Post by Doc Quantum on Nov 21, 2016 3:59:02 GMT -6
Anyone else see this? My wife and I decided to watch this on a rare day off from parenting (our son was at his grandma's overnight). That Saturday afternoon we'd already seen a matinee showing of Doctor Strange (which was an AWESOME movie, even if it relied a bit too heavily on time warps and out-Inceptioning INCEPTION). So we figured we might as well rent the new Ghostbusters movie that evening.
I watched Bridesmaids with my wife back when it was first available for rental, and it was funny. My wife enjoyed it more than me, since I think she was more the target audience than I was, but I still laughed throughout.
Not so with Ghostbusters. I think we laughed probably twice... maybe three times throughout the whole movie. We were so bored with it by the time we reached the middle that we would've just turned it off if it was a Netflix movie, but because we paid for it, we felt obligated to see it through to the end.
To make matters worse, the only version available to us was the Extended Edition, which added on 15 extra minutes, and that made for a movie that was 45 minutes too long. Many of the scenes seemed tacked on, like they were skits shoehorned into the plot, but didn't add anything at all.
The saddest thing was seeing some of the original cast trotted out in various scenes. None of them looked like they wanted to be there. None of them actually reprised their roles, either, since they were playing random characters. I consider this a missed opportunity. This Ghostbusters movie could have been a continuation of the "universe" from the original Ghostbusters movies, and thus the original cast could have reprised their roles, even for a brief sequence, such as paying their respects to Egon Spengler. But no, this was a reboot, so none of that happened.
Much of the plot was a retread of the original Ghostbusters movie, too, but lacked heart. Whereas the original movie attempted to add some credence to paranormal studies, and its special effects were top-notch for the mid-'80s, I couldn't help but wonder why the special effects looked so dated and cartoonish in a movie made in 2016. At times I felt as if I were watching a low-budget sci-fi TV show. The ghosts were far too colorful and bright, and there was no attempt after the first scene to create any kind of spooky atmosphere. Since the producers didn't seem too invested in this movie, I couldn't be, either.
I really don't know how this movie could have gotten such good reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, since there's no way this movie is better than Batman v Superman, which was pretty bad. The only explanation I can come up with is that there was so much negative feedback before the movie was released that people felt obligated to give the movie much better ratings than it truly deserved. If you look at user ratings of the movie, this is really apparent. People either loved it ecstatically and gave it glowing reviews, or (like me and my wife) were in shock at how bad it was.
EDIT: Here's something stupid but funny, since I like to leave on a high note.
I watched Bridesmaids with my wife back when it was first available for rental, and it was funny. My wife enjoyed it more than me, since I think she was more the target audience than I was, but I still laughed throughout.
Not so with Ghostbusters. I think we laughed probably twice... maybe three times throughout the whole movie. We were so bored with it by the time we reached the middle that we would've just turned it off if it was a Netflix movie, but because we paid for it, we felt obligated to see it through to the end.
To make matters worse, the only version available to us was the Extended Edition, which added on 15 extra minutes, and that made for a movie that was 45 minutes too long. Many of the scenes seemed tacked on, like they were skits shoehorned into the plot, but didn't add anything at all.
The saddest thing was seeing some of the original cast trotted out in various scenes. None of them looked like they wanted to be there. None of them actually reprised their roles, either, since they were playing random characters. I consider this a missed opportunity. This Ghostbusters movie could have been a continuation of the "universe" from the original Ghostbusters movies, and thus the original cast could have reprised their roles, even for a brief sequence, such as paying their respects to Egon Spengler. But no, this was a reboot, so none of that happened.
Much of the plot was a retread of the original Ghostbusters movie, too, but lacked heart. Whereas the original movie attempted to add some credence to paranormal studies, and its special effects were top-notch for the mid-'80s, I couldn't help but wonder why the special effects looked so dated and cartoonish in a movie made in 2016. At times I felt as if I were watching a low-budget sci-fi TV show. The ghosts were far too colorful and bright, and there was no attempt after the first scene to create any kind of spooky atmosphere. Since the producers didn't seem too invested in this movie, I couldn't be, either.
I really don't know how this movie could have gotten such good reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, since there's no way this movie is better than Batman v Superman, which was pretty bad. The only explanation I can come up with is that there was so much negative feedback before the movie was released that people felt obligated to give the movie much better ratings than it truly deserved. If you look at user ratings of the movie, this is really apparent. People either loved it ecstatically and gave it glowing reviews, or (like me and my wife) were in shock at how bad it was.
EDIT: Here's something stupid but funny, since I like to leave on a high note.
