Ghostbusters Afterlife (Jason Reitman)

mikhail · 31-01-2019 7:29pm

Sad Professor wrote: »

I'm impressed that people remember so much about it. The film is mostly a blank for me.

I mostly remember the racist Asian gags, the jarring editing (at one point, it was clear that a dance number had been cut), and Kate McKinnon mugging after every line. I like much of Feig's earlier work, and liked or was neutral on all of the cast, but it was a dog's dinner of a movie.

Borana · 31-01-2019 8:07pm

Sad Professor wrote: »

I'm impressed that people remember so much about it. The film is mostly a blank for me. According to Letterboxd I gave it 2 stars, though, so I apparently found it tolerable.

What I found even more shocking, is that the film's Metacritic average score is 60! These guys harshly rate every blockbuster (2012, The Day After Tomorrow) under 50 and a sexist reboot is good enough to score 60?

monkeysnapper · 31-01-2019 8:10pm

I started watching the recent one but turned it off 20/ 30 mins in .......I couldn't tell you last time I did that ....and I've sat and watched some cack in the past

Fysh · 31-01-2019 8:28pm

mikhail wrote: »

I mostly remember the racist Asian gags, the jarring editing (at one point, it was clear that a dance number had been cut), and Kate McKinnon mugging after every line. I like much of Feig's earlier work, and liked or was neutral on all of the cast, but it was a dog's dinner of a movie.

The editing was definitely peculiar - I distinctly recall both the weird cut dance number (which they then showed in the credits, bafflingly) and the weapons training (quite obviously shot as one sequence, but for no obvious reason split into two in the film).

But, I'll say this for it - it had at least the decency to wrap up in two hours (though, as is so often the case, it probably could've been shorter) so in that respect it's already doing better than a majority of superhero blockbusters, as far as I'm concerned....

El Duda · 01-02-2019 9:01am

I thought Chris Hemsworth was the worst thing about that film. Insufferable and completely unfunny.

The Specialist · 01-02-2019 1:25pm

The difference being that in the original Ghostbusters, Janine was not treated as some stupid thick female. In the recent Ghostbusters, Chris Hemsworth was as thick as pig **** - the stupid man amongst the oh so clever female Ghostbusters. The whole film was a feminist dumpster fire.

RayCun · 01-02-2019 2:24pm

The Specialist wrote: »

The difference being that in the original Ghostbusters, Janine was not treated as some stupid thick female. In the recent Ghostbusters, Chris Hemsworth was as thick as pig **** - the stupid man amongst the oh so clever female Ghostbusters. The whole film was a feminist dumpster fire.

Yes, all those women are out to make men feel bad by having Chris Hemsworth play stupid. Would have worked too, if not for heroes like you.

01-02-2019 2:29pm

pixelburp wrote: »

That's kind of the problem right there; mainstream Hollywood comedy has moved on from the 1980s version that Ghostbusters represented; that quintessentially 'schlubby', cynical & sarcastically dry humour that pervaded that and other films of the era. You got 'zanier' comedies like Caddyshack sure, but IMO the likes of Ackroyd, Murray, Belushi et al brought a jaded sarcasm to the material.

Now it's different: comedy in Hollywood seems to have become ... broader, and more improvisational too by the feel of things (though I suspect Murray winged a lot of his material) and lost that 'stuck in the gutter' feeling you got with the 80s equivalents. Ghostbusters 2016 just didn't work with that different, ... 'shoutier' style of comedy.

Plus, with the original film, the SNL alumni were top of their field really, whereas you look at the equivalents these days & they weren't part of that 2016 film; I like Kirsten Wiig, but Kate McKinnon & Leslie Jones are hacks - swap either of them for Julia Louis-Dreyfus and suddenly the cast would have started to look more enticing.

**** yes

The Specialist · 01-02-2019 2:57pm

RayCun wrote: »

Yes, all those women are out to make men feel bad by having Chris Hemsworth play stupid. Would have worked too, if not for heroes like you.

Do you not see a problem with that?

How can anybody compare that movie to the originals - the entire spirit of the franchise was twisted in to this girl power bull**** with the most prominent male character being a complete thicko? The originals were fun movies and none of the female characters were written or acted like they had the IQ of a shoe size.

pixelburp · 01-02-2019 3:09pm

I may have sledged the character only a few posts earlier, but it was obvious enough Hemsworth was just playing the dim-hunk archetype, scarcely outrageous stuff and about as old as any other Hollywood trope. The execution was way off the boil, but that's another matter.

The movie had a tonne of problems from script to on-screen, but the idea of it being this anti-male screed is hilarious. Honestly until 2016 I never would have imagined Ghostbusters of all things would inspire such a circling of the wagons.

RayCun · 01-02-2019 3:15pm

The Specialist wrote: »

Do you not see a problem with that?

How can anybody compare that movie to the originals - the entire spirit of the franchise was twisted in to this girl power bull**** with the most prominent male character being a complete thicko? The originals were fun movies and none of the female characters were written or acted like they had the IQ of a shoe size.

My masculinity is not so easily threatened, sorry!

Dades · 01-02-2019 3:18pm

RayCun wrote: »

You people are insane.

That movie had plenty of problems, but all the Hemsworth bits were great.

Agreed! The film was completely "meh", but I thought he was the foil for the best bits.

01-02-2019 3:47pm

RayCun wrote: »

You people are insane.

