On Hemsworth's 'beefcake secretary' role reversal: "A good gag ... played well." - Although, I have to say, 'role reversal'? Yeah, when compared to other movies, but Annie Potts' Janine was a tough New York woman: forthright, sarcastic, took no shit from anyone, commanded the respect of her peers/superiors while 'just' being their secretary (so the perception would be, I'm not "secretary shaming" ). So, in terms of Ghostbusters specifically, you could argue that Hemsworth's 'himbo' is a regressive step within the franchise.
There's a clip in this review, too. Sure, it's only a clip, but yeesh ... I just cringed. Am I getting fed up with this 'Apatow-esque' style of humour? I watched Feig's "Spy" the other week and really quite enjoyed it. I think it just comes down to Ghostbusters being my Star Wars, and the Feig/Apatow world of comedy being the square peg to proper Ghostbusters' round hole ... ooh err!
On the structure - "messy, scrappy ... structurally shambolic" ... he does mention some 'time shift' back to the glory days of Times Square, which does sound very interesting to me, though.
"Smiling and chortling, but not laughing out loud". He does say it's "easy to like", but unfortunately he amplifies all the trolling nonsense and completely ignores the legitimate and well argued fear and 'fanger' (fan anger) that GB fans had/have leading up to it (something which Feig has acknowledged on numerous occasions, to his credit).
So ultimately Kermode generally liked it, but it fell quite far below the required line, and has some particular problems.
You see this is a problem for me. I like the "good doctor" and agree with a lot of his reviews, but I really dislike the idea that this film gets a pass because it might be one in the eye for red pill twats on the interwebs.
That's just absurd to me.
I come from an angle where I think the original in stupidly overrated by some (my sincerest apologies to Mini and Bassy ). It's a chucklesome film, at best, that you can watch any time when it's on. It's a great example of a film where everything just worked, almost in spite of itself. But the key factor is that it works. It's not forced, it's not ticking boxes. It just works as a good time film. It's almost the perfect beer and pizza film!
This thing is built on all the wrong foundations though. It's a cash in on a famous name. It's helmed by a troupe that's famous for a different find of comedy (I liked 'Bridesmaids' BTW), it looks like a tick-the-box effort and it stinks of Sony in search of a franchise in which it can rake in the shillings.
To me, that automatically puts me in the "I don't want to see" bag, like I was with 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre', 'A Nightmare on Elm Street', 'Total Recall', 'Robocop' and a million other different cash ins. Well, that and the four piss poor trailers that I saw.
It has been amazing though to witness the internet meltdown over this nonsense though. Some people have said the most remarkable things on either side, whilst the middle ground has been all but ignored, to a very large degree.
Oh internet! Tsk.
I'm runnin' this monkey farm now Frankenstein.....
4.4/10 "Bad" ... so don't bother if you're thinking of hopping on that (I wasn't even aware it existed until five minutes ago).
...
Originally Posted by shootemindehead
You see this is a problem for me. I like the "good doctor" and agree with a lot of his reviews, but I really dislike the idea that this film gets a pass because it might be one in the eye for red pill twats on the interwebs.
That's just absurd to me.
I come from an angle where I think the original in stupidly overrated by some (my sincerest apologies to Mini and Bassy ). It's a chucklesome film, at best, that you can watch any time when it's on. It's a great example of a film where everything just worked, almost in spite of itself. But the key factor is that it works. It's not forced, it's not ticking boxes. It just works as a good time film. It's almost the perfect beer and pizza film!
This thing is built on all the wrong foundations though. It's a cash in on a famous name. It's helmed by a troupe that's famous for a different find of comedy (I liked 'Bridesmaids' BTW), it looks like a tick-the-box effort and it stinks of Sony in search of a franchise in which it can rake in the shillings.
To me, that automatically puts me in the "I don't want to see" bag, like I was with 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre', 'A Nightmare on Elm Street', 'Total Recall', 'Robocop' and a million other different cash ins. Well, that and the four piss poor trailers that I saw.
