Ghostbusters 2016

The main problem I have with this movie is not that it's a bad movie - although it is certainly not good. No, the huge problem I have is that it was a stupid movie to make. Nobody asked for this. Nobody ever said, you know what I wish they'd remake Ghostbusters but with women. Now I know sometimes you don't know what kind of movies you want or don't want until you see them, but in this case people KNEW right away. You do not remake movies with a cult following like Ghostbusters, Goonies, ET or Jaws. You just don't. You are setting up yourself for failure, wasting people's time and money. It's a free country and people can watch the movies they wanna watch, but this should not have been made. It's an abomination and a slap in the face for every self respecting fan of movies. It deserves every bit of ridicule and shaming it got. They were warned that this would happen when they announced it and it happened. I hope this will be a warning to Hollywood execs who think they can just hijack an idea and make some money out of past success without coming up with anything new. There are too many remakes and sequels being made, but usually they stay away from classics. Not this time and it blew up in their faces. LEAVE THE CLASSICS ALONE!

This movie was a huge disappointment! The only positive thing I can say about it is that the special effects where not half bad. The movie itself was childish, unfunny, unintelligent and generally really bad.

Some reviews giving this movie 9 or 10 stars (which is just ludicrous) are saying that people cannot handle the feminism in the movie. What feminism? Replacing the original actors with women is not feminism as far as I am concerned and anyway, if you care about such things should it not have been two women and two men to be politically correct? Also, the supposedly intelligent women in this movie behave in a typical old-fashioned Hollywood stereotype of women way. They are mostly downright silly. If I were a feminist I would actually have been insulted by this movie.

Then we have the male clerk that is dummer than a piece of rock. If someone had stacked four supposedly intelligent men and a single blond bimbo that is totally devoid of any trace of intelligence together in a movie the social justice warriors would have cried foul so loud that you could hear it across the planet. But since it is four women and a stupid male it is okay (not really). It is even feminism according to some people. What a load of bollocks.

There is actually a story in the movie although it is well hidden under the silly jokes and silly behavior. It is paper thin and rather silly in itself but it could have worked if the rest of the movie was up to snuff but sadly it is not.

As I wrote above the only good thing about this movie is the special effects. The few scenes that I actually enjoyed was during the big shoot out at the end which had some cool moments. I especially liked when Jillian pulls a pair of pistols out of her Ghostbuster suit and goes on a ghost killing spray.

Apart from that this movie is best forgotten

75% good reviews make Ghostbusters probably the most overrated film of the year. The movie just wasn't as memorable as the original. I think Ghostbusters got so many good reviews just to shut up people who said a Ghostbusters reboot starring only women was a bad idea. Or someone is in denial that it was better than it was.
I can't even say Ghostbusters proves what Paul Feig wanted it to. Sorry but I only laughed hard during any Chris Hemsworth secretary scene. Hell, I even can say my 13 year old niece just laughed hard during his scenes. Especially when he showed a picture of the 711 logo saying that should be the Ghostbusters logo, for instance. He was perfectly stupid and that worked at least.
Kristen Wiig is just playing the dopely dry humored character she always plays. She gets slimed many times but none of those scenes are as funny as when Bill Murray got slimed once in the original. Melissa McCarthy is just a brainy version of the feisty character she always plays. Kate McKinnon is trying something different at least rather than just phoning it in. I am not too sure what she was going for but it was kind of entertaining at least. While Leslie Jones is basically just loud.
The original was full of quick sharp dialogue. Paul Feig's Ghostbusters lacks that even. Since a lot of the dialogue is the characters blabbing back and forth with dragged on conversations and jokes. Rather than the cast taking turns with funny one liners like the original cast. These ladies seem to never let up with competing on who's funnier. None of the cameos of the original stars were even too memorable either.
Paul Feig at least showed us Chris Hemsworth is funny since he got all the best lines. Feig didn't write anything too great for the women to say. Yet, they're who the movie was supposed to show off the talents of. As for the CGI, it looked like it was stolen from Scooby Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed.” I think the villain might have fit in a Scooby Doo movie better as well.
When the villain makes the dude in the painting from Ghostbusters 2 look like a great villain, something is wrong. Spoiler Warning: Bill Murray as a Walter Peck like jerk who doesn't believe in ghosts is who had potential to make a good main villain. Unfortunately there wasn't enough Bill Murray.
The problem with films like Ghostbusters today is that it changes how we're used to characters being for 30 yrs. Sony especially pretty much says a lot "this is how a character is written now, deal with it." Forcing bad ideas on people will always cause controversy.

