You are not logged in.
So, I recently got around to watching the new Ghostbusters. And it sucked. BUT before I get crucified, let me say that I DON'T have a problem with an all female cast, be it in Ghostbusters or any other movie. I think it was terrible for other reasons:
- There was no chemistry. I didn't feel like there was any connection between the characters, they just kinda tolerated each other through the movie, and then were besties by the end. The original movie felt so genuine and organic, but this one felt empty.
- It's sexist. Now I know what you're thinking "Are you crazy!? How can a movie that has an all female main cast be sexist? You're a idiot." And while that is true, let me explain. Sure, we have strong female characters, but practically all the men in the movie are either complete jerks, complete idiots or one-dimensional stereotypes. The main villain? Depressed nerd virgin. Chris Hemsworth? Dumber than a sack of rocks. Bill Murray? Scumbag. Sure, it's not sexist towards women, but it's sexist towards men.
-The script wasn't good. It wasn't really funny, despite having a ton of actors who are known for their comedy; the tone of the jokes seemed immature and slapstick(Don't get me wrong, I like slapstick, but Ghostbusters isn't really a good place for it). It wasn't interesting, Unlike the first movie, which has all this stuff about demons and Gatekeepers. And there aren't a whole lot of memorable moments.
Sorry if this is a bit too mean or critical, the movie just kinda upset me :|. Maybe I'm wrong and the movie is actually good, or maybe it's Nostalgia Goggles? I know it's wrong to compare a remake to the original, because it will never live up to it. What do you guys think?
EDIT: I'd like to apologize if the wording of this post or any other post I make comes out weird. I have trouble articulating what I'm thinking, so bear with me. Sorry.
Last edited by HeadCannon (02-25-2017 11:36:16 AM)
I thought it was really funny, but no masterpiece. But, then, I don't hold Ghostbusters 2 or the various spinoffs in all that high esteem either. Bill Murray's character or dismissiveness in no way hinged on him being a guy (while his original, brings thorazine on a date character, that spelled out is more of a jab at certain kinds of men), while Kevin... I'm honestly surprised nobody said, "Inga, go to work," to start a dance number. The female version of Kevin is alive and well and currently co-starring as The Girl in how many movies? I thought that was some funny satire, though, yeah, if this was a tv series or something, the joke would get tired quickly.
I don't mean to sound judgmental, because not every movie will make everyone laugh, or even just appeal to everyone, but it seems like you maybe wanted just a retread of the same beats the first movie did? A little? Same kind of comedy, same basic elements? I'm not sure, in the age of DVD, bluray, streaming and reruns that we need that, or that it serves much purpose. I think a moment by moment remake would've been much worse, really. We can see the ghost blowjob or Rick Moranis locked out in the hall gags any time we want. We already know how the Keymaster stuff plays out. Even for the reverent, is there enough reverence that the same jokes, or same plot, same characters and tone would really appeal to enough?
You have a point. I guess I was hoping for a movie in the same tone as the original? It just felt too different, you know? I totally agree that a scene for scene remake is utterly pointless and not what Hollywood should be doing.
Like, the recent Robocop movie is absolutely nothing like the original, but I still thought it was good, because it kept the same atmosphere that the original did. It had almost nothing to do with the original, but it still felt like Robocop to me? I guess it's less the scene of the movie and more the overall atmosphere is why I didn't enjoy it.
I also agree that Bill Murray's character isn't really sexist. It's just when most of the men are portrayed negatively, it just rubs me the wrong way.
And humor is totally subjective, so using that as a criteria is probably wrong. But if you and other people enjoyed it, that's what matters. It just means I'm missing out.
Anyway, sorry for being negative or harsh on the movie.
Anyway, sorry for being negative or harsh on the movie.
No need to apologize. It is really a subjective thing.
Rob Zombie once implored people to stop saying "so bad it's good," or "I like bad movies," and replace it with, "I like a movie that you don't." Which, is loads more honest and less inherently judgmental, but I don't know that it'll ever really catch on. This is good, this is bad, is a fundamental categorization, whether we can back it up objectively or not.
I think you make a pretty good case with your criteria, that it failed those criteria.
What really fascinates me, is that this movie, which still doesn't seem very important to me, has been such a huge line in the sand, on several fronts (gender-flipping, remakes, certain actresses' bankability). I feel like I'm simultaneously too aware of Ghostbusters as a franchise, and too uninvested in it, to maybe get why this was such a major thing, if that makes sense. I've seen too much of Extreme Ghostbusters and the various toys to feel it's very sacred territory, but at the same time, the proposed scripts for a straight followup movie were even further out there and potentially outside the wheelhouse than what we got. They didn't go into space. There weren't any dragons or squid-monsters. No time travel. All things Aykroyd was pushing for at various points, all things I might have liked to see, but don't really fit neatly in the basic summary of Ghostbusters as a general audience knows it.
Decrescent Daytripper wrote:
What really fascinates me, is that this movie, which still doesn't seem very important to me, has been such a huge line in the sand, on several fronts (gender-flipping, remakes, certain actresses' bankability).
I can't comment on the rest because I haven't seen the movie, but this line in the sand started with Fury Road, when coalesced a bunch of idiocy about men not wanting "their culture" to be taken over by feeeeeeeeeemales. It had been brewing for a while. The manosphere is of middling interest to me, so I keep an eye on it from time to time.