It has been amazing though to witness the internet meltdown over this nonsense though. Some people have said the most remarkable things on either side, whilst the middle ground has been all but ignored, to a very large degree.
Oh internet! Tsk.
1) I'm likewise on Kermode. A lot of the time I agree with his assessments, and he's my favourite film critic, but his argument here felt beneath his usual standard of rigour. Oftentimes he rails against pointless reboots, and completely ignoring all the legitimate criticism that was being aimed at the film (which, I would say, would likely be the majority of the negativity aimed at it). Was there a concerted effort on the part of online arseholes? Undoubtedly, the evidence is right there, but I think the scale of it has been overestimated simply because it was the criticism that was shouted the loudest and paid the most attention.
2) "Stupidly overrated"?!?!?! *head explodes*
Each to their own, shoot, fair enough ... ... just watch your back when the bell rings and we're all in the HPOTD playground at lunch!
3) I agree with you on the "foundations" of this remake. Much like most remakes, it's shaky ground to build on - and when I keep hearing/reading about it having a shoddy structure and not knowing what tone to strike, it seems like Sony and Feig didn't really know what they wanted. Even seeing Feig talk about the coda scene it sounded like none of them really knew what they wanted it to be - choose for goodness sake! It's like the BBC's recent attempt at 'rebooting' Top Gear - they rushed into it and didn't know what they wanted to do (perhaps now that they've shafted Evans out of the way, and have cancelled the Xmas special in order to take some long overdue time to think about the format, they might come up with something better than the audience-hemorrhaging six episodes that recently aired).
4) I like the TCM remake - but it's nowhere near the same league as the original, not at all, and yes, it is a bit of a cynical exercise in itself. I re-watched it recently, having seen it a few times during the 2010s, and it's certainly fallen to a degree in my estimation. I don't think it'll really linger in minds that much as more time passes, but will retain a low level of remembrance.
A Nightmare on Elm Street 2010 - oh yes, indeed, that was the epitome of an atrocious remake. There was a good idea within it (seeing the origin story of Freddy Kruger, and reasserting his nasty backstory in place of all that goofy shit they made him do in later sequels), but it was just horrific. A hollow cobbling-together of a bunch of disparate scenes copied from the original, but with none of what made the original so good. The metaphor for the whole thing was that famous shot of Kruger bulging out from the wall above Nancy - a cheap bit of spandex and Englund pressing himself against it in the original, tens of thousands of dollars worth of obvious-looking CGI in the remake that looked fake-as-fook.
Total Recall - again, yes, what a load of crap that was! Blimey! Entirely forgettable. A hodge-podge mess. It was like someone spilled a pint of CGI on the floor. A total bugger up.
RoboCop - yep, while not as bad as Total Recall, it tried to do far too many things and lost focus completely the longer the movie went on. It was pure cash-in with a couple of good ideas up front that were cast aside for, yep, more naff CGI and dodgy physics.
5) Oh, the middle ground ... it seems like this world is pushing further and further to the extremes while the majority in the middle are left saying "WTF?!" From Trump to Twitter, it's a sorry mess.
So I'll start by saying the long road to actually seeing this film was a bit of an emotional roller coaster for me. Like MZ or Trance, GB has always been "my Star Wars". It's been a part of my life for as long as I can remember, so when this reboot was initially announced, I wanted to murder someone. How f*cking DARE they even think of remaking this?? Then of course I remembered I wasn't a two year old, its a lucrative franchise so it was inevitable, and it wouldn't effect the original in any way. So I just rolled with it. There were quite a few things that didn't look right, but I'd give it a chance on it's own terms.
So give it a chance I did....and it's good! I came away having really enjoyed those two hours in the cinema! It wasn't perfect, many things probably should've been handled differently, but at the end of the day I laughed many times and really enjoyed it. I don't expect a masterpiece every time I sit in a theater, I just want to be entertained and this accomplished it quite well. Somewhere around the second act I actually thought to myself "wtf, I'm really enjoying this!?!"
