Ghostbusters Reboot

[Dammit Carl!]

Welp, saw this movie this past weekend and I rate it, "eh..okay."

If you've seen the original(s) back in the day, you aren't getting anything really new - so the "wow," factor isn't really there.  For my kids, who've not seen the older movies, this gives them them their own version of the theater-watched-ghostbusters experience, and that is okay too.

My opinion: acting was okay, effects were pretty good but they did chuck in a scene or two which made no flipping sense to me but it made the ladies look tough, I guess.  If you still aren't sure, then wait for the Redbox release and not be out too much change.

Props for Kate McKinnon as her character was pretty funny all the way around.

[BanzaiCat]

Angry Joe said one thing that struck a chord with me - the original team of Ghostbusters were rank amateurs when it came to shooting their proton packs at ghosts. A large part of the comedy in the first part of the first movie was them tearing stuff up with wanton abandon. He said this "new" team are all pretty much sharpshooters each and every time. There's no suspense, no sense of danger, nothing. And that's something the original Ghostbusters flick had; it was certainly a comedy, but it had horror moments (albeit light, but still...).

[mirth]

If you can make it all the way through this tripe, you beat me

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/19/movies/so-thats-who-you-call-the-politics-of-the-new-ghostbusters.html

[BanzaiCat]

As soon as I saw "attacked by angry male fans," I was done.  >:(

I've seen plenty of women bitching about this movie, too, but the NYT as usual conveniently ignores facts when it doesn't fit into their agenda.

Funny too how there's no Comments section. Hmmm...

[Gusington]

The NYTimes is barely readable for me anymore. It's like the Don Lemon of online papers.

[mirth]

I really enjoyed the Times 20 years ago. I had a print subscription back then (not easy to do in Maine). It has become progressively less readable over the years. I wouldn't pay a nickel for it now.

[Gusington]

Just like Don Lemon.

[Sir Slash]

Don Lemon is an insult to lemons I say. He should change his name to, 'Suck-a-Lemon'. And the NY Times isn't worth a lemon as a newspaper. And Ghostbusters Reboot will be remembered as a lemon of a movie. Sorry, but I was attacked by a lemon as a child.  >:(

[Nefaro]

Angry Joe said one thing that struck a chord with me - the original team of Ghostbusters were rank amateurs when it came to shooting their proton packs at ghosts. A large part of the comedy in the first part of the first movie was them tearing stuff up with wanton abandon. He said this "new" team are all pretty much sharpshooters each and every time. There's no suspense, no sense of danger, nothing. And that's something the original Ghostbusters flick had; it was certainly a comedy, but it had horror moments (albeit light, but still...).

One of the numerous problems with many of these "reboots".

They miss some of the more subtle situations & comedy. 

Another perfect example was the comedic jabs at commercialism in the original Robocop.  Ya know.. the "I'd buy that for a dollar!" over-the-top stuff (and acting, timing, etc) that gave the classics extra character.  Just one small flavorful facet of the whole, but you understand.  These new remakes just plain leave such great little facets out, or completely swing & miss when they try.

It's the little things.  Because, let's admit it, the plots of many of the old greats weren't all that amazing without all the extra little flavoring in between.

[JasonPratt]

Angry Joe said one thing that struck a chord with me - the original team of Ghostbusters were rank amateurs when it came to shooting their proton packs at ghosts. A large part of the comedy in the first part of the first movie was them tearing stuff up with wanton abandon. He said this "new" team are all pretty much sharpshooters each and every time. There's no suspense, no sense of danger, nothing. And that's something the original Ghostbusters flick had; it was certainly a comedy, but it had horror moments (albeit light, but still...).

At about the same time, Joe said it was a nastier movie, too, in that the ghosts actually kill people on screen (although only 2 or 3 that he recalled).

[Centurion40]

Angry Joe said one thing that struck a chord with me - the original team of Ghostbusters were rank amateurs when it came to shooting their proton packs at ghosts. A large part of the comedy in the first part of the first movie was them tearing stuff up with wanton abandon. He said this "new" team are all pretty much sharpshooters each and every time. There's no suspense, no sense of danger, nothing.

He and I must have seen different movies. There was a great deal of them practicing with the proton packs (along with other ghost-smacking gadgets) and failing horribly. Blowing, tearing and burning shit-up. In one of the lamest sight-gag bits in the movie, there was a way-too-long scene with Melissa McCarthy in an alley using a proton pack for the first time. She was getting tossed around the alley like a rag doll. Not one of them was a sharp shooter each and every time.

[BanzaiCat]

Interesting, 40.

[JasonPratt]

Wow, this game flew under the radar... (but Angry Joe's review seemed more appropriate here):

[BanzaiCat]

I've owned it for a while and tried to play it three times (I am on my third try now). The Sta-Puff encounter always kicked my butt and I'd rage-uninstall.

But, since the game is technically Ghostbusters III (it's based on a script, I think, that Ackroyd and Ramis put together, intended for filming originally), and that it has all the original cast voicing their characters, it's pretty f'ing awesome. I couldn't get it to run terribly smoothly on my old rig, but on this one it runs well. I'm looking forward to finally getting through the story.

[mirth]

Fifty fucking dollars for this piece of shit! With four dollar DLC for the original Ghostbuster outfits that everyone loves! Four fucking dollars!

Cost of Angry Joe rant....Priceless.