootopia and I was really looking forward to that - movies don't stay in the theatres long enough!). I'll probably catch this one on streaming.

    I was turned off pretty badly by the first few trailers then turned optimistic by the 'interview' in-world bios (I would like to see more of this, please), so I'll probably be going into it neutral.

    Confession: I only 'kinda' liked the original movies and vastly preferred the cartoon, as a kid. I'm not expecting much, but I'm also not comparing it to some kind of holy cinematic grail.

    Last edited 19/07/16 11:28 am

      People have such strong nostalgia for the first one. It's still great fun, but without Bill Murray it would have been a snooze fest.

    Basically, everyone I know who's seen it has a vague response like yours, which seems to loosely translate to: it wasn't really bad, but it was bad. But I'm afraid to say it's bad so editing. I laughed a couple of times...

    Not much else to be said... I definitely wouldn't waste money seeing this based on yours and everyone else's feedback.

      Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
      If you think "editing" is a vague, throwaway excuse, then movie critique is also not your strong suit.

        I think the point was more that people are avoiding being too critical of acting/directing/story etc so just calling out the editing (which is still a big thing) is a safer option because it doesn't shit on the aspects of the movie that made it controversial.

        it wasn't really bad, but it was bad. But I'm afraid to say it's bad so [I'm] editing [myself].

        I think what he was getting at is that the 'culture wars' have made this movie some sort of indicator of where you stand. Criticize it and you're on the 'wrong side'. So people who have criticisms are editing themselves so they don't end up tarred with the same brush as the other critics who are just assholes.

        And I definitely get that trepidation. Saw a tonne of it around Star Wars: Force Awakens.

        Last edited 19/07/16 12:32 pm

          It's like everything these days. I'm in the unfortunate position of disliking the big trifecta: Force Awakens, Deadpool and Civil War. If I even think about explaining why I disliked them, I get mass flamed for varous ridiculous reasons. Hey I'm glad you enjoyed the movie but, gee, not everyone share's your opinion believe it or not. This isnt a war, we're discussing the pros and cons of a movie...

            REALLLLLLLLLY? That's interesting that you hated all three. Do tell (if you can be bothered, understand if you can't) as to why you didn't like them. For me, I really disliked Age of Ultron and thought Civil War redeemed a lot of what I saw as mistakes from A2:AoU.

              I had fun with Age of Ultron. It wasn't anything mindblowing but I like James Spader and it was just a fun bit of action goodness.

              As for the other 3 *spoilers below* (I wont go into it too heavily but this was my basic takeaway from all 3):
              1. Force Awakens: I walked in expecting a fresh new Star Wars experience, and walked out with a frustrating carbon copy of A New Hope. I understand they needed to tie things back into the orignal trilogy, but they could have at least changed the story up, especially since they no longer had George Lucas watching over them. The movie had plot holes all over the place. Rey was too amazing for her own good. By contrast Kylo was frustratingly idiotic/incompetent. But the worst part was the First Order decided they wanted to be exactly like the empire and make the same stupid mistakes! Lazy writing and directing all round. Not to mention I paid $150 for me, my sister (was her birthday so we went to gold class) and all the food we ate, so it was very expensive for a movie I didnt enjoy.

              2. Deadpool: As I said in a below comment, really a case of overhype for me. I just didnt find it funny/awesome as I expected. Probably dislike is too strong for this one but I didnt like it all the same.

              3. Civil War: What frustrated me about this movie was that you could tell they were sitting in the concept meetings and saying "we need something else to tie this movie together other than the Cap/Bucky love story." So they tacked on the stupid, and completely under utilised government oversight story to validate the whole thing. Most of the fight scenes were garbage (too much quick cutting and characters doing unrealistic stuff *looking at you widow*), and they showed off the best fight scene in the first reveal trailer, which spoiled it (Cap/Stark/Bucky in the bunker). Panther was bland and boring. Too many super cliche'd moments (funeral scene, summit explosion scene). Overall it just wasn't fun by comparison to Avengers (one of my favourite movies) and Age of Ultron (had it's problems but can turn off the brain and enjoy). On the other hand I enjoyed Spidey/Ant Man in it, and there were a couple of cool moments but overall it was a disappointment.