That movie had plenty of problems, but all the Hemsworth bits were great.

No, Hemsworth was great. He showed actual timing and ability to deliver comedic lines, what he was given to work with however? Sweet feck

HAS to be part of the Thor change of direction

Johnmb · 01-02-2019 4:52pm

The Specialist wrote: »

Do you not see a problem with that?

How can anybody compare that movie to the originals - the entire spirit of the franchise was twisted in to this girl power bull**** with the most prominent male character being a complete thicko? The originals were fun movies and none of the female characters were written or acted like they had the IQ of a shoe size.

I think that, right there, is your problem, and the problem of most others who didn't like it (who seen it, I ignore all the idiots who hated it before it was even released). Don't compare it to the original, watch it for what it is. The original will never be replicated (the sequel, with the same cast, proved that). The 2016 film is a product of its time, and compares quite well with its contemporaries.

py2006 · 01-02-2019 5:44pm

Christ on a bike,

That 2016 nonsense was a pisstake, an insult to the fans, two fingers to men (not women) who wanted the original cast. The casting was wrong, the acting was atrocious, it was lazy, unfunny and the camoes were an insult to the actors.

nix · 01-02-2019 6:05pm

Johnmb wrote: »

The 2016 film is a product of its time, and compares quite well with its contemporaries.

Fysh · 01-02-2019 7:52pm

py2006 wrote: »

Christ on a bike,

That 2016 nonsense was a pisstake, an insult to the fans, two fingers to men (not women) who wanted the original cast. The casting was wrong, the acting was atrocious, it was lazy, unfunny and the camoes were an insult to the actors.

Oh, well, then it must be destroyed!

Counterpoint - being "a fan" in this case means having watched and liked the first film and, presumably, having not learned the lesson in disappointment and diminishing returns offered by GBII. If you feel insulted by a film you chose to watch, perhaps the best response might be to rethink how much impact you let pop culture fluff affect your life

buried · 01-02-2019 7:52pm

All these lame re-makes are a total joke and a total two finger showcase to the audience of contempt from hollywood for the lack of intelligence and merit of actual artistic work its studios are no longer are able to produce on their part. That is a fact. If it wasn't, why are they trying to re-hash and re-pckage and all the actual enjoyable work of merit that was done decades ago? They think they can flash a logo and a bit of a well known original soundtrack score to a 10 second trailer and it will have everyone rushing to the screens in total hype. And they right, a lot of people will rush to it. But that just means all the studios have to do is to apply the same shtick in a near two hour film for it and not create any y'know - Story, Plot, Characters or anything of any semblance of enjoyable well thought out dramatic sense. They'll Just stick in the vehicles, the building, the same music and the logo from the original film decades ago and plot parts will go something like having Rick Moranis appear saying something about there being "a bear in his apartment" while Walter Pecks grandson tries to shut down the Ghostbuster operation from his suite in The Sedgewick Hotel then have a lady Slimer fly into his face

py2006 · 01-02-2019 7:58pm

Fysh wrote: »

. If you feel insulted by a film you chose to watch, perhaps the best response might be to rethink how much impact you let pop culture fluff affect your life

Oh spare me...

Johnmb · 01-02-2019 9:29pm

py2006 wrote: »

Christ on a bike,

That 2016 nonsense was a pisstake, an insult to the fans, two fingers to men (not women) who wanted the original cast. The casting was wrong, the acting was atrocious, it was lazy, unfunny and the camoes were an insult to the actors.

But it wasn't aimed at anyone (men or women) who wanted the original cast. That logic is like saying the original was two fingers to those who wanted John Candy in the cast. It wasn't aimed at those people.

py2006 · 07-03-2019 1:28pm

Casting news:

Carrie Coon and Finn Wolfhard are in talks to be cast in the upcoming "Ghostbusters" film. It is said that Coon and Wolfhard will be cast to play a mother and son in Jason Reitman's take on "Ghostbusters."

The new "Ghostbuster" film is said to revolve around Coon and Wolfhard's characters single mom family. I am hoping Coon's character will be the daughter of Dr. Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis) I can see a possible physical resemblance and I think it would be a respectful salute. It would also be a good reason for the old school Ghostbusters to reunite. This is all me just throwing out my ideas of what personally I think would be cool, however, they are keeping the main plot under wraps for now. They still have yet to confirm the original stars returning, but with Ivan Reitman as executive producer and his son Jason Reitman ("Thank You For Smoking," "Juno," "The Front Runner," and "Tully") directing and penning the script alongside Gil Kenan (director of "Monster House," "Poltergeist," "City of Ember"), I could not imagine the original cast saying no.

peteeeed · 27-06-2019 5:32pm

Paul Rudd signs on

https://twitter.com/ghostbusters/status/1144274190910066688?s=21

pixelburp · 27-06-2019 5:35pm

That's good news, I guess? I'm trying to think of stinkers Rudd attached himself to, I want to say he generally has good judgement ...

Slydice · 27-06-2019 5:47pm

Is .. is he trying to do a Bill Murray impersonation?

peteeeed · 27-06-2019 6:50pm

Slydice wrote: »

Is .. is he trying to do a Bill Murray impersonation?

Don't think so

CastorTroy · 27-06-2019 6:52pm

pixelburp wrote: »

That's good news, I guess? I'm trying to think of stinkers Rudd attached himself to, I want to say he generally has good judgement ...

Mac & Me? :pac: