‘Ghostbusters’ (2016) Review: I Ain’t ‘Fraid of No Trolls

'Ghostbusters' (2016)

Movie Rating:

3.5

Honestly, how did we get to the point where a remake of ‘Ghostbusters’ is the most politicized movie of 2016? The female-led reboot is the most downvoted YouTube trailer of all time with a parade of fanboys wailing about ruined childhoods and major media outlets crying misogyny against anyone who holds such an opinion. It’s an odd controversy that I can’t help but feel had its flames stoked by a studio that saw an opportunity for free publicity.

There was no way to check a social media feed without getting a facefull of ‘Ghostbusters’ debate over the past few months. Frankly, it’s just irritating and likely won’t continue far beyond this weekend once the movie finally exists and can be loved or loathed on its own merits, not through wild speculation or think-pieces rooted in political sensitivity. So, let’s just discuss ‘Ghostbusters’ 2016 as a movie, because that’s all it really is despite the weird cultural monument to shifting gender dynamics that it’s become. That stuff is just a distraction from a fun comedy that doesn’t really attempt to do anything beyond entertain, and it does that just fine.

The plot is pretty much a rerun of the first ‘Ghostbusters’ with new characters to spice things up. Kristen Wiig stars as an awkwardly lovable professor in the Kristen Wiig mold whose quest for tenure is put in jeopardy when a former partner republishes a book on the supernatural that she co-wrote many moons ago. That former partner is Melissa McCarthy, an eccentric scientist obsessed with the paranormal who has found an even more eccentric scientist (Kate McKinnon, fantastic) to build some experimental ghostbusting gear. While arguing about that old book/MacGuffin, the trio get dragged off to a possible haunting and spot a real-life ghost that covers them with slime. This being 2016, they record the event and post it on YouTube, which gets Wiig fired, inspires the gals to open up a ghostbusting business, and earns some angry comments about girls not being able to bust ghosts (a throwaway gag that the filmmakers likely didn’t realize would be so meta and prophetic). They soon partner with Leslie Jones’ subway employee who knows the history of New York City well enough to be a helpful Ghostbuster. They hire hunky dumbbell Chris Hemsworth to be their goofy receptionist. And slowly they learn about a mysterious dork (Neil Casey) who’s secretly increasing hauntings in the city with apocalyptic intent.

So yeah, it’s your basic ‘Ghostbusters’ origin story. This is indeed a remake, but it’s also loaded with fan-service and reverence to the original series (ironic given the pre-release controversies). All of the original ‘Ghostbusters’ (including Harold Ramis) get cameos that are about as amusing as you’d expect based on how funny those folks are anymore, including a few appearances beyond the central four. The major iconic ghosts pop up at least once in unexpected ways and the new ghosts all look like their designs were pulled from the old cartoon.

Old lines are checked. The ghostbusting technobabble is laid on thick to please fans and/or Dan Aykroyd. And just like the original, all the delightful character comedy built up over the first two acts eventually gives way to a special effects clusterfuck of a finale that isn’t quite as endearing as the smaller moments building up to it. In fact, the weaknesses in ‘Ghostbusters’ 2.0 are actually all related to how slavishly devoted the remake is to its source material. As amusing as it was for this former ‘Ghostbusters’ jammies-wearing youngster to see so much of the past adoringly resurrected, it’s the new stuff that was actually worth watching.

First things first, the cast is absolutely great and spark off of each other with the same magic chemistry that made the first ‘Ghostbusters’ so goddamn lovable. Kristen Wiig’s uptight leader is the central focus of writer/director Paul Feig’s skill with cringe comedy. Melissa McCarthy plays a distinctly PG-13 version of the wildcard persona that has made her a comedy hit machine, and while her filthy improvs are missed, her sweetly manic intensity remains. Leslie Jones brings her personal brand of screaming comedic wit to the table and fits in quite well, since she’s slightly more grounded and more willing to call out nonsense than her science-obsessed teammates. Finally, Kate McKinnon is by far the best of the batch. She doesn’t just look like Egon from the old cartoon series, but acts like a living cartoon with a sly grin, crazy eyes, and wildly unpredictable sense of timing. She’s used just enough without ever feeling overplayed, and likely earns herself a film career by stealing away the movie from her teammates. This ghostbusting team was rather brilliantly assembled and is primed to carry the franchise with ease if things go that way.

Co-writer/director Paul Feig fills out the rest of the cast just as well, with even the smallest role played by either a familiar face from the past or the current comedy landscape to draw out a few extra laughs. Most notably, Chris Hemsworth is absolutely hysterical as the idiot boytoy the women hire to barely answer their phones, and he has for more than just a cameo for reasons best left unstated. As a comedy machine, ‘Ghostbusters’ works. As an action/sci-fi-horror/fantasy crossover, Feig has grown substantially as a filmmaker since ‘Bridesmaids’. The guy always knew how to get the most out of his cast, but over a few action comedies has also learned his way around a set-piece. The early hauntings are handled as well as Reitman ever put together his spook-outs. (Ace cinematographer Robert Yeoman’s involvement likely didn’t hurt.) There’s a nice sense of scale and design. The problems that arise are all due to a fairly underwhelming CGI action-centric finale, and even that is more indebted to similar problems that plague all blockbusters these days, not so much this movie specifically.

Is the ‘Ghostbusters’ reboot as good as the original? Well, no. But then again, has any effects-driven comedy blockbuster since ‘Ghostbusters’ 1.0 managed to mix laughs and spectacle as well? Absolutely not. (Well, maybe the original ‘Men in Black’ or ‘Bill & Ted’.) This comes as close as any. Filled with some fantastic performances and a few rock solid effects set-pieces, it’s a loving homage as much as it is a relaunch of a beloved franchise.

Anyone worried about an old classic being pee-peed on by people who didn’t care needs to calm down. If anything, the movie stumbles because it tries too hard to cling to the past rather than forging its own identity. Thankfully, whenever the new cast get to stretch their stuff and define the new team, the flick really takes off and comes together. It’s a fun bit of popcorn entertainment filled with giggles and eye candy that entertains and then disappears before wearing out its welcome. Hopefully, people will climb off their pedestals and out of their caves long enough to have some fun with this thing as intended. It’s certainly the best product with ‘Ghostbusters’ in the title released in 30 years and seems primed to be even better in a sequel.

Don’t be afraid. Go ahead and call.

What Did You Think of 'Ghostbusters' (2016)?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

99 comments

  1. Chris B

    Huh….what a pleasant surprise. I probably won’t catch this one in theatres, but I’ll be sure to see it on blu. Also, I love Kate McKinnon…that is all.

  2. Thulsadoom

    To be honest, the cast of women doesn’t bother me, it’s that it’s written and directed by the guy behind Bridesmaids. As for the cast, I liked Melissa McCarthy in Gilmore Girls (I had to sit through them once). I haven’t seen her in anything else, though, because none of the other films she’s been in have appealed to me (Was she in Bridesmaids? I’ve tried to wipe it from my memory, it was so bad). Kristen Wiig, though, I tend to find a bit annoying. She’s one of those actresses who comes over as “Hey, can you tell by the way I’m acting that I’m, like, really funny and sarcastic? Can you? huh?” So you never feel like she’s a character, but an ‘actor playing a character’ (She was the one weak point in The Martian, for me, but not a major one. She always took me out of the atmosphere when she was ‘acting’) I’ve not seen the other two in anything (that I can think of), so I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.

    There needs to be a rental option in the vote. I’m sure there are plenty out there like me, who are curious to see it, but not enough to see at the cinema or blind-buy the BD. 😉 Overall, the general feeling I’m getting from reviews is ‘forgettable but fun’.

    • Bolo

      Yes, McCarthy was in ‘Bridesmaids’. I’m pretty sure that performance was what launched her into stardom as a comedy film lead. I found her annoying in that movie (and I didn’t really like the overall film either, but I find the whole Apatow style of humour tends to grate on me and I’ve stopped watching anything he’s associated with). I’ve skipped all McCarthy’s comedy star vehicles because they’re all marketed around her making gross faces and falling down. Several writers on this site have said that the marketing poorly represents her work (especially the film ‘Spy’) and that there’s more to her comedy than that, but I haven’t bothered to investigate.

