Ghostbusters 3 (2020)
2 2

127 posts in this topic

On 11/16/2021 at 10:56 PM, @therealsilvermane said:

Excerpt review from The Globe and Mail:

"Everyone would have saved a lot of time and money and frustration had Jason simply written his father a nice note (“Congrats, pop, on making such a fun movie. See you in the car!”) and then digitally nuked, proton-blast-style, all traces of Paul Feig’s 2016 Ghostbusters reboot. Instead, we have Afterlife. Which, for its first ghost-free first hour, promises a fine enough little family dramedy that apes Steven Spielberg’s peak Amblin era.

Once the film introduces its first big ghost moment – a Slimer-esque critter named Muncher, so called because, um, he munches on stuff – the film embraces its destiny as a sloppy serving of wan call-backs and eye-rolling fan service. And what is new – a kid called Podcast (Logan Kim), so called because, um, he likes podcasts – is uninspired to the point of cinematic malpractice. This is not a film delicately peppered with Easter Eggs – cute little references to be hunted down by obsessive fans in the margins. This is a movie that is one giant Easter Egg, cracked and rotten and sulphurous in its stink.

 

Unlike the 1984 and 1989 movies...Afterlife forgets to build the basics.

Characters don’t tell each other crucial information, the big set-pieces arrive too late, and there is no corporeal villain to root against (god, this film could use a dose of legendary 1980s big-screen jerk William Atherton; Jason, if you chose to bring nearly everything back from the first movie, why not EPA agent Walter Peck? I’d even take Peter MacNicol’s Vigo the Carpathian acolyte!).

The film is conceptually, artistically, spiritually empty. Somebody call a Ghostbuster. Because this thing is dead."

977-9773945_ghostbusters-png-logo-ghostbusters-logo.thumb.png.924b78bf9618033d625c8d69913f228b.png

 

And yet still critically better than Eternals. :grin:

Edited by ▫️
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/16/2021 at 2:56 PM, @therealsilvermane said:

Excerpt review from The Globe and Mail:

"Everyone would have saved a lot of time and money and frustration had Jason simply written his father a nice note (“Congrats, pop, on making such a fun movie. See you in the car!”) and then digitally nuked, proton-blast-style, all traces of Paul Feig’s 2016 Ghostbusters reboot. Instead, we have Afterlife. Which, for its first ghost-free first hour, promises a fine enough little family dramedy that apes Steven Spielberg’s peak Amblin era.

Once the film introduces its first big ghost moment – a Slimer-esque critter named Muncher, so called because, um, he munches on stuff – the film embraces its destiny as a sloppy serving of wan call-backs and eye-rolling fan service. And what is new – a kid called Podcast (Logan Kim), so called because, um, he likes podcasts – is uninspired to the point of cinematic malpractice. This is not a film delicately peppered with Easter Eggs – cute little references to be hunted down by obsessive fans in the margins. This is a movie that is one giant Easter Egg, cracked and rotten and sulphurous in its stink.

 

Unlike the 1984 and 1989 movies...Afterlife forgets to build the basics.

Characters don’t tell each other crucial information, the big set-pieces arrive too late, and there is no corporeal villain to root against (god, this film could use a dose of legendary 1980s big-screen jerk William Atherton; Jason, if you chose to bring nearly everything back from the first movie, why not EPA agent Walter Peck? I’d even take Peter MacNicol’s Vigo the Carpathian acolyte!).

The film is conceptually, artistically, spiritually empty. Somebody call a Ghostbuster. Because this thing is dead."

977-9773945_ghostbusters-png-logo-ghostbusters-logo.thumb.png.924b78bf9618033d625c8d69913f228b.png

 

Counterpoints:

1) It's currently ranked at 71% positive on Rotten Tomatoes.

2) We're all well aware you're rooting against this film - at least in part - because it's going to dethrone your beloved Marvel Eternals. (Currently 47% rotten on Rotten Tomatoes)

Again - best case scenario for Eternals this weekend is $16M domestic.

Even if Ghostbusters grossly underperforms expectations, it'll do double that - at $32M.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/16/2021 at 2:56 PM, @therealsilvermane said:

Excerpt review from The Globe and Mail:

"Everyone would have saved a lot of time and money and frustration had Jason simply written his father a nice note (“Congrats, pop, on making such a fun movie. See you in the car!”) and then digitally nuked, proton-blast-style, all traces of Paul Feig’s 2016 Ghostbusters reboot. Instead, we have Afterlife. Which, for its first ghost-free first hour, promises a fine enough little family dramedy that apes Steven Spielberg’s peak Amblin era.

Once the film introduces its first big ghost moment – a Slimer-esque critter named Muncher, so called because, um, he munches on stuff – the film embraces its destiny as a sloppy serving of wan call-backs and eye-rolling fan service. And what is new – a kid called Podcast (Logan Kim), so called because, um, he likes podcasts – is uninspired to the point of cinematic malpractice. This is not a film delicately peppered with Easter Eggs – cute little references to be hunted down by obsessive fans in the margins. This is a movie that is one giant Easter Egg, cracked and rotten and sulphurous in its stink.

 

Unlike the 1984 and 1989 movies...Afterlife forgets to build the basics.

Characters don’t tell each other crucial information, the big set-pieces arrive too late, and there is no corporeal villain to root against (god, this film could use a dose of legendary 1980s big-screen jerk William Atherton; Jason, if you chose to bring nearly everything back from the first movie, why not EPA agent Walter Peck? I’d even take Peter MacNicol’s Vigo the Carpathian acolyte!).

The film is conceptually, artistically, spiritually empty. Somebody call a Ghostbuster. Because this thing is dead."

977-9773945_ghostbusters-png-logo-ghostbusters-logo.thumb.png.924b78bf9618033d625c8d69913f228b.png

 

Why don't you and your 'upgraded SUV from thousands of dollars in Marvel sales' just calm down some?

 

MCU_SUV.gif.f7ed01ede8e34da29fbdb34908d19e61.gif

We can always discuss Captain Marvel again

captainmarveleverywhere.gif.5aba06acce782e971a20e2345a562c2e.gif

:baiting:

Edited by Bosco685
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/16/2021 at 3:06 PM, ▫️ said:

And yet still critically better than Eternals. :grin:

And therein lies the problem with Rotten Tomatoes. No way this movie is cinematically more worthwhile than Eternals yet it has a higher RT score. As the media continues to write about Eternals, the critic's RT score continues to define their narrative as if that's all there is, fresh or rotten, ignorant of the fact that a vast majority of MCU fans love Eternals. RT is an inherently horrible aggregator that somehow has dominion over people's lives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/16/2021 at 3:26 PM, Bosco685 said:

Why don't you and your 'upgraded SUV from thousands of dollars in Marvel sales' just calm down some?

Nah. How about another review excerpt blasting the movie, though?

From Screen Crush:

'GHOSTBUSTERS: AFTERLIFE' - A Beloved Franchise Goes Bust

The title Ghostbusters: Afterlife implies this franchise is already dead. Based on the film itself, maybe it is. At best, this series now exists only to give audiences a chance to bask in their warm memories of earlier, better movies. At worst, Afterlife is a coldly calculated exercise in nostalgiasploitation disguised as a love letter to a beloved work of cinema. Director Jason Reitman, paying homage to his father Ivan’s most famous work, remains dutifully faithful to the original Ghostbusters, at least in terms of its gadgets, costumes, special effects, and score. But he completely lost the first film’s anarchic comedy and rebellious vibe. The result plays like a technically proficient but soulless cover of a classic rock song. The notes are the same, but the meaning is missing.

 

Edited by @therealsilvermane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/16/2021 at 4:20 PM, paperheart said:

how about: they both stink?

image.png.c91a623a7b3de52486ddfa691688c3a2.png

image.png.0e1569ad35c31e20cb509fe013732801.png

How about Eternals is a really good(great IMO) yet complicated MCU film that half of the critics are confused what to make of it? I doubt Ghostbusters: Afterlife is so complicated and complex a movie that there's a chance some of these critics just don't get it. A movie like Ghostbusters Afterlife is an easy review. Eternals not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/16/2021 at 1:31 PM, @therealsilvermane said:

How about Eternals is a really good(great IMO) yet complicated MCU film that half of the critics are confused what to make of it? I doubt Ghostbusters: Afterlife is so complicated and complex a movie that there's a chance some of these critics just don't get it. A movie like Ghostbusters Afterlife is an easy review. Eternals not so much.

critics after watching Eternals

Oldest non-human stone tools outside Africa found in Brazil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/16/2021 at 4:25 PM, @therealsilvermane said:

Nah. How about another review excerpt blasting the movie, though?

Spoiler

From Screen Crush:

'GHOSTBUSTERS: AFTERLIFE' - A Beloved Franchise Goes Bust

The title Ghostbusters: Afterlife implies this franchise is already dead. Based on the film itself, maybe it is. At best, this series now exists only to give audiences a chance to bask in their warm memories of earlier, better movies. At worst, Afterlife is a coldly calculated exercise in nostalgiasploitation disguised as a love letter to a beloved work of cinema. Director Jason Reitman, paying homage to his father Ivan’s most famous work, remains dutifully faithful to the original Ghostbusters, at least in terms of its gadgets, costumes, special effects, and score. But he completely lost the first film’s anarchic comedy and rebellious vibe. The result plays like a technically proficient but soulless cover of a classic rock song. The notes are the same, but the meaning is missing.

 

All this over Eternals. There is no way you are an adult member.

nugget.gif.96d45d5caa55b911c5b381ff7f71acd0.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/17/2021 at 12:17 AM, @therealsilvermane said:

And therein lies the problem with Rotten Tomatoes. No way this movie is cinematically more worthwhile than Eternals yet it has a higher RT score.

Well, I can’t agree or disagree with you on that since I haven’t watched either movie yet. And even when I do, my opinion doesn’t mean squat to anyone but me. I’m not big on the review sites anyway but if I need them, I use Metacritic. The math is better there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/16/2021 at 4:53 PM, ▫️ said:

Well, I can’t agree or disagree with you on that since I haven’t watched either movie yet. And even when I do, my opinion doesn’t mean squat to anyone but me. I’m not big on the review sites anyway but if I need them, I use Metacritic. The math is better there.

Well, the RT score of Ghostbusters Afterlife is dropping like "that last nugget" so maybe it'll end up with a lower RT score after all. Jason Reitman said he made Afterlife for people who wanted to be Ghostbusters. Maybe a lot of those critics had no such childhood desires.

Personally, I think all critic aggregator sites are hooey and the world would be a better place without them. I say find a couple of critics that one likes and actually READ their reviews, instead of "blindly" looking at a number derived from 3rd grade math and a couple of office interns deciding if a review is all negative or all positive.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/16/2021 at 5:08 PM, @therealsilvermane said:

Well, the RT score of Ghostbusters Afterlife is dropping like "that last nugget" so maybe it'll end up with a lower RT score after all. Jason Reitman said he made Afterlife for people who wanted to be Ghostbusters. Maybe a lot of those critics had no such childhood desires.

Personally, I think all critic aggregator sites are hooey and the world would be a better place without them. I say find a couple of critics that one likes and actually READ their reviews, instead of "blindly" looking at a number derived from 3rd grade math and a couple of office interns deciding if a review is all negative or all positive.  

Regardless, you always twist things to your narrative.  One minute you support RT because it likes Captain Marvel and all the changes made to RT were justified.  Then when it goes against Eternals, you jump on the bandwagon that RT is flawed.  Then when you perceive RT as working again with GB: Afterlife, you use RT to say the movie is bad.  Pick a side with RT, but you can't because when it supports your viewpoint you need it. 

 

In addition, we can all cherry pick reviews, and it is an absolute favorite tactic of yours.

 

So what if people here end up liking GB?  Are you going to attack them as stupid and having no taste, like you tend to do when we disagree about movies like Captain Marvel? What if the audience score for GB comes back higher then Eternals?  Does that mean now critics got it right, but audiences are wrong? You have been saying the critics got it wrong with Eternals, but the audience is right. 

 

Finally, are you going to see the movie?  You always say everyone must see the film before they judge anything about it, even if it is just running numbers, which does not require seeing the film. So, now I ask you to see the film before you judge it, otherwise you can not talk about it at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
2 2