log in or register to remove this ad

 

New Ghostbusters Afterlife trailer

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Good I suppose, that they change their mind. But why even pay attention to critic reviews if they can't recognize a piece of Hollywood history when they see it? Critics like Ciskel and Ebert panned Aliens because "it's about a child being put in danger", while everyone else can recognize it for one of the best sequels and action movies ever made. Then what use are film critic reviews?
What use is any opinion piece? You're either interested or you're not. You read it or you don't, just like any article. No other utility is required. What use is this post?

I find it interesting to see what others thought of things I've seen. That's one use for me personally.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

payn

Legend
Even the Mummy didn't have EVERY critic agree, but the overall critic's reviews put it lower on their scale at around a C rating, while audience reviews at the time (20 years ago) put it in the 90 percentile.

I think the cases I have the worst situations are where reviewers rate something as mediocre or bad while most of the rest of the people who watch it rate it as awesome or great! That's where we see a disconnect.

I do find it interesting that if you go ahead into the future, the reviewers seem to change their outlook or review of a movie that was universally loved by audiences to align more with audience views than what it was originally in some cases. (The Mummy didn't get this fate though, it got rated lower by audiences as time passed till now it is a 75% on Rotton Tomatoes...reviewers seem to keep the same score on that one. You can see even a bigger divide on metacritic, but general audience is still at 87% or thereabouts these days.)
That might be an instance where the movie hits certain notes that resonated with audiences at the time, but eventually lowers closer to its actual standard. I loved Independence Day when it dropped. I had so much fun with that movie at the theater. Today, I cant even handle more than 10 min of it.

Time can change perspectives and it also changes critical consensus. A lot of cutting edge material gets panned because its pushing the boundaries. Sometimes, its dreck and sometimes its the next level. Sometimes, a piece of work is just an amusement ride of fan service and its not trying to move the needle in any particular direction. A critic, however, always has their eye on the needle and is going to report under such criteria.
I find similar things with Video games as well...soo...
Video Games are an entirely different animal. Usually, there is a 10 point scale where I have never seen a critic go lower than 7 or maybe a 6. Audience reviewers? I hardly seen anything above 4 . Audience reviews of VGs are ridiculous. Often times, they have some type of user malfunction or hardware incompatibility that inexplicably knocks their review to the bottom. I find video game review to be entirely unhelpful most of the time.
 




Zaukrie

New Publisher
I'm on the fence for this one. I didn't like the reboot and Akroyd's criticism of Paul Fiege made more sense after seeing it.



That's a LOT of money on reshoots, which tells me there was no clear plan from the director. But enough about that.

The problem I have with reboots are the same problem I have with George Lucas "remastering" Star Wars and having Han shoot second. People change. Art is a product of its time. When Lucas went back to Star Wars he was a different man. The new George wanted to tell a different story so he did it by rewriting the original and completely ruining Han Solo's story arc from an untrustworthy scoundrel to a stalwart friend.

Why would I think Ghostbusters will be any different?

Also, Finn Wolfhard is growing way too fast. He's going to be the size of Stay Puft if they have any reshoots.
Isn't a different story a good thing, when it is a very different timeline and characters? Don't we want this to be a different story?
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest (he/him)
I do find it interesting that if you go ahead into the future, the reviewers seem to change their outlook or review of a movie that was universally loved by audiences to align more with audience views than what it was originally in some cases. (The Mummy didn't get this fate though, it got rated lower by audiences as time passed till now it is a 75% on Rotton Tomatoes...reviewers seem to keep the same score on that one. You can see even a bigger divide on metacritic, but general audience is still at 87% or thereabouts these days.)
Well, yeah, the critics' score stays the same. Published critics aren't still reviewing the 1999 movie. It would be a waste of time and resources for their employers if they did 20 years on when it's long out of the theaters. The audience score on RottenTomatoes, however, stays open since people can still get via DVD/streaming and watch it.

Ultimately, on RottenTomatoes, 61% critics and 75% audience are largely in agreement. It's over the threshold to be marked "fresh" by the critics and is, essentially, a rating amplified by a good score from the audience. The 48/8.7 ratings from the critics/audience on Metacritic aren't in agreement and may indicate weaknesses in Metacritic's method - at least for The Mummy.
 



AtomicPope

Adventurer
Enlighten me. What was your point?
The problem I have with reboots are the same problem I have with George Lucas "remastering" Star Wars and having Han shoot second. People change. Art is a product of its time. When Lucas went back to Star Wars he was a different man. The new George wanted to tell a different story so he did it by rewriting the original and completely ruining Han Solo's story arc from an untrustworthy scoundrel to a stalwart friend.
 


Well, I've finally seen it. I didn't want to see it in the theater during a deadly epidemic, so I waited for a home media release. I've got a lot of thoughts about it, but let me start with a none-spoiler list of what I liked and disliked. Please let me know what you thought of the movie as well. Some minor spoilers beware.

What I liked:

Miles better than that other reboot (not a high bar, I admit)
They decided to not make this a comedy, which was a wise choice.
It nails the feeling of Ghostbusters.
The Ghostbusting equipment is as cool as I remember it from my childhood.
The practical effects and visual effects are both really good.
The sets and props look great.
It is shot and edited well.
Mckenna Grace is really good.
A great soundtrack.
A really solid first act.

What I disliked:

The trailer pretty much spoils the entire movie in chronological order.
A cringy amount of fan service.
Pacing issues.
Constant callbacks and quoting the original movie.
Often using the same soundtrack as the original movie, to the point of annoyance.
Copying the entire last act of the original movie.
Several characters do not have a whole lot to do.
A terrible exposition scene which pretty much implodes the movie.
The kids seem too knowledgable. Both technically, and about Ghostbusting. As if they saw the movies too.
The movie seems to not only ignore the other reboot, but also Ghostbusters II, which is weird.
The plot has a few problems.
There is an odd final showdown that seems like it needed more rewrites.
Awful cameos from the original cast. Most of them did not age well, and don't act well.
One unsettling cameo which raises all manner of ethical questions about movie making.

Below, I will go into a bit more detail. Big spoilers ahead!

The movie starts off really strong. The characters are all likeable, and both the setting and mood are a welcome change from the original movies. The movie focuses a lot on the Ghostbusting tech, giving us long closeups of the props. It is perhaps a bit overindulgent in this respect, but I appreciate it, because I love the tech so much. The original soundtrack (of GB1) is used a bit too much, which is jarring at times. The full soundtrack however, has delightful riffs on the original soundtrack. I also noticed reusing sound effects from GB1, for more than just the tech. Since I have a very strong memory for sound effects, this was jarring to me.

But it all kind of collapses in on itself as soon as Dan Aykroyd makes a cameo as Ray Stance. The exposition is terrible here, and the acting by Aykroyd is not great. When done well, an exposition scene can fly by unnoticed. But when it is done poorly, the dialog does not flow naturally, and it takes you out of the movie. The plot also raises some red flags here. Apparently we are lead to believe that Egon split from the rest of the Ghostbusters, because they didn't believe his ideas of the approaching end of the world.... you know, despite them all living through two such world ending events. This does not seem believable. I'm fine with the idea of the Ghostbusters having a falling out, but this was just poorly written.

From this point it starts feeling like the movie is just rushing over a lot of things. The kids some how are all technical geniuses, and seem to understand Ghostbusting a bit too quickly, to the point where they even start classifying ghosts like Ray does in the original movies.

The pacing is a bit uneven. The first act moves slowly, which is good. Seeing the kids slowly discover the old Ghostbusting tech is the best part of the film. But once the movie starts moving towards it's final act, things move a bit too hastily, which ultimately makes the ending feel a bit unsatisfying. I get that they wanted to bring Gozer and his/her terror dogs back. They are iconic. And since Gozer wasn't actually defeated in the first movie, it makes sense that Shandor and his cult had prepared other means for bringing the Destructor back. All that I don't have a problem with. But did it have to be the exact same temple? Did they need to recreate the exact same scene with the Keymaster and Gatekeeper transforming into terror dogs, as in the original film? And apparently Shandor is still alive, or undead? His cameo seemed a bit random, like an unfleshed out concept that some how stuck around in the script despite numerous rewrites.