      I thought Wiig was hilarious in ‘Welcome to Me’. But that one is a pretty dark, deadpan movie and definitely not for everybody.

      I also had never heard of the other two before this movie.

      • EM

        For an appreciation of McCarthy, I suggest the Twilight Zone-ish film The Nines, which features her (as a supporting player) and Ryan Reynolds (as the star) in dramatic roles, with some humor. You might also find her in Nines writer-director John August’s short “God” (it was a supplement on the DVD I rented), where she stars in a hilarious, non-pandering role.

        • Bolo

          Comedy stars that annoy me doing their comedy shtick frequently turn out to be quite enjoyable in dramatic roles.

        • The Nines was a great movie, had never heard of it until a friend turned me on to it not that long ago, highly recommended.

          I’m a McCarthy fan, Spy was hilarious and barely featured any “falling” down pratfall stuff, it had a couple things related to that, like her riding the motorcycle that you saw in the trailer, but other than that, the comedy was so much more on point and IMO has been for any Paul Feig movie with her in it, I laughed a ton at The Heat and I also loved Bridesmaids, Feig and McCarthy havent steered me wrong yet so I’m really looking forward to seeing this on Sunday when I go 🙂

          This review and a ton of others saying its really damn good has me pretty excited, the latest TV spots and last trailer had me laughing and much more excited, should be a really fun time!

  3. Csm101

    Good to hear positive things about this flick. I should be going tomorrow and cast my vote accordingly. Very excited!

  4. EM

    Perhaps you’re merely trying to be funny, but the wording of the sole “not interested” choice in the poll is insulting to your readership. There are rationales other than misogyny to not be interested, such as suspecting the movie to be no funnier than this poll choice.

    • Mark

      Thank you for pointing that out. As soon as I read that I rolled my eyes. I really never had any desire to watch this movie, and the first trailer just solidified it. Not because of mysogyny, but because it looked incredibly bad and even worse…..not funny. After reading a couple reviews I’ll just wait for video, but I might just skip that and watch the originals.

  5. William Henley

    Columbia / Sony was very smart to prescreen this as early as they did, and to let reviews come out this soon before its general release. The reviews have generally been positive, and it has a 75% fresh from critics on Rotten Tomatoes, which really surprised me. I was honestly going to skip this movie, but now I think I want to check it out.

    I don’t get all the hate for Ghostbusters 2, though. I won’t say I love it, but I don’t hate it either, its just a mediocore pop-corn flick to me. I don’t own the second one, but I will usually watch it when it shows on cable.

    • I’m not a big fan of Ghostbusters 2 myself, but I do own it. Of course, that the blu-ray set of both Ghostbusters 1 & 2 cost exactly the same as the blu-ray of Ghostbusters 1, made it a pretty easy choice 🙂

    • Shannon Nutt

      It’s only at about 50% fresh among “major” critics though, with Variety, EW, The Hollywood Reporter and both the Chicago Sun-Times (Richard Roeper) and Chicago Tribune hating it.

      I guess I’ll know for sure in a couple days, although I’m not anxious to plop down $$$ for another Paul Feig movie (some people like him – I haven’t seen anything yet that I’ve enjoyed).

    • Chris B

      Ghostbusters 2 is a great movie, I enjoy it just as much as the original. I don’t get all the hate either.

      • Thulsadoom

        I agree. I don’t know if I’d say I enjoy it quite as much as Ghostbusters 1, but it’s a damn good sequel and a great movie. I don’t know why it gets the hate either.

        • Bolo

          I also thought ‘Ghostbusters 2’ was an obviously weaker, but still enjoyable sequel. Until this forum, I had no idea it was in that category of sequels people think are a complete disgrace to the series. I knew most people hate ‘Alien 3’ and ‘Godfather III’ and ‘Rocky V’ and ‘Star Trek V: The Final Frontier’. But I didn’t know ‘Ghostbusters 2’ was in there.

          • William Henley

            Yeah, that was my thoughts. It is certainly weaker….