One thing to most certainly note: they totally screwed the pooch with the trailers. I don't feel like any of the trailers correctly represented the tone of this remake.
The references to the original go a bit overboard, but they're still fun to see. At least on this initial viewing. Without spoilers, the cameos are a bit hefty, but theyre spread out at a pretty decent pace. Theres even a Harold Ramis cameo in a sense and that brought a huge smile to my face! There are still those odd references as to whether or not it could somehow be connected to the originals, but I'm definitely leaning toward it not being connected. It also seems to do a bit of toying with the title, using the "answer the call" bit at the end. Do I sense a "A New Hope" style name change to make room for potential sequels and branches?
Anyway, I could go on for ages. Bottom line: try to step off the hate train, try to enjoy it on it's own terms, it was never going to match the original or affect the original in any way. Your childhood remains intact, I promise you.
If this is indeed the beginning of Reitman's Ghost Corp productions and a potential huge franchise, I'm excited about the future.
Last edited by bassman; 17-Jul-2016 at 12:58 AM.
Reason: .
One thing to most certainly note: they totally screwed the pooch with the trailers. I don't feel like any of the trailers correctly represented the tone of this remake.
Interesting.
Makes you wonder why the movie biz doesn't just tell the trailer editors to sort their shit out, and most importantly of all, listen to the flippin' director of the movie ... and stop with that shit of giving away the whole movie, while I think of it.
...
As for the film itself. I'll see it ... eventually. I just have absolutely zero excitement for it. The trailers have indeed been awful.
Makes you wonder why the movie biz doesn't just tell the trailer editors to sort their shit out, and most importantly of all, listen to the flippin' director of the movie ... and stop with that shit of giving away the whole movie, while I think of it.
...
As for the film itself. I'll see it ... eventually. I just have absolutely zero excitement for it. The trailers have indeed been awful.
I think in this particular case, the issue with the trailers may have a bit to do with Feig's improv directing style. As you've said before, he's from that sort of Apatow generation where the actors riff on the same scene for many, many takes. Feig has said his initial assembly cut of the film was 4.5 hours because of this!
So I think the marketing folk are given TONS of material and try to make the best of it. Certain jokes from the trailers land much better within the context of the film, while certain jokes are completely absent.
As has been said in most reviews, it's the first two acts of this film that really work, but it stumbles into generic blockbuster action in the third. I've always been puzzled how certain audiences see the original characters as sort of action or almost superheroes. That never seemed right to me, but with this film, these new gb's most definitely turn into action stars in the final battle.
Anyway, the first two acts actually do feel like a relative to Reitman's films. Right at the opening scene it felt like it could have been a sister or cousin to the original. Good opening scare that builds up into the Ghostbusters theme just like the original. This is pretty well maintained through the gathering of the team, the first sightings across the city, building the equipment, first catch, etc. It's around the beginning of the third act where the main villain really comes out to shine, he's a bit of a weak villain honestly, and then we go into your basic explosions and spectacle of the summer blockbusters. Still some good laughs peppered in there though.
I'm actually anxious to see it again to see how it sits after a second viewing....
Last edited by bassman; 17-Jul-2016 at 05:57 PM.
Reason: .
As has been said in most reviews, it's the first two acts of this film that really work, but it stumbles into generic blockbuster action in the third. I've always been puzzled how certain audiences see the original characters as sort of action or almost superheroes. That never seemed right to me, but with this film, these new gb's most definitely turn into action stars in the final battle.
Anyway, the first two acts actually do feel like a relative to Reitman's films. Right at the opening scene it felt like it could have been a sister or cousin to the original. Good opening scare that builds up into the Ghostbusters theme just like the original. This is pretty well maintained through the gathering of the team, the first sightings across the city, building the equipment, first catch, etc. It's around the beginning of the third act where the main villain really comes out to shine, he's a bit of a weak villain honestly, and then we go into your basic explosions and spectacle of the summer blockbusters. Still some good laughs peppered in there though.
