To be fair, I think people thought it was the tagline.
To be fair, I think people thought it was the tagline.
Movie Theater DiaryQuoting Donald Glover
I breezed past the first part of your post, which, looking at it now, I don't understand. My question to you presented two choices and your answer is "NO"? So, it was neither? I was just wondering if it was just an FYI (like, "hey, did you notice this?") or if you have a specific problem with the title? You seemed to be saying that the title represents a kind of damage control maneuver on Sony's part, but I don't think that's the case.
I mean, did you check out the link Spinal posted? That title was always part of the game-plan, so it wasn't a last-minute change — and even if it had been, that's no big deal, right?
I thought it was the tagline. I also think the RT score accurately reflects the genuine reaction to it.
Last 10 Movies Seen
(90+ = canonical, 80-89 = brilliant, 70-79 = strongly recommended, 60-69 = good, 50-59 = mixed, 40-49 = below average with some good points, 30-39 = poor, 20-29 = bad, 10-19 = terrible, 0-9 = soul-crushingly inept in every way)
Run (2020) 64
The Whistlers (2019) 55
Pawn (2020) 62
Matilda (1996) 37
The Town that Dreaded Sundown (1976) 61
Moby Dick (2011) 50
Soul (2020) 64
Heroic Duo (2003) 55
A Moment of Romance (1990) 61
As Tears Go By (1988) 65
Stuff at Letterboxd
Listening Habits at LastFM
All true... except the McKinnon bit.
Last 10 Movies Seen
(90+ = canonical, 80-89 = brilliant, 70-79 = strongly recommended, 60-69 = good, 50-59 = mixed, 40-49 = below average with some good points, 30-39 = poor, 20-29 = bad, 10-19 = terrible, 0-9 = soul-crushingly inept in every way)
Run (2020) 64
The Whistlers (2019) 55
Pawn (2020) 62
Matilda (1996) 37
The Town that Dreaded Sundown (1976) 61
Moby Dick (2011) 50
Soul (2020) 64
Heroic Duo (2003) 55
A Moment of Romance (1990) 61
As Tears Go By (1988) 65
Stuff at Letterboxd
Listening Habits at LastFM
Making no judgement about Ghostbusters 2016 here, but I dont think thats far fetched. Theres PLENTY of beloved comedies that dont make me laugh. Dumb and Dumber is about a 2 smile film for me. Something About Mary, zero.
Edit: the RT score seemed to reflect my perception of the films reception. Maybe a smidge high at 78, i wouldve guessed about 70.
Wait, where are you guys seeing these numbers?
I load the page and it says 72% for everybody, and 59% for top critics (which makes more sense to me)
Yeah, 72 was what my comment was based on.
Last 10 Movies Seen
(90+ = canonical, 80-89 = brilliant, 70-79 = strongly recommended, 60-69 = good, 50-59 = mixed, 40-49 = below average with some good points, 30-39 = poor, 20-29 = bad, 10-19 = terrible, 0-9 = soul-crushingly inept in every way)
Run (2020) 64
The Whistlers (2019) 55
Pawn (2020) 62
Matilda (1996) 37
The Town that Dreaded Sundown (1976) 61
Moby Dick (2011) 50
Soul (2020) 64
Heroic Duo (2003) 55
A Moment of Romance (1990) 61
As Tears Go By (1988) 65
Stuff at Letterboxd
Listening Habits at LastFM
My wording — "almost defies belief" — was not meant to convey an actual denial of the possibility that someone might sit through the entire movie and never laugh. I thought McKinnon and Hemsworth were hilarious and the funniest parts of the movie, so I was just expressing my own enthusiasm while also confirming that there wasn't any sign of mirth whatsoever (like, say, a half-suppressed laugh of some kind).
Now that you have me thinking about it, I'm realizing that I actually don't think I've sought out a comedy that didn't make me laugh at least once. I can't think of a single example of a no-laugh situation. The closest instance would be…23 Jump Street, maybe? Even that seems like a bad example, though, because I do recall laughing at several points.
Last edited by Gittes; 10-12-2016 at 12:09 PM.
I meant it as a hey did you notice this? No big deal. A little weird to me. But yes, a little bit of damage control. That's the way I saw it.
This should have been the movie
Finally saw this.
Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones >>(a hundred more greater than symbols)>>McCarthy and Wiig.
I laughed out loud at several places and got a bit choked up when Wiig went to save her friend. Genuinely entertaining stuff.
[]
I'm bummed I missed it in 3D, because I heard it was used to outstanding effect. Has anyone seen the DC? I wanted to go theatrical first since DC is like 134 minutes.
Yeah, I rented the DC when I rewatched it. The most significant things cut were Justin Kirk as Wiig's boyfriend, and a minor plot point where they get bad press because Wiig assaults a guy harassing and insulting them (this actually explains why they randomly separated in the third act of the theatrical cut). Other than that it's just longer takes of the same jokes, with more funny banter.
Movie Theater Diary
That was the most blatant wtf is happening thing. Huh? When did they split? Was i not paying attention?
This was painful.
Ratings on a 1-10 scale for your pleasure:
Top Gun: Maverick - 8
Top Gun - 7
McCabe & Mrs. Miller - 8
Crimes of the Future - 8
Videodrome - 9
Valley Girl - 8
Summer of '42 - 7
In the Line of Fire - 8
Passenger 57 - 7
Everything Everywhere All at Once - 6
Hah
Movies are a terrible business.
I just wanted to second this. Other than that it falls under the it exists category.
As for the all female controversy. (I'm still sad this was a thing, but not shocked by it because I know my fellow man.) A good script and a competent director is all a movie needs to be good. It can be all men, it can be all female, it can be whitewashed to heck, it can have an all black cast, a bunch of gays, a bunch of foreign speaking people, it can be all animals (March of the Penguins). As long as ii tells a good story, I'm down. Unfortunately this movie didn't have the luxury of having a good script or a competent director.
Sorry for the super late rant on a subject that was probably talked to death already. Also I realize I went way beyond my original intention of giving props to McKinnon and Jones.
Last edited by Rico; 06-08-2017 at 11:27 AM.
I might have been willing to snap my own arm off if it meant a Ghostbusters 3 with the original cast back when they were still youngish. I'm not sure if Murray ever said why he didn't want to do another movie, but I could understand it if he didn't want to tarnish the legacy of the original movie and his character Peter Venkman, an (or perhaps the) iconic role of his career. After Ghostbusters II was mostly panned they knew they couldn't do that again. I still liked that movie, but it doesn't have the magic of the original and feels like a huge cash grab. It's tough living up to past glory.
Certainly the world of Ghostbustes is worth exploring further even with a completely new cast. This reboot just didn't have the creativity.
Here I am again posting in a thread I avoided, about a movie I didn't like, and really there are about 20 more posts I could comment on. I should really stop because I'm high as f**k right now.
Haven't seen the movie, but I guarantee that is 1000 times less funny.
Seem to remember The Phantom Menace one having some insight.
I clicked Yay because I laughed but it's a bad movie.
The only reason I watched it is because I re-watched the two Ghostbusters movies because of a Really That Good video about the original which argued it was the unique case of a strange, poorly structured, at times random as fuck movie that worked because of its creativity, originality and specially its themes... which are elements that this one completely lacks. What it does have that the original also had in spades is chemistry between the leads. McKinnon's completely bizarre character got 90% of my laughs, and the other 10% were Leslie Jones one-liners. I feel that the line where Jones says that while she's not a scientist she has extensive knowledge of the city of New York must have been a jab at the original, where there's no reason why Winston is on the team besides tokenism.
What this movie does wrong is... what does it really want to be? A reboot or a remake? I mean, if you're gonna have the entire original cast doing cameos they might as well have set it in the same universe, which certainly would have made the fans happier. Either way, they reference the original in the worst possible way - by using the "cross the streams" resolve and all the good lines in a jokey, derogatory way. They should just have had the original Ghostbusters as characters passing the torch.
To make it simple, the movie is bad because the third act is garbage and some jokes are cringe-worthy. But Ghostbusters II is just as bad and it's still a Yay movie in my book because, like this one, it delivers some great laughs here and there.
Last edited by Grouchy; 01-27-2018 at 08:09 AM.
That Honest Trailer actually makes a very good point - the original had Dana and Winston playing straight characters to the others with their comedic antics. This movie has no straight characters. Even the government agents are quirky as fuck.
Posting Permissions
forum
Reply With Quote