            Although I would say Star Trek 5 is a fun movie as well, despite how bad it is. Its about as campy as some of the TV shows. Star Trek 9 and 10, though… Wow. Star Trek 5 I will still watch. Star Trek 9 and 10 though I think I saw each at the theater, once on DVD and once on Blu-Ray. BAD movies.

            Back to Ghostbusters, yeah, I enjoyed 2, and kind of surprised it gets so much hate. Its a decent sequel, and the story makes sense as a progression of the first movie.

            I did see Ghostbusters 3, and I was impressed – it was a fun movie. Significantly better than I was expecting. I wouldn’t say it was a great movie, but it was fun. I certainly have no issues with this being part of the Ghostbusters universe, and I would say it is better than the second one. It actually reminded me a LOT of The Real Ghostbusters cartoon show, which I was a big fan of.

  6. David Markham

    “Honestly, how did we get to the point where a remake of ‘Ghostbusters’ is the most politicized movie of 2016?”

    When Paul Feig decided that a reboot was the only way he could make a female-led ‘Ghostbusters’ movie.

      • RealityCheck72

        DING! DING! DING! Guess who wins the “Captain Obvious” award. If this was Ghostbusters 3 with an all-female cast and the originals handing off the baton to the new team, I’d be up for checking it out. Plus Feig’s smug attack against anyone not wanting another Hollywood reboot made me not want to see it even more.

        I will NEVER watch this.

    • A female cast makes perfectly sense for the remake. A new male cast would inevitably be directly compared to the old, and there would be a big risk that the actors would simply play Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis and Hudson rather than their characters. A female cast allows them to reinvent the characters, and gives the cast the possibility to make the characters their own.

      However, you are completely right. The female cast is absolutely at the core of the controversy.Not because it’s a bad idea, but because a bunch of misogynistic wankers are utterly incapable of accepting women as equals.

      • Shannon Nutt

        In many of the “trolls” defense, it’s not about a female cast (fans were jumping with joy when names like Tina Fey and Emma Stone were being thrown about). It’s about THIS female cast…and more importantly, the MALE director, who has spent his career making primarily dumb, slapstick comedies. Ghostbusters is supposed to be funny. It’s NOT supposed to be dumb and slapstick.

        • Sorry, but I don’t agree.

          Sure, there are many valid reasons to be concerned about the movie, and I totally understand why people don’t think the Feig/McCarthy style of comedy is a good fit for Ghostbusters. In fact, that’s one of my major concerns as well. However, the massive torrents of hate that gets spewed towards this movie is not fueled by simple creative differences.

          I’m fairly certain that if Ghostbusters had been directed by Todd Phillips, and he’d brought in the cast from The Hangover movies to star, there would still have objections. But it wouldn’t have been anywhere near the level it’s been on with this movie.

          • I don’t agree with that last bit at all. People were already sick of those guys after 1 Hangover movie.

            I don’t know who should have made a new Ghostbusters movie, but definitely not this group. I think Edgar Wright has made some of the best comedies of the last decade or so and Mike Judge’s Silicon Valley is one of the funniest shows in recent years, so maybe one of those 2.

            Regarding the cast, I consider Kristen Wiig to be among the absolute top tier SNL cast members ever and Kate McKinnon is one of my top 2 favorite current cast members. But Melissa McCarthy just seems dopey and Leslie Jones is one of the least funny people ever.

      • RealityCheck72

        Oh please just stop with that garbage. If this was “Ghostbusters 3” with the same female cast and they had the originals handing off the baton to them, you wouldn’t get much of any “hate” from fans. Just stop, the misogynist excuse is lame and overdone. Also it’s a crutch for those weak minded fools who can’t see that people in general are sick of reboots.

  7. I voted “wait for the blu-ray”, but to be honest, these days, this applies to most movies that aren’t part of the MCU or Star Wars franchise.

