Finally watched it!


After a conversation with my 9 year old son, who is a big Ghostbusters fan, I decided I couldn't comment on the new one until I watched it. So, I did. (spoilers ahead)

The first 20 or so minutes felt like a really cheesy episode of Charmed. It wasn't horrible, just super cheesy. Some of the Hemsworth gags were funny, though some were pretty forced. Some of the one-liners were okay. I really thought Kate McKinnon's interactions felt forced. Her "tech speak" was just stupid. Overall, Kristen Wiig's acting was pretty good.

Cameos by Dan Aykroyd and Slimer were funny. Annie Potts was just okay. Bill Murray was okay.

The angle of the creepy janitor being the bad guy was done poorly, I thought. Him taking over Hemsworth's body and the big ghost fight at the end were cheesy.

I think they could have used the same cast and some of the ideas and made something worth watching. Little bits were okay, individually, but as a whole it didn't work.

I wanted to like it. I like the actresses (their movies, not necessarily personally/politically) and I liked the idea. I just didn't feel like it worked.

reply

Also, shooting the big ghost in the balls . . . dumb. It should have been funny, but by that time it was just wearing thin. Maybe that's it . . . the whole comic timing was just off.

reply

Yep, writers and directors failed to make a good movie here unfortunately.

Actors did their best with the material, and some bits were funny, but sadly most of the movie was bad.

Could have been really good, if they'd taken Ghostbusters a bit more seriously rather than trying to be slapstick, goofy, cheesy and "hilarious" every second. That tactic just pushes away the viewer, as reality is thrown out the window and we basically are watching a bad cartoon.

The original Ghostbusters had genuine grit, more suspense and much better pace and timing. Back when they knew how to make movies. These days, studios want "instagram movies" where everything is about applying a filter to enhance the look to gain maximum impression. Over-saturated creativity lacks heart and soul.

reply

Maybe "Idiocracy" had it right . . . "Ow, My Balls!"

reply

I felt the same way about everything you said.

reply

The only time I really came close to watching this movie was the 20+ minute review from CinemaSins. They usually pretty much go over the more important aspects of films. I don't think I would have been able to sit through the actual 116 minutes.

No, they did a terrible job with the 2016 version. Everything that made the original great was the complete opposite. Other than the political agenda behind it, nothing was interesting about the plot and characters.

One of the things that really bothered me about this was the cameo appearances from the original actors (barring Harold Ramis and Rick Moranis). They actually murdered Bill Murray's character in this film. I don't think a Ghostbusters film should be about killing actual humans.

The one from Dan was okay. Just a typical cabbie. Annie Potts was her usual grouchy self as a receptionist. Everybody else was meh, especially Sigourney.

I don't know, the movie has been out for over a year. I think the outrage has pretty much died down at this point.

reply

I fianlly watched it, because it cam on the normal , un paid for tv channels..
I thought it was ok

The mind bogglingly stupid male secretary idea was a fun jab at countless blond bimbo characters seen over the years.
I liked the techno babble
I liked the 2 ghostbusters being enemies at the start (cos that wasnt in the orig)
I liked the janitor guy trying to let evil ghosts in
I liked the "skeptic" character
I didnt like that the mayor didnt eventually beg them to help , like in the orig

reply