Ghostbuster 2016 Review

[Mark_M]

Today I finally went and watched Ghostbusters…
Spoiler Alert!

To be fair it is a lot better than the awful trailer made it out to be.

It starts very good.
The four characters are interesting and quite likeable.
Kevin is quite funny in the movie.

The writers really, well and truly missed the perfect opportunity to introduce these characters better. Instead of having Holtzman’s character have Weaver as her mentor and have it in the end credit scenes…why not have her as Egon, Ray or Peter’s protégée. or relative
[COLOR=rgb(0,0,0)]Hudson is Patty’s Uncle…fair enough…but why not have Hudson’s Winston character be her Uncle?

More to the point, when they did not want to be compared to the original or be a sequel why bother with the original cast cameos…just utterly pointless.

I am not to sure what to make of this movie.

The characters were likeable and there was some really good parts in the movie but the humour and overall storyline just wasn’t that great. In some instances it did feel a bit like a parody movie.

The villain was really boring and uninteresting.

Is it great? No. Is it as bad as I thought it would be? No. Could it better? Yes.
[COLOR=rgb(0,0,0)]
The concert scene is a really wasted opportunity. A cringe worthy scene of the band playing followed by a brief cameo appearance from Ozzy Osbourne saying he is having a flash back. Why not just have Ozzy and his band on stage? That would have been far better.

[COLOR=rgb(0,0,0)]Having every male character and even some other females be stupid really did the film no favours.

After the final battle the ending really, really drags on.

How could this movie have been better? Maybe not have an all female cast. Have a bit of diversity. Not rely so much on humour, such type as it is. Remember the original movies were sci-fi movies with comedy, not a comedy with sci-fi movie. Base it after the events in Ghostbusters 2 instead of wasting so much screen time with them investigating making the equipment etc. Consider how unrelated it is to the originals just don’t waste time with original cast cameos.

Believe it or not I will say I enjoyed this movie A LOT more than Batman v Superman!

This movie had some good parts but quite a lot of silly faults that hold it back. I don’t love it, I don’t hate it, it’s a fun enough okay movie. But it is frustrating at what a wasted opportunity this movie is.
Strange humour, to much reliance on jokes, a needlessly long introduction and boring villain really hold it back.
The portrayal of every male and even some other females as being really stupid also does the film no favours.
These faults are nothing to do with the cast or the female cast, just a problem of the writing and directing.

3/10

[LiamABC]

I saw it too. First time I’ve ever been to the cinema alone, curiously enough.

THIS WILL CONTAIN A FEW SPOILERS!

1. The story.
   I’ll say little on this part because I don’t want to give any plot details away. Sufficing to say, it was pretty generic, kind of what you’d expect from a modern version of Ghostbusters. That said, at least the story wasn’t totally subservient to the special effects. Overall, it was good though. The opening scene was the perfect way to introduce the film, with the trip round the haunted house, and an actual haunting happening . . .

2. The characters.
   The four leads themselves, I liked. My favourite character in any film is usually one or other of two extremes, either the wisest or the craziest. In this case it was the latter, Holtzman. What I especially liked about the four leads was that none of them was a direct clone of any of the original characters, they all had distinctly different personalities. Apart from Holtzman, they were all well-defined as individuals with proper backstories. There was some kind of beef between Erin and Abi at the start that was really just an excuse to get them in the same room. But at least we got some clue as to who they were individually before they became Ghostbusters. The originals didn’t really have that, but at the same time, they managed to not need it. Still, this film did a decent enough job with them.

3. The original cast cameos.
   Very nicely done.
   Considering how against the concept Bill Murray was, I think his cameo was designed with that attitude in mind. In a role vaguely corresponding to William Atherton’s character Walter Peck from the original, he is very cynical about these Ghostbusters. Nicely done indeed.
   Dan Aykroyd as the cabbie getting to say “I ain’t afraid of no ghosts” was the perfect touch.
   And Annie Potts as the hotel receptionist even got to snap “what do you want?” just like she had as Janine in the original. Again, perfectly done.
   I actually guessed before he appeared that Patty’s uncle would be Ernie Hudson - he hadn’t appeared yet and I knew he had a part, so when Patty said her uncle was here with the replacement hearse, I suddenly knew who it would be. And sure enough, out stepped Ernie.
   I also remembered hearing that Sigourney Weaver had one as well, but hadn’t seen her during the main film itself. I had heard that there were things worth sticking around for during (and even after) the end credits, and one of those was her cameo. Probably the least worthwhile of all the cameos I’d say, more crowbarred in for inclusion’s sake.
   And last but not least, the late Harold Ramis - obviously he was mentioned in tribute during the end credits, but I spotted his bust outside Erin’s office at the start. Very nicely done indeed.

4. The gender issues.
   This film got a lot of people angry at the four leads all being female, but you know what? In the context of the story, it doesn’t matter one bit. The fact that the original four were all male didn’t matter one bit to that story either. It’s not about them being men or women, it’s about them being Ghostbusters. That’s all there is to it.
   If there is a gender issue for people to get annoyed about, it could be the fact that there isn’t one likeable male character in the film. Every male character is either uncaring or stupid. But considering how many films there are where this applies to every one of the few female characters in it, I guess we can let them have this one.

5. The effects.
   No complaints. They were clearly pulling out a lot of stops in the effects department, but it all worked in the context of the story. It wasn’t built around the effects. I could argue that Jurassic World was more subservient to the effects. And while I did enjoy JW, I didn’t enjoy it as much as I enjoyed this.