    I’m encouraged by Phil’s review, though. I just read Richard Roepers review, and that seemed to confirm pretty much every single thing I worried about after seeing the trailers. But I’ll probably still wait for the blu-ray 🙂

  8. Chris B

    I re-watched the first Ghostbusters today and it’s honestly not that funny. I really like it, it’s a hell of a lot of fun and it’s a really “cool” movie, but I think people overstate the humor. Pretty much all the jokes are dry and sarcastic (which isn’t necessarily a bad thing) but don’t really make me burst out laughing, I’ll chuckle here and there for the most part. Granted, the humor isn’t as dry as something in a Wes Anderson movie, but I don’t get why people think it’s one of the funniest movies ever made.

    • Shannon Nutt

      People like it because it’s “Smart.” SO many comedies play toward the lowest common denominator. Ghostbusters didn’t.

      Also, the Bill Murray character is in on the joke. His dry remarks reflect a lot of the things audience members are thinking – like, “no human being would stack books like this” and “generally you don’t see that kind of behavior in a major appliance.”

      The sequel isn’t nearly as smart as the original…it’s basically a more typical 80s comedy that plays off the goodwill the first movie built up. That’s why many think it’s a disappointment.

    • NJScorpio

      IMO, when a movie straddles genres, you have to view it through the light of a primary genre with a secondary layer…if you look at that secondary layer as the primary genre, it will be held to those genre expectations and may very well disappoint.

      ‘Ghostbusters’ is considered comedy, but really, it is very much a “monster movie”, a science fiction horror movie in the tradition of ‘The Invisible Man’, ‘Frankenstein’, or ‘Them!’. It becomes a comedy by casting comedians as the actors, and having a comedy director. So holding it to the standards of a comedy first is a disservice.

      Transversely, a movie like ‘Airplane!’ is a comedy first, and a disaster movie second. When viewed as just a disaster movie, it doesn’t hold the same thrills/tension as other disaster flicks.

      Similarly (and more along the lines of a personal opinion), I feel that ‘Blade Runner’, when approached as a pure sci-fi movie, it disappoints. When viewed as a film noir, with a secondary layer of science fiction, it excels.

      • Csm101

        I’ve always viewed Ghostbusters as a comedy first and foremost and it looks to me like this remake is going for that as well ( judging by the trailers) although I will be able to assess that tonight for myself. I think a movie that gets labeled as a comedy a lot but really isn’t is An American Werewolf In London. I feel it’s mostly horror with bits of dark comedy peppered throughout.

        • NJScorpio

          I referred to ‘Fargo’ as one of the Coen Brother’s comedies, and someone looked at me like I was nuts. It is, compared to ‘Miller’s Crossing’. Some people see the dark comedy coming through in movies that aren’t exactly comedies, and we enjoy the move all the more for it.

      • William Henley

        I’ll have to agree with NJ on this one. Gremlins is the same way – monster movie first, comedy second. They flipped it with the sequel – comedy first, monster movie second. But the first two Ghostbusters were Monster Movie first, comedy second.

        They pretty much went with the same theme here in 3, Sci-Fi / paranormal Monster Movie first, comedy second, although there is much more comedy (although a lot of it is still pretty dry). It worked for me. May not have been the best it could have been, but it worked, and I enjoyed it.

  9. jrob

    Sounds like the trailers to this movie did a huge disservice to it.Those trailers were not very good, and reinforced people’s fears that it would be a bad movie.

  10. JSmith

    I’m not even slightly interested in this politically contrived, feminist garbage. Anyone that chooses to waste money on it, are complicit in perpetuating the cycle of pathetic, unimaginative, cash grab, reboots we have seen coming out of Hollywood. It seems like originality and production quality doesn’t count for anything anymore. These “actresses” should head back to the kitchen where they belong.

      • JSmith

        I have hated all the reboots after seeing the trailers for them, and this one is no different. I particularly hate attempts by producers to hijack beloved franchises in order to push political agendas, whilst showing absolutely no respect to the source material.

        • So? Josh didn’t say everybody loved those reboots. The intensity of the hate flung towards this particular reboot is several magnitudes stronger than it is with other reboots, and it’s becoming incredibly difficult to believe the the cast’s gender does not play a significant part in that.