              That turned out to be a bit longer than expected. :P

                Can totally understand where you're coming from with all 3 :)

                  Thank you good sir/madam for your interest and good natured approach to this. It has been most refreshing. Please accept my upvote as thanks. I hope you have an excellent evening.

            Just out of curiosity, what didn't you like about Deadpool? I'm genuinely curious, literally everyone I have asked about it has either liked or loved it.

              To be honest, I think I fell into a bit of a hype trap with Deadpool. I was just sitting there watching most of it and thought, this isn't as funny/awesome as I thought it was going to be. As you say everyone I've talked to thought it was amazing. I should know by now not to get too hyped about stuff.

              It was really bizarre because it's the exact movie 5 years ago I would have loved, and I like Ryan Reynolds and the concept of the character and everything is intriguing. It just lacked any sort of punch and I was pretty bored through most of it. I felt like the story was a bit standard, and they were concentrating too hard on trying to redeem themselves from the travesty of Wolverine. There were other points at the time that I remember not liking but right now I cant remember specifically what they were...

                Expectations are a HUGE factor in enjoying movies, for me. I actually went into The Hunger Games very skeptical, having watched the CinemaSins and ScreenJunkies ripping on it, but ended up really, really enjoying it. Despite... or because of reduced expectations.

                  I can't take the Hunger Games movies seriously.

                  I mean, it's essentially Battle Royale for kids.

                  Man, Battle Royale is such a good movie.

                  Yeah have fallen into that trap numerous times now. Would have thought by now I would learn my lesson, but no. So hard though with all the pre-marketing they do. Unfortunately, watching a lot of those critique youtubers has given me a more critical eye though and I've noticed lately I've been picking out holes in stuff I wouldnt have awhile ago.

                  The first Hunger Games movie had terrible problems. The pacing was lumpy, the director didn't know what to do with the actors, the script was clunky, and it was just kinda ugly. The smallish budget sure didn't help, either.
                  The second and third movies were a hell of a lot better. Improved in every single way. I had a damn good time watching them, despite being ready to hate on them badly.

            If you are too scared to have an opinion because people you will never actually interact with in any meaningful way will dislike you, then there's a problem. I don't know if the problem is you, or the internet, or what... but there's a problem.

            It's fine to have dissenting opinions. It's not fine to say that anyone with an opinion one way or the other is some sort of (insert pejorative).

            For the record: I have always thought the Quake and Halo series were hugely overrated. I think Sucker Punch is an excellent film that will be studied in years to come. I think that Keanu Reeves can act. I have my reasons for all of these things. People can think I'm wrong if they like.

              Not saying I'm scared to have an opinion. Happy to share mine (as I've done at some length in these comments) to those who are willing to have a meaningful conversation about it. Not saying anyone is wrong either.

              What I'm saying is, there are a lot of people who cant accept that there is an opposing opinion to the one they have, and feel it necessary to rain fire all over someone who wants to put out said differing take. They are not willing to have a decent conversation about it. I guess it's probably not a new thing to have happen, but I feel it has been exacerbated by the internet and it's ease of use/anonimity.

                Sorry, I wasn't saying "you" as in "You, yes you right there: razgrizace." I was using it as in "If one cannot speak their mind for fear of retribution, there is a problem."

                Yeah, sure. Anonymity is definitely a factor. There's also a weird thing where the distance from the person you are upsetting and the immediacy of the communication make a terrible combination. It becomes very easy to be hostile as hell in a way you wouldn't normally be in real life.

                I think it's a bit of a cop out to say that people are scared of saying they didn't like it because they are scared of the controversy, because what they actually mean is they are scared of the feminist army or some other ridiculousness. Everyone is allowed to like or dislike things. If they like or dislike them because they are racist/sexist/angry at their dad/whatever, then people are probably going to call them stupid. As long as it doesn't go any further and start actually interrupting people's lives, it's just kind of what the internet is.

                  None of this is relevant to what I was getting at. Simply, it would be nice to read an honest, critical review of this film..,

                  You keep saying that you can't find an honest review. Perhaps you should stop deciding that all of the reviewers are lying to you and take their opinions for what they are. You disagree. Good for you. It doesn't mean the reviewers are lying because of teh femnists

        Or maybe it's that reading and comprehension and critique IS my strong suit and that "editing" is seemingly the only thing that has been approved for "real, constructive criticism" of this movie.

        I'm sorry that it bothers you so much that somebody might like to read an honest review of this film that provides an actual critique of the movie.

        Last edited 20/07/16 12:50 pm

          Reading comprehension can't possibly be your strong suit because it wasn't vague. How is "It had multiple problems. However, I liked it despite its problems" vague?

          Perhaps the movie is pretty much ok, but the editing is awful? That is in fact possible.

          It's also possible that every single review says the exact same thing specifically because there's some sort of conspiracy to leave an elephant in the room, but it's far less likely than the first scenario.

            It really bothers you that I dislike dishonest, uncritical film reviews doesn't it? Talk about going overboard for nothing...

            Yes it's vague to say 'despite its problems' without saying what they were... And yes, I must suck at comprehension because there's nowhere in the article that contains your quote. Gosh!

            Maybe you should go lecture your pokekids with your made up quotes instead of some stranger on the internet who disliked a dishonest review... So much drama over nothing. Good for you if you liked the review. I didn't.


              I still don't get where the "dishonest" part is coming from. Wanting a more exhaustive, critical look at a film is fine, but I'm not sure where the basis for telling people that their opinions aren't anything but genuine is.

                Mate I honestly don't give a toss. Go back and read TransientMind's comment. He got what I was saying.

                Pokedad's is more interested in suggesting I'm stupid is all. Like I said, I don't know why he's so upset when a reviewer says nothing good, and a lot bad, about a film and then generally concludes that it was 'good' and I feel that it's a contradiction? And yes I do think "bad editing, ugly film, poor humour = good fun" comes across as disingenous. I'm sorry if that bothers you.

    I found it to be neither amazing, not terrible... just ehh. The graphics were pretty and most of the characters were at least interesting. That being said it wasnt anything special and I do feel like a lot of the jokes were pitched for certain demographics as there was a lot of awkward laughing, but even more people just kind of sitting quietly (for reference I live in Alice Springs).

    Tldr not the abomination a lot of people expected it to be, but also not as funny as the mass media is proclaiming.

    Planning to see it in the next few days. Everyone keeps telling me the same thing though. They all say that if you have seen the originals then you'll see this as an ok movie. Nothing special but still fun. If haven't seen the originals then you'll enjoy this movie a lot more.

    I think that pretty much describes most remakes. If you're constantly comparing it to the original then you'll be focused on what they do wrong rather than what they do right.

    Not going to see it. This movie should never have been made. The whole premise of creating a group of female ghostbusters with a male receptionist is just too contrived for me. If the original films hadn't existed, it wouldn't be as eyebrow-raising, but from what I've heard there are callbacks to the original films mixed in amongst the 'men are incompetent boobs' and 'girl power' jokes. It is, rather appropriately, a travesty: a caricature or parody of the original films that has no more right to live on God's clean Earth than a weasel.

      Was gonna upvote, but then I saw the weasel remark, what's wrong with weasels?

      Otherwise, completely agree.

        I concur. I've weaseled out of a number of situations in the past, so I think I can speak for the entire weasel population when I say that this intolerance for weasels, and indeed rodents of any kind is unnacceptable in the current climate! We should be celebrating our weasel/rodent friends! Now if they made the Ghostbusters movie with the entire cast being weasels, then I think people would have been more receptive.

        Sorry, that was a Black Adder reference. I got carried away ;-)

          Nah, my bad for not getting it, carry on.

          *note to self, must watch black adder.

            Are you saying you havent ever watched blackadder? A travesty good sir! Ensure that you rectify this post haste!

              Yeah! And did you see that other motherfucker earlier said he didn't like Deadpool? I'm one disparaging comment about Absolutely Fabulous away from armed insurrection.

                Yeah I did! Cant believe that guy! At least he saw it though and came up with his own, obviously wrong opinion of it. Blackadder needs to be at least tried to see what you're missing out on.

                  True that. Incidentally though, my GF is the only other person I know that didn't love it. I'm not saying you are wrong (you are), because of course you're entitled to your opinion. I actually feel like that sucks though. I was so hyped for Deadpool that I went in certain it wasn't going to live up. When it did, that was just a fucking blast, so I'm sorry you didn't get in on that.

                  @descent303 - Cant reply for some reason. Good to hear you enjoyed it especially in spite of the hype, I know I'm in the extreme minority so I deal with that. I actually dont know anyone who didn't like it, so to hear your GF also didnt think it was amazing is refreshing. Thanks.

    I went in trying to ignore everything around it, and just enjoy the movie for what it is. It was... okay at best. Editing was atrocious though, and jokes had the delivery and nuance of a truck, and ultimately I think it rode too hard the gender swap appropriation rather than trying to be its own film.

    Solid 6\10. Might watch again if I stumbled upon it whilst flipping thru FTA.

      Interesting that a film that was "okay at best" can get a 6/10. I would've thought it'd be more like a 3 or 4/10.

        We're using video game review scales now.

          Eh. I've always thought that 50% is the baseline of mediocrity (so okay), everything below it is a decent into shit, anything above it is a progression.

          Its still a watchable film (its no Battlefield Earth for example), but not great. Shrug. Go lambast an actual reviewer if you have that much of an issue.

          Last edited 19/07/16 12:51 pm

    I haven't seen it, I personally think it looks pretty bad as a movie. There's nothing wrong with disliking it because the movie itself was bad. It's completely different to dislike it because "ermagehrd feminazis".

    Editing was horrendous. Was in one place to explain one thing and before you have time to think, it jumps to another place.

    Cameos of previous ghostbusters actors (exception of Rick Moranis and the late Harold Ramis) were a good touch, and probably some of the more redeeming parts of the films as it was probably the more organic parts where little hat tipping and joking wasnt forced.

    Way too much exposition and explaining of the ghostbusters tech. They spend god knows how long explaining weapons and so on it just clogs up and stalls the movie. This is something they didnt need to explain as much as they did. The original did this better by doing on the fly.

    Way too many juvenile jokes, yes we understand the original had a poltergheist blow job, but when your first few jokes are fart jokes and then stating it was queefing instead, you got problems.

    Went in with rock bottom expectations, came out feeling like it was ok, but a poor excuse of a movie. Jokes were flat, i laughed mostly because it was bad. The movie was just trying too hard and didnt have the organic feel of coming together like the original did.

      While Ramis couldn't appear in person, I did see a familiar looking bust in an early scene.

    Makes me think of the live action Scooby-doo films that were done, of all the 'ghost' and 'goblins'

    i'm not gonna watch over the fact that in the trailer they did that STUPID Trope of saying the same thing then one going "oh I'm sorry ill let you say it" its cringy in every film, its terrible

    I loved it, the main villain was kind of meh but most of the jokes were decent, the characters felt like people and they never seemed like "non descript scientist" Holtzman is a super rad engineer, Erin is a physicist, Patty is the black character, Abby is super hype about the paranormal. Like the movie has some issues, but I'd still give it a 6 or 7. Decent family blockbustery type movie you could take the kids to.

