Ghostbusters (Paul Feig, 2016)

[Gregory]

There are no top-tier stars

McCarthy is one of the highest-paid actresses in the business and pulled in an eight-figure up-front salary for Ghostbusters.

[Werewolf by Night]

$14 million, allegedly, and (at least) $10 million for Paul Feig up front. $154 million total budget (or $144m if you trust boxofficemojo.com), which is actually peanuts for a tentpole release these days.

Compare to Suicide Squad ($175m), Star Trek Beyond ($185m), The Legend of Tarzan ($180m), Independence Day: Resurgence ($165m), Alice Through the Looking Glass ($170m), X-Men: Apocalypse ($178m).

Captain America: Civil War is the major outlier this year at $250m, which, of course, it earned back in a weekend.

[RossyG]

Morbid curiosity made me watch this online (not something I make a habit of, I hasten to add)

I laughed once at an elaborate flipping the bird scene and that was it. The basic story about devices fixed to New York's Ley lines wasn't bad at all but the director has made a mess of a film. The jokes just didn't land and the final act was an amateurish mess. There are two moments where whole sequences were very obviously excised leaving gaping holes in the narrative. I'm amazed critics gave this film such an easy ride. Perhaps they just wanted an easy life.

It had a few interesting visuals, such as a procession of ghost balloons (although this was badly edited) and I was silently amused by Slimer's Animal House cruising antics, but overall a real damp squib. And every cameo from the original cast was awful, I thought, especially a miserable Bill Murray.

Oddly enough, I found McKinnon the most interesting character in the trailer and Joseph the most annoying. In the film it seemed that the exact opposite was the case.

4/10.

[JSC]

Scientist Man weighs in....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWROBiX1eSc

[domino harvey]

Discussion of downloading movies moved here

[bearcuborg]

I have little to no interest in seeing the new one, nor would I bother watching it online. In fact, I've never enjoyed watched movies that way, not so much based on morals, but rather my preference. That said, I'd watch the Honest Trailers version of the new Ghostbusters. That was my choice for junk like the Revenant/Matt Damon in Space and Interstellar.

While not a Twitter member myself, I was glad to see attention called to trolls of Leslie Jones. I can't imagine she comes back for a sequel, even if it's made. It has supposedly lost 100millon.

[GaryC]

However well this film does - sounds like it'll break even at least - there are signs of a growing cult following. I was at the Nine Worlds convention in London yesterday (Saturday) and saw several cosplays of Holtzmann, for a film which has been in UK cinemas less than a month.

Like MichaelB, I suspect I was too old for the original in 1984, as I was twenty and in my first term at University when it was released. I suspect many of those who think it's a great film of the 80s are 5-15 years younger than me...such as Hadley Freeman, who makes a good case for it in her entertaining book <i>Life Moves Pretty Fast</i>. She was born in 1979.

[MichaelB]

My kids have already seen it twice, and I gather from friends' Facebook posts that they're far from alone.

[RossyG]

However well this film does - sounds like it'll break even at least

It's predicted to lose $70m.

http://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/ ... a-McCarthy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/g ... uel-918515" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Foam]

I was only ever interested in this because I love Kristen Wiig and think Paul Feig remains the director who has put her to the best use. The buzz around her performance was that her character is progressively pushed to the side, so I was discouraged from going. I finally went to see it this past week and was pleasantly surprised that Wiig sustains a low-key but happily detailed comic performance throughout. I could be accused of being a fanboy but I think I prefer her to any of the other lead performances here, with the possible exception of McKinnon (whose performance was awesome but I felt could have been given more room to breathe through the editing).

Comments on the sexism/cash-grab "debate" aren't even necessary since to me this film is aesthetically superior by several orders of magnitude. This is most clearly visible at the levels of performance and characterization. Though it's generally agreed upon that Wiig was given the least obviously visible work of the four leads , the moment when her boss walks into her office and she makes a quirky little flinch contains within it--all on its own--about as much detail and characterization as any of the non-Murray busters received in the first film. The degree to which the original film has been romanticized and raised to the level of some kind of canonical work of big budget comedy boggles the imagination. Just try to make it 40 seconds into this appraisal, I dare you.

On the whole I think this is the best film to bear this title, though I'm not a fan of the original at all. The only way in which I find the first film superior is the economical focus of the narrative and how it builds to an iconic climax. But the only moments in it that make me even chuckle are ones tied to Murray's persona which can be enjoyed just as easily in much better films. This film's climax felt excessive and overpopulated with recycled iconography, but I prefer the density, timing, and a rich comedic texture of this film's exposition. The first hour of the original feels leaden in comparison.

[RossyG]

I've reported myself to Tumblr and await sentencing.

[RossyG]

Just try to make it 40 seconds into this appraisal, I dare you.

I watched the lot. It was a very interesting piece, actually. Must admit, as a kid I missed the whole science v the gods subtext, especially the fact that it's science that wins for once. The clips and the guy's enthusiasm for the film make me want to watch it again and it's been a couple of decades since I last thought that.

[Ribs]

Okay, I know for a fact I read an article denouncing the Hollywood Reporter's vastly premature piece and taking it to task for its highly questionable math, but I can't for the life of me find it. It will break even.

[Brian C]

Perhaps. But if Sony's already buried the idea of a sequel, that says a lot.

[tenia]

I went and saw the movie early this week and, well (what a surprise), it's quite mediocre. The best bits clearly were the regular comedy bits, which a weird almost burlesque feel to it which made me think of Sellers @ Edwards (minus the perfect comedic timing, obviously), embodied by McKinnon et Hemsworth (clearly the jewels within the cast and characters).

However, all the Ghostbusters side isn't very good and is almost absent from the movie. It's not a rather comedic Ghosbusters, it's a comedy with a bit of Ghostbusters in it. All these years trying to get a script done, and they ended up with that, really ?. The longer cameo is real bad, visuals alternate between "where has the movie gone ?" (the photography is closer from Eddie Murphy's Huntend Mansion than a 2016 $150M blockbuster) and "video game credits" (all the final battle). It's very underwhelming.

It's a pity because otherwise, basics are good : the 1st half-hour is a bit long to place the context, but it's otherwise well paced, not too badly written, and the cast is very well working together. Sure, Wiig's character is a repeat from many of her past roles, but otherwise there is a good alchemy between the 4 actresses. McKinnon clearly is 50 miles above everyone else, while Jones gets, well, the usual "black girl" role. I guess you can't avoid sexist AND racist clichés. Fortunately, the movie avoids heavily hitting both the fact that the movie is a "all-female remake" and that Jones is black, which is pleasingly surprising and I think probably the best victory over the haters. Yes, it's an all-female remake but it plays perfectly fine, and nobody should complain about this specific point because of how well it's integrated.

But as a whole, it's too long with too many jokes falling falt or being repetitive or just damn stupid. There are a few lines that are very good, and a final battle choregraphy perfectly iconicly executer but just so many other missfired things...

Oh and the end credits are appalling. It's hideous, strangely completing the final battle and the Disco stance joke (which is purely useless as it is in the movie edit), and probably is the result of a brainstorming whose ideas weren't filtered but instead piled on top of each other.

5.5/10

[movielocke]

I found this film pretty enjoyable, particularly Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon. Those two elevated the film to a whole new comic level. Melissa McCarthy and Kristin Wiig were both excellent, but I felt like the film lacked a cynical and sarcastic character that an Amy Poehler or Tina Fey would have brought to the group, and I think having McCarthy and Wiig playing basically the same character is perhaps the film's biggest misstep and it gives the film two relative straight/underplayers rather than a single straight person, and that leaves neither of them really shining the way the incomparable Jones and McKinnon shine in this film. Hemsworth is absolute delight in every one of his scenes and just beautifully nails the role of a dumb blonde in a way one could never go there with a woman in a secretarial role, they're able to push the dumb blonde jokes to spectacular heights simply by casting against gender, and it works marvelously.

It's sort of like if a Marx Brothers comedy had a Harpo (McKinnon), Chico (Jones), and two Zeppos (McCarthy/Wiig) but no Groucho. you feel the absence of a missing and essential quantity.

In light of the rage the production of this film inspired by the nasty parts of the internet, I found it all too apropos that the film hinges upon a person who would have raged about this film being made being the central villain. Of course, I felt like I had a moral duty to see the film in theatres after the net psychos shit such villainy from their urethras, and I was pleasantly surprised that they were functionally part of the film.

The climax, with the Marshmellow man, slimer, and the rest of the ghosts rampaging through new york city was pretty well done.

It's entertaining and satisfying and very funny. It's not a classic for the ages, but few films are, and yeah it can't hold up to the original, but it's a reasonable reboot of the franchise.

[flyonthewall2983]

The Blu-ray release now has the title Ghostbusters: Answer The Call

[Ribs]

The film had that title in the credits in the theater.