          • NJScorpio

            That is because some fans believe instead of actually writing a quality ‘Ghostbusters’ sequel, the director and producers decided to just rely on the novelty of an all female cast to draw an audience. It is insulting to audiences, because it says a franchise like ‘Ghostbusters’ doesn’t deserve the effort, and can just be used as a vehicle for a particular director’s trend (female ensemble comedies).

            There would be similar uproar if the franchise was given to someone like Michael Bay, and it felt like Transformers w ghosts instead of robots. It’s going about things the wrong way, for the wrong reasons, resulting in something that disappoints fans.

          • Why did Ghostbusters need another sequel? The last attempt at a sequel was a dog. Another sequel could not progress forward without Bill Murray, who has an ownership stake in the franchise and refused to even read any of the scripts that were sent to him. Sony made several attempts to do a Ghostbusters 3 and they all fell apart. Another sequel was never going to happen. The franchise was essentially dead until Ivan Reitman and Harold Ramis talked Murray into consenting to a reboot that he wouldn’t have to star in. It was a reboot or nothing.

            I haven’t seen the reboot yet. Maybe it sucks. I don’t know. But the complaint that a female cast is somehow “insulting to audiences” is, frankly, insulting to humanity.

          • NJScorpio

            Josh Z – I know that the original guys make cameos…couldn’t there have been a ‘Ghostbusters 3’ that didn’t have the original cast? I’m not saying it is a good idea, but in theory we could have had something like: Akin to ‘Ghostbusters 2’, the city of New York quickly fell out of love with the original Ghostbusters, eventually writing off the events as mass hysteria. Everyone forgets about them until one of these new characters discovers their work (somehow), just in time to halt a new ghost infestation. Have them dusting off all the old equipment, perhaps updating them slightly (but modifying the original objects). As for the reasons why the original guys aren’t around (assuming they wouldn’t be), they could be scattered due to a post-Ghostbusters II scandal. One off in Tibet, one institutionalized in another part of the country, etc.

            TL;DR – I think a legit sequel could exist where it is not the original cast.

          • As I mentioned, Bill Murray has an ownership stake in the franchise. Per the terms of the original contract, no sequel could be made without full consent of all four primary partners: Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis and Reitman. Aykroyd and Reitman attempted to make a “passing the torch to a new generations” sequel and Sony even greenlit it, but they couldn’t get Murray on board and it fell apart.

            No matter what ideas you have for a sequel, they were never going to happen. Bill Murray wanted nothing to do with another sequel and refused to give his consent. He wouldn’t even read any of the scripts that were sent to him, no matter how big or small his part was in them.

            The only thing Murray would agree to was a full reboot. It was that or let the franchise die.

          • JSmith

            Trying to blame the movie’s failure on the audience, is beyond ludicrous. The bottom line is that the producer and the director have failed. They have failed to make a movie that people will want to see. Not only were they so lazy that they couldn’t even develop an original concept, thy just stole a successful franchise and used it to leech money out of the pockets of moviegoers.

          • NJScorpio

            Josh Z – That really stinks about Murray, and seemingly an odd stance. I mean, I understand if he was one of those actors who has semi-retired from acting, and wants limited involvement, but he is still churning out (mixed quality) stuff. Frankly, so much of his current fan base comes from nostalgia, and certainly not his new material, that it seems like a bad call not to give his fans what they want. Oh well.

      • RealityCheck72

        Josh, you just got trolled. C’mon now. That last line didn’t make you go “Oh, he’s just joking”.

    • “These “actresses” should head back to the kitchen where they belong”. This must be a joke sentence. JSmith is pulling our leg. No one is that ignorant.

      • JSmith

        I’m not joking at all, I’m very serious. I don’t find any of these “actresses” funny in the slightest. I generally don’t find women funny, There have been a couple of exceptions, but I rarely find that they make decent comedians.

          • JSmith

            The truth is always more important than political correctness. There’s no honesty in only telling people what they want to hear, just to be politically correct

          • RealityCheck72

            Imagine a Female Ghostbusters led by females who were/are actually funny. My dream team would be:

            Gilda Radner
            Madeline Khan
            Whoopi Goldberg
            Lucille Ball

        • Elizabeth

          JSmith, please return to the 19th century where your view of women belongs. The fact that you seem oblivious to how blatantly sexist your “head back to the kitchen where they belong” statement is says a lot about you. It’s not about being politically correct, it’s about you being an ignorant, disgusting misogynist. And again the fact that you don’t see the difference says a lot about you. And none of what it says is positive.