Superheroes? The original guys? Some folks out there have a strange sense of the original movie, evidently! To me, they've always been what they are - academics who are in over their heads. You see how exhausted they are by the physical exertion at times, and how they're kinda skittish to begin with until they get into the groove, but they're academics and scientists through and through, plus Ernie Hudson's jobbing ghostbuster. Just look at the scene where they have to climb the stairs in the finale - they're shattered, just like any other Everyday Joe would be.
I think, ultimately, the new Ghostbusters flick I was wanting would have been a 'passing of the torch' film that included the first two as cannon. Imagine that concept under the writer/director team of Lord & Miller (21 Jump Street, The Lego Movie - and now the upcoming Han Solo film), for example. That was the sort of movie I was wanting - but evidently I'll never get that - what we've got instead is a remake.
I watched a Sky Cinema special on it last night. The ladies were all funny in the roundtable discussion, and I'm a big fan of Wiig in particular, but ... again, the clips they showed, for the most part, either grated on me or disappointed me. Perhaps I feel as if the 'Apatow style' of comedy is not the right fit for Ghostbusters.
I'm interested to see it, but I'll not be seeing it in the cinema (then again, I go so rarely these days).
The film opened in second place behind The secret life of Pets with 46 million. Obviously not Marvel or Star Wars numbers, but not bad for the type of film they made. I have a feeling it'll drop quickly in the coming weekends, especially with the new Trek opening next.
After only one weekend, Sony has confirmed that they're moving forward with other films. Whether this is a direct sequel to this remake, the announced CG film, the Pratt/Tatuum film, or a continuation of the original films, perhaps even a few of the above, remains to be seen. Reitman's new company was created with the intention of branching GB out into many different facets, but announcing that they're moving forward after only one weekend seems a bit premature...
With China saying no, it's a big dent in Sony's expected profits. So, I can't see this thing doing at all well, money wise. It might make a bit of a profit, but profit enough for a direct sequel? Mmmm. Plus, with all the nonsense surrounding this fiasco, would anyone really want to go around that track again? I can't really see that happening to easily.
In the end I think that'll be a good thing for folk who want this reboot/sequel cycle to end, or at least be toned down a bit.
Frankly, this is a film that shouldn't have been made, or at least not made by the people who were given the IP. The best result here is that nu-Ghostbusters gets put in the same box as the other remake/reboot attempts that didn't do as well as hoped.
I haven't seen it yet myself and I won't. At least not in the pictures. But most reports range from awful to meh, with some saying good. So, "mixed" at best. That's just not enough for me to get off my ass and fork out for it.
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. [click for more] -Carl Sagan
There's talk of it as a stunt to boost ticket sales. I saw a shot of a tweet that was never confirmed as real or fake of her saying she had done such a thing. Either way, she didn't ignore them like she should have but fed into it. This reboot is the Hollywood equivalent of a black hole of negativity that just grows and sucks in everything around it.
She was actually pretty darn good in the movie. Much better than the trailers would suggest and she serves a good purpose rather than being the stereotype tag along. She's the most relatable character to the audience like Winston in the original, but actually has more input in the grand scheme of things.
But yes, it's very sad that "fans" have devolved into this horrible racist bullshit. One of those times when I really, really hope karma does exist and they'll get what's coming to them....
Last edited by bassman; 20-Jul-2016 at 11:42 PM.
Reason: .
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. [click for more]
Posting Permissions
Originally Posted by Neil
Reply With Quote
). So, in terms of Ghostbusters specifically, you could argue that Hemsworth's 'himbo' is a regressive step within the franchise.
Am I getting fed up with this 'Apatow-esque' style of humour? I watched Feig's "Spy" the other week and really quite enjoyed it. I think it just comes down to Ghostbusters being my Star Wars, and the Feig/Apatow world of comedy being the square peg to proper Ghostbusters' round hole ... ooh err!
). It's a chucklesome film, at best, that you can watch any time when it's on. It's a great example of a film where everything just worked, almost in spite of itself. But the key factor is that it works. It's not forced, it's not ticking boxes. It just works as a good time film. It's almost the perfect beer and pizza film!
Bookmarks