Ghostbusters

"While it falls short of nailing the anarchic spirit and character chemistry of Ivan Reitman’s beloved 1984 blockbuster, Feig and his cast of game comediennes deliver enough thrills and giggles to both justify the long-in-development franchise-starter and smother the internet’s white noise of negativity..."

Read the full review here: http://screen-space.squarespace.com/reviews/2016/7/12/ghostbusters.html

Filmmaker Paul Feig's Ghostbusters reboot pretty much followed the characteristic aspects of his previous films ("Bridesmaids", "The Heat", "Spy") all incorporating a self-awareness of female-oriented friendship and the estrogen-driven escapades rooted in inspired goofiness. So given this familiar foundation of Feig's big screen blueprint one would expect that his creative input into the continued Ghostbusters franchise for the millennium moviegoers would result in the heralded hype his film project is now enjoying at large. Sure, the feminine-charged Ghostbusters seemed like a radical concept and would obviously trigger the nostalgic sentiments (and comparisons) of the classic 80's comedy spearheaded by beloved on-screen paranormal hucksters Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis and Ernie Hudson. Nevertheless, singer Ray Parker Jr.'s lyrical catchphrase "Who you gonna call?" within the Ghostbusters theme song needs to be addressed accordingly. The answer: the handlers behind the original Ghostbusters film that could uplift the disjointed high jinks and synthetic silliness of Feig's current comedic ghostly she-power schlockfest.

It is only natural that Ghostbusters had high expectations for Sony Pictures to perform well given the aggressive marketing tactics, early release of the Ghostbusters movie trailer (which was heavily panned online) and the aforementioned cinematic legacy of the original film's fanatical following and reputation. However, this third installation of Ghostbusters feels curiously flat and strained in its stillborn witticism. The creep factor borders on campy and cheesy (although this effectively worked for Ivan Reitman's 32-year old spook-ridden farce in the eighties) for which in today's cinematic circle is inexcusable due to the edgier and challenging special effects that could have played up the whimsy and wonderment of this breezy, bubble-gum colored romp with seemingly low-grade spark and sizzle.

Feig's interpreta...

I was determined to see this movie on opening day. Female cast, Paul Feig (a Michiganian who included a Michigan line in the film), a couple fistfuls of ridiculousity on social media. When the movie started, I was one-eyeing the screen. Waiting for it. Oh oh. Fart joke. Oh oh. Kristen Wiig still can't make her eyes look interested. Then Charles Dance shows up with his serious comic tongue stuck in his cheek to admonish Prof. Gilbert that if she is serious about tenure, she needs to find a more prestigious university recommendation. "More prestigious? Than Princeton?" Now I know the deadpan eye comic genius of Wiig, too. From that point on, I was in love with the story. Katie Dippold cowrote the film. She has a bit part as the real estate agent showing the team the 1984 movie's fire station to rent. I want more of her screenwriting. The dialogue is witty, sharp, real. While I liked the 1984 Ghostbusters, it's a buddy movie. Dudes in the treehouse with no girls allowed spelled wrong nailed to the door. Smug, chirpy, guybonics. Venkman electrocuting rivals in the lab: using paranormal research to get dates. Annie Potts drooling over Spengler. Sigourney Weaver in a diaphanous dress, draped on a parapet waiting for the Gatekeeper. The sore spots in 1984 are sprayed away in 2016 without gender disrespect. Gilbert gets to drool over the pretty doofus administrative assistant. When you see this movie, watch all the credits. Chris Hemsworth is a clearly confident actor - he dives pelvis-first into the Kevin role, and it's hilarious. I'm still searching for the creator of the titles and end credits. Excellent art. The poster? Not so much. Hemsworth needs to be behind the four leads. Geez. Casting hit a lick with Kate McKinnon as Holzmann. She is fantastic bringing Harold Ramis' genius back to life. Leslie Jones as Patty: so good, and she has some of the juiciest lines, delivered with haute sass. There are really well-placed cameos by 1984's cast, including birthing one of the...

Unfortunately this has become because of political correctness and its backlash almost impossible to rate objectively. In the 2016 North American wish to either redo every successful film ever made and present every conceivable variant in the process, for what could be deemed the lack of any possible originality of ideas, I still tried to enter this with an open mind, and see this as if the two films from the 80's (which I enjoyed very much the one time I saw each of them) had never existed. I should state I saw this in 3D (which I hardly ever do), with my lady and our respective sons.

I felt that it was quite funny and that the special effects were excellent. Next to 'Avatar', the use of 3D was the best I have ever seen. It's a popcorn flick well-worth seeing. Though I haven't seen any other movies by Feig or starring McCarthy, it made me want to go back and give them a shot at some time in the near future. There was something for everyone--both my lady and I enjoyed it very much--and the boys, three and thirteen years-old respectively, loved it as well. Give it a shot.

A SCREEN ZEALOTS REVIEW www.screenzealots.com

There’s an arbitrary sense of nostalgia that unfairly permeates audience perceptions of the new female-centric “Ghostbusters” reboot. I love the original 1984 film too; I wore out my VHS cassette when I was a kid and I’ve probably seen the movie dozens of times, including special theatrical re-releases and anniversary screenings. It’s almost as if all of this animosity is seen as a badge of honor for ‘serious movie fans.’

All of this badmouthing is truly unwarranted, especially if you actually go back and rewatch the original. Sure, the movie has comedy legend Bill Murray, the hilarious Rick Moranis, and memorable performances from Harold Ramis, Sigourney Weaver and Dan Aykroyd. It introduced us to the characters we all still love decades later, and made lines like “tell him about the Twinkie” a permanent part of movie nerd vocabulary. But to all the haters I say this: you are being very, very unfair. The 1980s era film has a lot of boring sequences and lags quite a bit, and as is the case with many movies, sometimes our nostalgia creates pretty thick rose colored glasses. We tend to only remember the good in our childhood favorites.

Put aside your bias: the new “Ghostbusters” honors the legacy of the original, is a fun retelling of the classic story, and it does not disappoint. THIS MOVIE IS FUNNY! THIS MOVIE IS ACTUALLY GOOD!

There are a couple of minor hiccups along the way (as with most comedies, not every joke sticks, and the ghastly Missy Elliott / Fall Out Boy remake of the already awful Ray Parker Jr. song “Ghostbusters” makes an unwelcome appearance), but overall the movie is a success. At first it may feel weird to see women Ghostbusters but any skepticism will quickly fade (there’s a new generation of young girls who will undoubtedly be inspired by these characters).

When estranged childhood friends and paranormal enthusiasts Erin (Kristen Wiig) and Abby (Melissa McCarthy) reunite, sparks are re...

The ghosts are real and the scientists are hunting them down!

First of all I am not a fan of the original film, but I enjoyed watching them. So I anticipated this film for the updates to deliver what I'm looking for, including some good jokes, but I found it an average film. I am very interested to have the women's version of hit the films and vice versa, but there are not many films in this category. All I wanted was 'The Expendables', but they made this one. I think it was a great idea, though the execution was really impressive.

The story was okay type, they kept it very simple. No big developments, except two main characters. But all the four women were good, along with Chris Hemsworth as a worthy sidekick. The director whose favourite casting actress, Melissa McCarthy's fourth film with him in four years and he did his job well, but the screenplay lets the film down.

There's no major comparison with the original, because this is a reboot and obviously has similar appeal from visual to comedies. Except they talk too much science thing because of todays advanced science. The disappointments are the ghosts, the film did not give preference for them to show their atrocities. I mean the perspective was always from the women gang who fights them. Definitely a one time watchable film, for its decent graphics, performances and some good comedies.

6/10

This movie was a huge disappointment! The only positive thing I can say about it is that the special effects where not half bad. The movie itself was childish, unfunny, unintelligent and generally really bad.

Some reviews giving this movie 9 or 10 stars (which is just ludicrous) are saying that people cannot handle the feminism in the movie. What feminism? Replacing the original actors with women is not feminism as far as I am concerned and anyway, if you care about such things should it not have been two women and two men to be politically correct? Also, the supposedly intelligent women in this movie behave in a typical old-fashioned Hollywood stereotype of women way. They are mostly downright silly. If I were a feminist I would actually have been insulted by this movie.

Then we have the male clerk that is dummer than a piece of rock. If someone had stacked four supposedly intelligent men and a single blond bimbo that is totally devoid of any trace of intelligence together in a movie the social justice warriors would have cried foul so loud that you could hear it across the planet. But since it is four women and a stupid male it is okay (not really). It is even feminism according to some people. What a load of bollocks.

There is actually a story in the movie although it is well hidden under the silly jokes and silly behavior. It is paper thin and rather silly in itself but it could have worked if the rest of the movie was up to snuff but sadly it is not.

As I wrote above the only good thing about this movie is the special effects. The few scenes that I actually enjoyed was during the big shoot out at the end which had some cool moments. I especially liked when Jillian pulls a pair of pistols out of her Ghostbuster suit and goes on a ghost killing spray.

Apart from that this movie is best forgotten.

This movie is horrible. It plays like an overly long SNL sketch. The only saving grace is that this lost so much money that there will not be a sequel. Unfortunately for the fans, this means that the franchise is likely dead in the water for a long time.

This movie is a disaster. The casting is way off. The special effects are mediocre. The story is merely a retread from the original... and they shoot the original logo in the crotch. There is nothing good about this production. What a waste of a perfectly good franchise.

As a male nerd who grew up in the 1980's watching both original movies and the cartoon, running around with my toy proton pack and catching imaginary ghosts in my basement, I should be of the demographic complaining about how this ruins my childhood or that a cast of all women is just a stunt in the name of political correctness, or whatever their issue is. But the truth is, I REALLY enjoyed this movie.

The four female leads were absolutely hilarious--especially Kate McKinnon who steals every scene she is in. The other three characters have more growth, more of a story arc, and are more fleshed out as people in general. But McKinnon makes the most out of the available material and creates a very fun and memorable character.

The comedy of the 2016 version, while equally effective, is completely different from the dry humor of the original. The absence of Dan Aykroyd's and Harold Ramis's ludicrously funny lines delivered with a straight face, and the deadpan humor of Bill Murray has been switched out with a more over-the-top and in-your-face style of humor. It's not as subtle. Ghostbusters (1984) made me chuckle; Ghostbusters (2016) made me laugh out loud.

While a lot of the original's comedy came from the ghosts themselves, i.e. that they're funny instead of legitimately scary, the new version reverses that. There is some very creepy imagery involving things like old timey parade balloons, ghosts pushing against mirrors, and other things that seemed inspired by American Horror Story. Plus, there were some good jump scares, boo moments, that actually caught me off guard.

Much like a guitar amp out of Spinal Tap, this film turns both the scares and the comedy up to 11 with great results.

I haven't had this much fun at a movie in a long time. The trailer is NOT a valid way to judge this film. The trailer seemed to splice together all the ineffective moments and jokes of the film. But those were the exceptions and not the rule. The rule here is fun, ent...