          I seriously hope you don’t have a wife or girlfriend because I feel sorry for someone who would be psychologically damaged to the point of being with you who believes their only value is cooking, cleaning, and lying spread eagle popping out babies.

          • JSmith

            Elizabeth – Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if you don’t like that opinion. I’m not going to lie, just because the truth might upset some people. Nobody ever said that the truth should always be positive either, the truth is NOT democratic, and I would prefer to live around honest people, than those that only tell others what they think they would like to hear.

          • EM

            Elizabeth, try going yourself to the 19th Century and giving that view to Queen Victoria. She’ll whup your arse!

        • Phil

          JSmith…you should consider calming down. You’re not a hero for thinking women aren’t funny, and while honesty is great, dismissing so many hilarious comedians simply because they have genitals that scare you is not.

          • JSmith

            Phil – I’m only telling it like I see it. I have reached my own conclusion from what I have seen in the past, no different from everyone else. However there are some people on here that want to discredit people that have an opinion that they just don’t like, and will proceed with personal attacks.

          • JSmith, you’ve said your piece. Your comments about women are controversial and inflammatory, to put it lightly, and you obviously know it. I’ve let them stand for now, but you’re not adding anything to the conversation by repeating them. As much as you are entitled to hold whatever opinion you want, we don’t have to listen to it. Don’t make me ban you. Please move on to another topic. This is your last warning. Thank you.

          • RealityCheck72

            If you find Sarah Silverman funny, or Lena Dunham hillarious, you should just give up trying to laugh.

            Bring back Gilda Radner from the dead!

  11. NJScorpio

    How about we have a Weekend Roundtable about these reboot/delayed sequels that actually work?

    I personally feel that ‘Poltergeist’ (2015) worked. It updated the technology in the story, appropriately, and I very much enjoyed the 3D implementation, feeling it added to the movie. This is not to say it was better than the original, but it worked, and I enjoyed it.

    A delayed sequel that works is ‘The Thing’ (2011), mainly for the respectful way it incorporates itself into the original. Again, not better than the original, but enjoyable.

    Another that I felt worked, a reboot, was ‘Evil Dead’ (2013). Very visceral, though with a different tone from the original, it was still creepy and gory. It may not have given fans what they wanted (which, I guess, was ‘Ash VS The Evil Dead’), but again…I think it worked in it’s own way.

    As for one that didn’t work…I feel that ‘A Nightmare on Elm St’ (2010) was a travesty, and made a terrible mess of a simple and effective plot. I hated it, SO MUCH.

    • GMan

      Okay…I am with you for Evil Dead and The Thing..but….. Poltergeist was goddamm awful. While I agree about Elm St., I have to say that Poltergeist was even worse!!! That said, we all have our opinions and I am glad that we have another Horror enthusiast with us!

      • NJScorpio

        Right on! It’s more fun discussing the merits of classic and modern horror movies than Criterion titles…though I do love when they overlap!

    • William Henley

      Poltergeist (2015) worked really well. I was surprised it was that good (of course, I went in with low expectations). It is certainly better than 2 and 3 were, although not as good as the original.

      The Force Awakens was a great delayed sequel

      I could probably go on, but I will save it for the roundtable, when it happens

  12. AML

    Wheres the option for “I will download this illegally and probably fall asleep half way though it, because i refuse to give my money to shitty reeboots”

  13. Shannon Nutt

    And I’m back…and yes, it IS worse that Ghostbusters II!

    The first 30 minutes are PAINFULLY unfunny. It gets a little more watchable once Chris Hemsworth shows up, but there’s no story here at all. It’s way too cartoony as well, it doesn’t “feel” like it’s set in the real world (the way the original did) – this feels more like a bad Men in Black sequel than a Ghostbusters movie…at least in terms of tone.