But despite the movie having a great final location in the mine, the final showdown takes place in front of the porch of the old farmhouse. This felt really weird to me. What a bizarre and underwhelming location for a final showdown with Gozer. I did appreciate the updated look for Gozer. She looks much creepier, and is no longer wearing a cheap fluffy costume. The terror dogs also look great as animatronics. And Bill Murray seemed to actually care about giving a decent performance, despite his cameo being really brief. But how bizarre to build up the kids as the new Ghostbusters, only to have the original cast come in for the final show down. It felt very out of place.

Of course, we have to talk about CGI Harold Ramis. To be fair, the CGI here was really good. This is one of the stronger looking recreations of a dead celebrity in a movie so far. But it also raises some ethical concerns. I felt very uncomfortable watching it. Sure, the movie is dedicated to Harold, but he didn't give permission for his likeness to be used in this movie. I think they could have gotten away with not actually showing him, and just making him a ball of light or something. But having this clearly dead actor, who did not give permission to be in this movie, act in front of the rest of the elderly cast... yikes. I don't like it.

There's two after credits scenes, with one being B-roll footage of Harold Ramis which got cut from from the original film. It is jarring, because you can feel why it was cut. It 'feels' like a deleted scene, and not in a good way. I did love the final scene between Bill Murray and Sigourney Weaver, even if it feels very unconnected to the rest of the film. And Winston is apparently cleaning up the old Firehouse?

I noticed that they are still using the Ghost Corp logo for this, so clearly Sony Pictures is determined to make this the new GB franchise (after the other reboot imploded). I want to see more GB movies, but honestly I hope they let go of all the cameos and call backs, and just commit to doing something new.
 


Tonguez

A suffusion of yellow
This seems contradictory.
its not contradictory, the original Ghostbusters is a classic because it is more than just a comedy - it combines horror, adventure and comedy but at its heart it has a unique defining 'spirit' :p that provides the emotional hook for audiences.

The new movie was able to latch on to the nostalgia of that emotional hook and carry the legacy via a family drama that is feel good but has very little comedy
 
Last edited:

This seems contradictory.
It may seem that way, but in order for a Ghostbusters movie to feel like a Ghostbusters movie, it doesn't need to be a comedy.

And in fact, considering how good a comedy the original was... You're kind of setting yourself up for failure if you try to repeat it. So the bold choice to focus on adventure, rather than comedy, really works for GB Afterlife.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
its not contradictory, the original Ghostbusters is a classic because it is more than just a comedy - it combines horror, adventure and comedy but at its heart it has a unique defining 'spirit' :p that provides the emotional hook for audiences.

The new movie was able to latch on to the nostalgia of that emotional hook and carry the legacy via a family drama that is feel good but has very little comedy
I’ve a hard time believing that a movie that isn’t especially humorous can have the same feel as the outright hilariously comical Ghostbusters.

I suspect that what it captured was folks’ nostalgia and reverence for the franchise and the place it has in the halls of their memories.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
I’ve a hard time believing that a movie that isn’t especially humorous can have the same feel as the outright hilariously comical Ghostbusters.

I suspect that what it captured was folks’ nostalgia and reverence for the franchise and the place it has in the halls of their memories.

Na it was just a good fun film. Plenty of reboots fail because they just throw in nostalgia bait in thee absence of a compelling story, likeable characters etc.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Na it was just a good fun film. Plenty of reboots fail because they just throw in nostalgia bait in thee absence of a compelling story, likeable characters etc.
I don’t doubt it’s good. I doubt that it has the same feel as the original. Nor should it. It’s a new movie that directly follows on from the older story.
 



Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top