6. No, I’ve not lost the ability to count, but this is sort of a combination of sections 3 and 5, so 8 it is. Nice touches for the way they included both Slimer and Marshmallow man!

[Mark_M]

@LiamABC

I saw it too. First time I’ve ever been to the cinema alone, curiously enough.

THIS WILL CONTAIN A FEW SPOILERS!

1. The story.
   I’ll say little on this part because I don’t want to give any plot details away. Sufficing to say, it was pretty generic, kind of what you’d expect from a modern version of Ghostbusters. That said, at least the story wasn’t totally subservient to the special effects. Overall, it was good though. The opening scene was the perfect way to introduce the film, with the trip round the haunted house, and an actual haunting happening . . .

2. The characters.
   The four leads themselves, I liked. My favourite character in any film is usually one or other of two extremes, either the wisest or the craziest. In this case it was the latter, Holtzman. What I especially liked about the four leads was that none of them was a direct clone of any of the original characters, they all had distinctly different personalities. Apart from Holtzman, they were all well-defined as individuals with proper backstories. There was some kind of beef between Erin and Abi at the start that was really just an excuse to get them in the same room. But at least we got some clue as to who they were individually before they became Ghostbusters. The originals didn’t really have that, but at the same time, they managed to not need it. Still, this film did a decent enough job with them.

3. The original cast cameos.
   Very nicely done.
   Considering how against the concept Bill Murray was, I think his cameo was designed with that attitude in mind. In a role vaguely corresponding to William Atherton’s character Walter Peck from the original, he is very cynical about these Ghostbusters. Nicely done indeed.
   Dan Aykroyd as the cabbie getting to say “I ain’t afraid of no ghosts” was the perfect touch.
   And Annie Potts as the hotel receptionist even got to snap “what do you want?” just like she had as Janine in the original. Again, perfectly done.
   I actually guessed before he appeared that Patty’s uncle would be Ernie Hudson - he hadn’t appeared yet and I knew he had a part, so when Patty said her uncle was here with the replacement hearse, I suddenly knew who it would be. And sure enough, out stepped Ernie.
   I also remembered hearing that Sigourney Weaver had one as well, but hadn’t seen her during the main film itself. I had heard that there were things worth sticking around for during (and even after) the end credits, and one of those was her cameo. Probably the least worthwhile of all the cameos I’d say, more crowbarred in for inclusion’s sake.
   And last but not least, the late Harold Ramis - obviously he was mentioned in tribute during the end credits, but I spotted his bust outside Erin’s office at the start. Very nicely done indeed.

4. The gender issues.
   This film got a lot of people angry at the four leads all being female, but you know what? In the context of the story, it doesn’t matter one bit. The fact that the original four were all male didn’t matter one bit to that story either. It’s not about them being men or women, it’s about them being Ghostbusters. That’s all there is to it.
   If there is a gender issue for people to get annoyed about, it could be the fact that there isn’t one likeable male character in the film. Every male character is either uncaring or stupid. But considering how many films there are where this applies to every one of the few female characters in it, I guess we can let them have this one.

5. The effects.
   No complaints. They were clearly pulling out a lot of stops in the effects department, but it all worked in the context of the story. It wasn’t built around the effects. I could argue that Jurassic World was more subservient to the effects. And while I did enjoy JW, I didn’t enjoy it as much as I enjoyed this.

6. No, I’ve not lost the ability to count, but this is sort of a combination of sections 3 and 5, so 8 it is. Nice touches for the way they included both Slimer and Marshmallow man!

I actually missed the bust of Harold. I knew it was in there but just didn’t notice it.
Holtzman was indeed a very fun character.

[grumpykat]

I liked this movie enough that I’ll be adding this to the shelf next to the 80’s movies, the cartoon series…and the Filmation cartoon/live action series.

[Mark_M]

@grumpykat

I liked this movie enough that I’ll be adding this to the shelf next to the 80’s movies, the cartoon series…and the Filmation cartoon/live action series.

I don’t know about getting the movie on DVD. Maybe if it was £1-3. I can’t say I would pay full price for it. I don’t know if I would even want to watch it again to be honest.

[Mark_M]

I have revised my original review.

[William_Graves]

I watched this for the first time recently and I had reservations about it when first advertised. I really thought that it had a parody feel in it. Also, first thoughts were SNL writers got together and bought national lampoon out or partnered up at least. I agree that if they wanted a complete make over leave iut cameos. It made me feel they were only in it to help sells and thats not what I wanted at least. I found Bill Murray did is part the way he almost wanted. He stated few years ago only way he would do a 3rd was if he was ghost or kill him off. That scene happened I thought yea ghost time baby! Ernie was a gimmie. I had said when it was announced it was a watch once movie or again maybe ever so often.
This is my opinion on the movie
I was 5 or 6 when original came out got the vhs for Christmas that year. I watched it every day multiple times on most of them. I even made a jump suit and protone pack for Halloween back then. So I was really disappointed that they missed the mark on this for myself and maybe a lot of the original fans.

[The_Drifter]

I saw Ghostbusters III about a year ago (on Blu-ray), and thought it was a decent & amusing film. Obviously, the first Ghostbusters (1984) can’t be topped, but this was an entertaining movie that I would like to see again at some point.

One of the funniest lines in the film was made by the somewhat dorky (but charming) Ghostbuster (played by Kate McKinnon) regarding a "bodily function"noise from an audio-tape. I laughed quite hard at that line, since it was so unexpected