    I won’t say I didn’t laugh at a few things (there’s a ‘Jaws’ joke I enjoyed), but the laugh per minute ratio is really low – and this film tries to be a lot funnier than the first two ‘Ghostbusters’ films. Hemsworth and Jones are probably the two best actors in the movie, but that’s not saying much. I love Kate McKinnon on SNL, but all she does here is mug for the camera…it’s funny a couple of times – it’s not after the 20th time. Wiig and McCarthy are just fine…but the screenplay gives them NOTHING to do. Bill Murray’s cameo is the least-funny thing in the movie. The other cameos are fun, but ultimately meaningless.

    I’d give this 1 1/2 out of 5 stars. It’s not something I’d ever want to sit through again. 🙁

    • NJScorpio

      Ouch…but sounds like the trailers were accurate (for once).

      The worst part is that real world feel bit, as that really anchors the original in the sci-fi realm as opposed to just a crazy comedy about ghosts.

  14. Csm101

    Just got back from the theater. It wasn’t amazing, but it was good. I was hoping to laugh more than I did, but there were a few lol moments, and still had a good time at the movies. I could see this one really growing on me with repeat viewings. I saw it in 3D on pretty much a gigantic 16:9 screen with black bars on top and bottom and anytime there were ghosts or proton beams shooting, they would spill over the screen. That was pretty fun. The auditorium wasn’t filled to capacity, but there were a good amount of people in it. Overall, I liked the movie and hope it does well at the box office and wouldn’t mind revisiting this universe in a sequel. The stinger at the end got everyone’s attention.

    • cardpetree

      Nice, I’ve got tickets to watch it tonight in 3D at the largest screen in Kentucky (I think, other than maybe a true IMAX screen) Xscape Theater. I’m pretty excited.

      • Csm101

        I saw mine at the ETX theater at Disney Springs. I don’t know if it’s as big as an IMAX screen, but if it isn’t, it certainly comes close. It definitely enhanced the viewing experience!

        • William Henley

          Saw mine at the CineCapri in Southlake, Texas. They claim the largest screen in DFW. It’s a 2,35:1 and they only show 2D, but it has Dolby Atmos!

  15. Hey Josh, when you say “Bill Murray wanted nothing to do with another sequel and refused to give his consent. He wouldn’t even read any of the scripts that were sent to him, no matter how big or small his part was in them. The only thing Murray would agree to was a full reboot. It was that or let the franchise die.”, isn’t it weird that he did agree to do a cameo for this one? To me, it seems like he’d like to steer clear of anything Ghostbusters-involved. ‘He would agree to a full reboot’, but that reboot didn’t have to include his cameo, right? Or was it out of goodwill? (I know he said on Jimmy Kimmel: “I thought these women were funny”)

    • I don’t have the link handy at the moment, but Ivan Reitman did an interview recently where he laid out the whole story of why this movie is a reboot and not a sequel. The gist of it is that, although Bill Murray loves Ghostbusters, he didn’t feel it needed another sequel and didn’t want to reprise the Venkman character. He didn’t even want to think about it.

      (Although he did lend his voice to the Ghostbusters videogame a few years ago, anybody who played that game knows that Murray’s part was a half-assed effort. In fact, he only recorded about 1/3 of the lines he was supposed to, and the game producers had to rewrite the rest of his dialogue for the other characters.)

      Reitman and Aykroyd had to talk Murray into consenting to a reboot. Once he was comfortable with that idea and liked the new creative team, he agreed to do a cameo so long as he was not playing Venkman.

      Reitman says that Murray has seen the new movie and loved it.

  16. Timcharger

    Pointing out historical benefits of women who didn’t stay in the kitchen,
    answering fellow commenter’s question of the limits to ignorance, and
    guessing other possibilities of marital states…
    and I’m the one who gets deleted?

    Okay, okay, 2 out of 3 ain’t bad. Yes, 1 of the 3 was maybe out of
    bounds. Slightly.

    —–

    Seriously, Josh, when a bully gets punched back, your policing work
    is accomplished by arresting the one who pushed back on the bully?

    Why isn’t this comment deleted?
    “These “actresses” should head back to the kitchen where they belong.”

    Or should I wonder if you prefer the clicks that hate brings?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.