At the height of the #Metoo movement, Hollywood came riding in on its white stallion to save the Damsels in Distress (Liberal Actresses who sell themselves like whores for movie parts) from the evil Meanie, who also just happened to be Hollywood (funny how that worked out) and decided to gut every franchise that they could and retool it for female leads in a hope to quell the decades-old status quo and somehow wipe the slate clean before everyone put the mental pieces together of what was really going on. Ghostbusters was one of those movies.

For over a decade there was talk about a third movie starring the original cast, even adapting the Video Game that was released in 2009 for the silver screen all to no avail. Mostly this was because Bill Murray refused to replay his part for whatever reasons, but then Harold Ramis died in 2014 and any further thought simply evaporated. This of course left the Ghostbusters Franchise ripe for the picking. However, this just couldn't be a standard reboot. Wrongs needed to be righted and messages needed to be sent to let the world know that GRRL-Power is superstrong. Therefore, Ghostbusters was turned into a 2-hour marathon of kicking the male gender in the neither-region while trying to convince the audience that anything men can do, women can do better.

Most of the male supporting cast are EXTREMELY feminine (of course never implying that they would be homosexuals because that would be insulting to the homosexuals) who scream, cry and/or are extraordinarily vapid without any possible intelligent thoughts. References to de-balling men are spread throughout the film - including the "Nutcracker" in the ending credits and shooting the big bad ghostie in the family jewels with the proton pack electron streams - and the only "Man" in the movie is the evil psychotic genius determined to end the world because he's been bullied (another recurrent theme message throughout the movie) his entire life.

Of course, since this movie carried the Ghostbusters title, there had to be some nods to the franchise. Curiously, the actor who created the largest roadblock to a sequel got the most screen time in this film (Murray). Every actor from the original, who was still alive, made at least a brief appearance, sans Rick Moranis (I guess nobody needed their taxes done in this film), however if you skipped the in-credits cameos you might have missed some of them. Even Slimer and Stay Puft get some screen time, however, even the Marshmallow Man gets it in the goodies in the end. Gotta keep up the motif, you know.

Besides all that, the plot is pretty predictable, the characters are pretty shallow and no real boundaries are broken. The female black character is the only non-scientist in the group, is the muscle when needed and keeps the white characters informed on the down-low of the "real" city life. For the rest of the crew, instead of three distinct personalities like we had in the first two films, we have a pair of Egons and a Ray/Egon-like character. The Annie Potts replacement (Chris Helmsworth) is her antithesis and is nothing more than beefcake eyecandy for the crew. The CGI effects, which were supposed to be the lifesaver of the film, are moving at such a high rate of speed that you only really see blue and green blurs; completely opposite of what we enjoyed in 1984. The nods to the franchise are nothing more than pandering and some of the cameos would be unrecognizable to those not familiar to how the actors have aged. The film did rate a #1 ranking for the week it was released, however that was because it was the only new film released that week and was achieved through some superior back-room maneuvering and compromise by Sony Pictures and the rest of the Hollywood Film Elite.

Needless to say, Ghostbusters for the new millennium was an extreme franchise disappointment, probably only equaled by the 1998 version of Godzilla (strangely enough, also released by Tri-Star/Sony Pictures). Like that version, if they had made the movie and had it stand on its own credentials, instead of looking to cash-in and ride the coattails of works previously released, it would have been an above average film. Nevertheless, since Hollywood opted for the "easy way," they lose points for the endeavor. Unless you are a female looking for some gender foundation-strengthening, stick with the original. Don't answer the call, let it go to voicemail.

[5.8/10] Your childhood remains intact. Despite all the hand-wringing, hue and cry, and latent misogyny involved at every turn since the prospect of a female-fronted Ghostbusters reboot emerged, the end result does no harm to its 1984 predecessor. It is thoroughly fine at its worst, has its amusing stretches, and if anything, takes too much care in honoring and referencing all of the most recognizable elements of the original film.

But it’s also a widely unremarkable, middle-of-the-road studio comedy that would have otherwise risen and fallen without fanfare were it not for the everpresent specter of marketable IP and the ensuing manbaby revolt that followed. 2016’s Ghostbusters (or Ghostbusters: Answer the Call as it was rebranded on video) is an adequate, mostly forgettable flick, whose problems have nothing to do with either the brand name it adopted or the gender of its main characters.

Instead, Answer the Call stumbles by offering too shaggy a tale without strong or consistent enough humor to support the places where its narrative and pacing starts to sag. The plot of the film sees Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig), a lapsed ghosthunter re-teaming with estranged pal and true believer Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) and her gizmo-inventing second Jillian Holtzman (Kate McKinnon) once they finally get a bead on some real ghosts. Along the way, they add Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones), who offers an encyclopedic knowledge of New York City, to the group and a new quartet of Ghostbusters is born.

The four of them gain notoriety in New York for busting spooks at locales as varied as stuffy historical houses and raucous rock concerts. That brings them to the attention of the mayor’s office, which privately thanks them but publicly decries them as frauds, and also puts them in the crosshairs of Rowan, a creep who’s involved with each ghostly appearance and laments his history of bullying.

The plot is loose and rarely attended to, which is fine for a comedy. The film pays some half-hearted lip service to the notion of Erin and Abby becoming estranged when no one believed their ghost stories, and one retreated from their ghostly claims while the other doubled down, but it’s scant and generally unaffecting. Instead, Ghostbusters is essentially a loose connection of sketches around a specter-centric theme that don’t so much progress as roll into one another.

Again, that’s not an issue in and of itself. Lord knows that the 1984 film was far from a tightly-plotted master class in nimble storytelling. But if the progression of events isn’t going to power your movie and keep the audience on board from scene-to-scene, then your humor has to carry the load, and Answer the Call isn’t up to that challenge.

Most of the humor in 2016’s Ghostbusters is broad and loud and occasionally gross. Despite (or maybe because of) having the talented Melissa McCarthy on board, the film defaults to corny slapstick humor, whether it involves Abby being bounced around an alley by the latest bit of tech, or briefly possessed and sent into fisticuffs by an evil ghost, or squished by a malevolent parade balloon. And while McCarthy brings some good laughs in the person-to-person scenes with less of those theatrics, Wiig is a vacuum of charisma as the film’s (relative) straight man, reduced to being continually covered in slime or awkwardly hitting on the Ghostbusters’ secretary, Kevin (Chris Hemsworth), in a vain attempt to generate yuks.

And Kevin is really the posterboy for the film’s middling sense of humor. He’s a surprisingly big part of the film, and the only joke Ghostbusters can up with about the character are variations on the same, TGIF sitcom-level “he’s really dumb” gag. That’s par for the course in this movie, where few, if any, of the jokes have layers. Instead, it almost always goes for the easiest, plainest gag.

That’s not helped by how lumpy the film’s editing and pacing is. There’s something to be said for preserving the improvisational atmosphere of a particular moment in comedy, but scene after scene in Ghostbusters just goes on forever, without any of the tight editing necessary to make sure the jokes don’t wear out their welcome. There’s a slack vibe to the movie, one where the funny moments are surrounded by too much flab to really hit with the force they should.

The saving grace in the comedy department is the three current Saturday Night Live cast members. Kate McKinnon steals every scene she’s in, between her silly dances and her affectionate technobabble for her latest inventions. Jones is extraverted as usual, but lands some of the movie’s best lines and asides. And Cecily Strong plays one of the mayor’s advisors, whose ability to politely encourage the Ghostbusters in private but condescendingly slag them in public becomes hilarious with Strong’s delivery.

Oddly enough, despite the greater focus on humor, the film manages to better in terms of action than comedy. While the compositing is a little off and obvious in places, the movie presents some creative and creepy-looking ghosts, and one of the film’s most enjoyable sequences features the Ghostbusters doing battle with a veritable horde of them. However much it falters in other places, Ghostbusters has a fun aesthetic, with colorful, neon hues on the purple-blue-green spectrum and enough smoke and mirrors to make the atmosphere spooky without veering too much into creepy, that makes the more kinetic scenes stand out.

There’s just not enough in the film to keep you hooked for through its logy, two-hour and fifteen-minute runtime. There’s beaucoup winks and nods at the franchise’s past trademarks, and signature bits and plenty of creative ghouls to do battle with. But there’s also a distinct lack of momentum, too many attempts to fill the dead air with gags that have a middling-at-best batting average, and a cast of talented performers who never quite jell.

Rest assured, the bones of the 1980s ghostbusting films remained undisturbed. There are worse ways to spend a couple of hours at the theater than 2016’s Ghostbusters, and in the final tally, the movie is more forgettable than bad. But strip away the baggage that Answer the Call was unfairly saddled with, and you’re left with a middling remake, without enough verve or laughs to make it more than just another piece of generic studio entertainment that’s not worth getting excited about one way or another.

Who would have thought that in 2022 one of the most controversial films I would have given an opinion about was an all-female-lead remake of 1984’s Ghostbusters? But this is the world we live in nowadays. So let us start with a concise summary, Ghostbusters (2016) is nowhere near as awful as people made out six years ago and ever since. It is entertaining enough. It is not a great film and so flawed it could open a shop to sell the excess flaws it has but equally it has not precipitated the end of the world and Leslie Jones is not the Devil Incarnate.

It is fair to question the wisdom of remaking the original Ghostbusters, but it is likewise fair not to judge it on a film that was 32 years old and viewed through the prism of youth and in various people’s cases childhood. What you remember then and what occurs now are not only different countries but different planets. Clearly people clearly cannot let go of the past and have not really grown up.

Having said this, I am not going to be the champion of Feig’s Ghostbusters either. Using all female leads is well-intentioned and actually a promising idea but it is executed poorly. The main problem? This brings nothing new to the story, other than gender. That is it. If we are going to champion female actors and make films for them, and we should, there is plenty of room in the world of filmmaking, give them something to work with, give them a distinctive voice, say this is what women bring to this world. Too many times, with the best intentions I am sure, producers, writers, directors, even the actors themselves look at a story or film and just replace all the male leads with female leads, put a reference to tampons or other ‘women thing’ in and say, ‘job done’. It is not, it is lazy thinking, pat and doing a huge disservice.

Herein lies the rub, Ghostbusters is a giant Saturday Night Live sketch, with female members of that cast, and somehow what could be a strong point is fumbled. Kirsten Wiig is a talented actor nowadays and can play acomedy lead with her eyes closed is given the most infuriating ‘written by a computer’ nerdy strait-laced role that we have all seen a million times. Bland and too frightened to have her own opinion, flip-flopping from point to point, just to keep ‘in’ with some unpleasant and unworthy characters within minutes of her opening scenes my eyes were rolling like the best slot-machine in the world. It actually annoyed me – it was only because it was Wiig I could stand it at all.

McCarthy is just playing the general McCarthy role, she is either submissive and awkward and wins the day, or aggressive and annoying and sort of wins the day, here she falls between two stools but like a lot of actors, both male and female, an overall role or character is found that makes them wealthy and famous and then they get trapped into it, although I believe McCarthy has enough clout to break this mould and is at least trying to with some of her other work, but here it is familiar and although there are laughs, ultimately it is a bit boring. McKinnon who has always played her screen roles turned up to twelve is not reigned in at all by Feig and overacts and gurns so much that nothing she does is funny. It reminded me of the excited and overenthusiastic 7-year-old at a school play.

This brings us to Leslie Jones. What on earth did she do in this film that produced such vitriol and let us face it downright evil when the film was made and shown on the big screen? Having watched the film and the other performances as listed above I can only honestly presume it is because she is black and no other reason. Okay the role is standard again, the sassy black women working in a rough area of New York – another eye-roller – but Jones works as well with the limited material she had. In fact, out of the four main characters on show Patty Tolan is the one that I took a shine to more than the others. Even if the performance could have been polished a bit more we are talking about a film that would use up a lot of Duraglit for every aspect of it.

Having bogged myself down on the problems with the main leads this leaves only a little to be said about the actual story. Considering the extended version of this Ghostbusters is well over 2 hours long we have no real character development and just seem to pop onto CGI ghost set piece to the next set piece. I still could not really work out what suitably weird and creepy villain Rowan North [Neil Casey] was trying to do and in the end gave up trying to figure it out. Watch the ghostly stuff and laugh at any funny bits. This is how you spend your time but it does not necessarily make a good film.

Chris Hemsworth as the dim secretary, I see what you did there writers, is fun for a few minutes but even though his role is pivotal, it is too over the top and too silly, although you do laugh when he does really dumb things.

The special effects, criticised in some quarters, look fine on my big TV screen, and the locations and set pieces all fitted well and looked good but in the end the tale was too lite and brought nothing new to the world of Ghostbusters. I was hoping we would move on tell a different tale not more of the same but stirred counterclockwise.

A good opportunity missed, but I did not get angry or want to kill anyone because I saw the film and I did laugh during the running time.

People need to calm down about these types of films, honestly.

First things first, the following is worth noting: I have no attachment to the 1984 film, nor do I particularly like it; I rated it and its sequel 5*. I'm not saying it's overrated or anything, I just personally don't enjoy it that's all.

With that said, I'd class 2016's 'Ghostbusters' better than the original. However, as you tell by my rating, that's not me saying this is a good film. I don't believe it is. It's incredibly slow paced, with a very forgettable and untidy plot. It felt longer than a 116 minute run time, that's for sure.

It's not all bad, though. I actually rate the casting. Melissa McCarthy can be hit-and-miss, but this is one of her more solid performances. Kristen Wiig, great in 'Bridesmaids' alongside McCarthy, is a decent performer too. Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon are alright, while Chris Hemsworth is pretty amusing.

I, despite not being a fan of it, still enjoyed the callbacks to the '84 film; as well as the use of the superb theme song. As for the special effects, they look good but none of the ghosts stick in my memory; both visually, but also in terms of the story. It would've been nice to have a standout ghost. Likewise with the film's villain, who is ridiculously plain.

In conclusion, it does positive things but there are certainly negatives. All in all, I think the latter just outweighs the former unfortunately. 6*.

**Great movie to watch if you won't bother watching a deep film! Good characters, acting.**

I've been wanting to see this movie for quite some time. As many has stated before, the old movies are classic and that's what they should be. I went in with expectations that this new one was going to be a remake, but got surprised that it mostly wasn't. Sure, you had the classical lead - this time all female - with the obligatory dark-skinned actor, but to me it didn't matter. The four characters were all shaped in a unique way which in turned just added to the interactions. Not to mention their funny secretary (who doesn't love an attractive, but slightly dumb guy?). The ghosts were nicely shaped and you got to see a bit of nostalgia from the classical movies.

I didn't laugh all the time, but most of it. It's a perfect film when you can't care to think too much about plots and just want a ride for the evening. I'm saying bravo for making a pretty good remake! Seen on 4K. Great effects!!

I am 31 years old and loved the first "Ghostbusters" when it was released in 1984. (Born three year later.)

My Score: 7/10.

After all the hate around it, I was worried it was going to be just an average movie that was harmed by it's (incomprehensible to me) controversy. Having seen it, I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised. The film is funny and entertaining with great jokes. Many scenes seem to actually be the characters responding to all the rants and hatred, and they work great. I don't know it they are meant to be read that way, but it's better that way. The characters are charming and likeable although Kevin seemed to me a bit too stupid; some of the jokes made in his behalf are just too much and they land flat, IMHO (Really? He doesn't know how to answer the phone?). The movie also kind of falls apart near the end when it tries to pull off some action movie tropes that don't really fit very well.

But all in all, it's a great, funny movie that people should see.

Also, WTF is all this about being a movie for women? I don't see it. Just because the main protagonists are women doesn't mean that it's catered to them. There's nothing in this movie that can't be universally enjoyed.