    Not going to see it. Whether it ended up being great, bad, or just mediocre, I will not support a film that labels original Ghostbusters fans as "sexist, misogynists" for having legitimate grievances with the film from what the trailer showed. Nor for having a director the attacked fans by calling them "the biggest a–holes I’ve ever met in my life".
    Great job guys. Attack the fans of the original that gave the franchise enough value to warrant attempting a reboot and see where that gets you: Currently $65 million box-office from a $144 million budget.
    EDIT: by "legitimate grievances" I mean issues with things OTHER than the female cast, as to me they all seem solid. I refer to things like the trailer showing bad and contradictory writing, over-reliance on CGI, bad CGI, jokes that didn't land, etc.

    Last edited 19/07/16 12:49 pm

      Who's labelling people sexist and misogynist for (non-sexist) criticism of the film? The director, for example, said this:

      "I’m not talking about the people who have true concerns and worries about the rebooting of a franchise they love, nor am I talking about people who have watched the trailer for our movie and didn’t like it. Those are all valid opinions and I respect them all. I am talking about those that write misogyny and hate and threats. Those are the ‘a–holes’ of which I spoke."

        It isn't just the afformentioned labels, it's the overall attack on fans and criticism. Feig's remark were most likely meant for a minority of the fanbase, but his original quote didn't carry that idea and felt like he had a disdain for the fans.
        Besides him there's also been Sony themselves who deleted critical responses from the trailers, but left the vitriol just so they could advertise the hate. The main media outlets also only focused on the hateful messages and none on the criticism, pushing some bizarre idea that 100% of the negativity surrounding the film was based around misogynistic attacks.
        Every other day it seems like something appears that just makes the whole idea of seeing the movie sour: The Jimmy Kimmel stunt where McCarthy insinuates all haters are basement-dwelling 45yo men living with their parents. Articles insinuating that the original Ghostbusters movie "wasn't that good anyway". Finding out through the Sony hacks that Bill Murray might've been sued if he didn't cameo. Yadda-yadda-yadda.
        If the film is good, then I wish it all the success it deserves (though I've heard completely polarised opinions on it, with the reviewers I trust being in the negative camp), but I just won't see it.

    I loved it. Kate McKinnon steals every scene she's in and Chris Hemsworth is not far behind. I'm trying to work out if I can get around to seeing it again in between urging everyone I know to go see it.

    I found the movie pretty terrible. The jokes in this movie were drier than the outback in a drought. The whole dumb thor premise although slightly amusing at first was taken too far. I don't have a problem with the cast but the movie has a whole... kinda wish i didnt waste my time.

    Central intelligence was more amusing....

    It's bad. Real bad. But it kind of falls into the "so bad, it's good" category, so I guess all is not lost?
    I remember after all the hoopla of the trailer and its criticism, I was a little confused; the trailer wasn't THAT bad. I mean, sure, it didn't paint an amazing picture, but an average film is still average, right? But man, this film is garbage.

    I am assuming a lot of it was ad-libbed, but it just felt phoned in. Lines and jokes said by characters are either unfunny or not in line with other parts of the movie. Stuff like the sexism joke made by Jones for not being caught crowd surfing literally seconds after the other woman was caught, or McCarthy flippantly brushing off Hemsworth's looks at one point, but later on swooning alongside Wiig. Was the scientific jargon meant to be played for laughs? I honestly couldn't tell. Like, it was unbelievably bad and put Star Trek to shame, but it just didn't seem funny? Like it was meant to be played off as serious? I don't know. The interview scene with Hemsworth's character came off like a skit that was genuinely funny, and his character, despite being so dumb in a "how does this person even function in the real world?" kind of way.

    As I said, there is enjoyment made out of it because it's so bad. But when one member of my viewing screen said he believed Battlefield: Earth was a better film from a technical standpoint (shooting, editing, acting, writing etc), well, it's not good.

    Though maybe it was because i was 14 whe i saw it, i didn't find Battlefield Earth that bad to watch - i have most definitely seen a lot worse

    I have to admit I loved this movie! Yes, I was sceptical ( always am of remakes...) but this had the right amount of everything! the cameos were brilliant ( consideration to Rick Moranis of course) the story was quite good and the jokes were 'belly laugh' funny and the 'nods' to the original were tacktful and beautifully done, I read recently that Ivan Ritmann wasn't to keen on the post credits scene initially but it worked and I would love to see a sequel! The cast bounced off each other really really well and Chris Hemsworth wholeheartedly chewed every peice of scenery he could find (and hammed it up every chance he got). Kate McKinnon is so gloriously 'mad genius' in this film and lit up the screen the entire time. Leslie Jones while playing the off the wall street smart wanting to help out (much like Ernie Hudson in the original) seemed like it was 'amped up' for sterotypical reasons could have been able to do so much more with her character. Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy are fantastic on screen together and although the 'buddy comedy' is getting a bit played out in movies lately these two I could watch all damn day! and for those that have seen it - I totally want Bill Murray to have died and come back as a ghost for the sequel... we didn't SEE him die but it was sort of rushed over and swept aside like it may be bought up again later but didn't, anyway calling it now Bill Murray for the sequel!!!!!

    I was hoping that they would do something more like what Dan Ackroydo riginally storyboarded for the original ghostbusters (7 giant things like staypuft, bit more of a quirky blues brothers feel)
    They tried to go big but then seemed to reign it in for no reason.

    I enjoyed the movie but read below for my take on it. Remember it is only my opinion and just because I don't gush or come out acclaiming it as an instant success does not make me a misogynist. Please be aware that I have taken the original movie partially into account as this movie does rely heavily on nostalgia from the originals (despite what paul feig says).

    Overall Ghostbusters is a slightly above-average movie with very poor writing, saved in part by good actors. Better than batman v superman. Some great jump scares early on, good vfx and thank goodness we only got the re-booted song once. Some really funny belly-laugh moments. Unfortunately it is only a series of moments, there are no real running gags like Spengler's fondness of twinkies, also there is no dry humour here a la Bill Murray (cept in his scene). Only the typical American sitcom style of humour (One-liners) and Kate McKinnon's quirkiness (which was awesome). Unlike the original there didn't seem to be a whole lot of improvisation allowed to the actors here.

    Story was simple and full of holes (ie: why does a villain travel across the city to posses one person then go straight back to where it was already?).
    All of the characters are already believers at the start (original had only 1 true believer at the beginning) and two are almost identical in characterisation. Thus it leaves very little in the way of character development although there is a great little twist in the middle about the origin of the belief.

    Movie relies too heavily on nostalgia and throwback setpiece similarities whilst simultaneously trying to pave it's own way, pick one path Mr Feig, because trying both just undermines what could have been great either way. I think they missed out on a great opportunity to suggest subtly that this was an alternate reality (like in the GB comics.) Then you could use all the cameos and references you want. Hell if Ackroyd ever gets 3 off the ground then they could have crossovers (like in the comics again).

    One of the cameos could have been devloped into a great foil for the team, but is done away with pretty much as soon as it is introduced. Also, seriously, what is with Hollywood's obsession with unbelieving scientists? Have a look at what happened in the world of science when the Higgs-Boson (God particle) was...well not so much found as proved by effect. Again this is one area that was very similar to the original.

    As it stands there really is no foil, the villian is a 1st order McGuffin with little prescence in the movie except to move background plot-points and setpieces along, he really only appears at the end to be summarily beaten.

    VFX were great, actors were great, thank goodness they edited out and trimmed the worst of the blacksploitation bits, especially as the actress managed to show that her character had a bit more depth, I just wish they had allowed to be a little less cliche'd.

    Thank goodness it wasn't as bad as that original trailer made it out to be. Hopefully they can do more with the inevitable sequel. I enjoyed the movie, some of the comedy is great, but I still don't know if I would spend more than $25 to buy it on blu-ray.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now