Ghostbusters (2016)

News updates and discussions on new releases and old faves. Also check out the database to find all your favourite movies!
User avatar
Cecil B DeMille Life Time Achievement
Posts: 6116
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 11:05 am
Cash on hand: 17,398.30
Bank: 0.00
Location: Adelaide
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2016 3:34 pm
Trailer 2 -



still looks like ass.
User avatar
Cecil B DeMille Life Time Achievement
Posts: 6116
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 11:05 am
Cash on hand: 17,398.30
Bank: 0.00
Location: Adelaide
PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2016 1:22 am
saw it today. reviews are correct, it sucks.

the only real good parts are the 5 cameos spread throughout and Chris Hemsworth.

it's a forgettable remake/reboot, don't remember many of the lines given by the girls. the thing is while watching it, I kept thinking that this easily could have been Ghostbusters 3. I know Dan Ackroyd would have prefered that, but Sony were thinking more about money and not what the fans wanted.. a 3rd.

I watched the original 2 again and had a ball, so entertaining. they didn't focus on the comedy as much where it wasn't exactly hilarious throughout. it was more about having good one liners, the character interaction and situations that bring the laughs. this movie tried to hard and didn't care for the ladies at all.

the thing is what I don't get is if they are rebooting it for a young audience, why are they using older people? why not cast 20 year olds or early 30s, they bring in the audience and cash. also, why was Slimer in this?! in the original 2 it was a tribute to John Belushi, like from Animal House... always eating. so they basically copied the original, couldn't come up with a female version? they did have one, with Slimer.

it just gets me mad thinking what could have been. don't mind having the women as the characters in this one but it should have been in the same universe and just having the torch passed down to them, could have been done in the first 10 minutes. the movie had some good effects, interesting ideas like the weapons but that would have been better as a 3rd movie thing with inventing new ways to catch ghosts.

I saw it for $8 and that's all it's worth, went to the city just to pay that price to see it. near me is $20!

If I were you guys I would give it a miss, Paul Fieg should stick to adult aimed comedies.

Movie:

This movie was rated 1.5 stars out of 5
User avatar
Cecil B DeMille Life Time Achievement
Posts: 9560
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2005 7:57 am
Cash on hand: 7,107.50
Location: Brisbane
Mood: Happy
PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2016 9:19 pm
I saw it today and personally really liked it. It was hilarious and interesting and as much as it is like the first one it was pretty much supposed to be a remake anyway.
User avatar
Cecil B DeMille Life Time Achievement
Posts: 6116
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 11:05 am
Cash on hand: 17,398.30
Bank: 0.00
Location: Adelaide
PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 3:18 pm
Image

I didn't find it all that funny to be honest, a couple of small chuckles. and yeah it's supposed to be a remake but still reminds us of the originals with 5/7 cameos, and slight references to the originals that don't make sense dispite being in a different universe.

this is bombing pretty hard, and I'd guess that 90% of YouTube critics hate it.

it wasn't handled very well from Sony, should have been a passing the torch sequel like Creed and Star Wars.

anyone else here see it?
User avatar
Cecil B DeMille Life Time Achievement
Posts: 9560
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2005 7:57 am
Cash on hand: 7,107.50
Location: Brisbane
Mood: Happy
PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 5:20 pm
Fair enough. Ill be interested to see what anyone else who has seen it thinks.
Previous

Return to Movies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron