Jethro
01-15-2018, 11:30 PM
Oh
My
God!
Did Ghostbusters 2016 suck! I am listening to Bob Ross right now just to not drop the F-bomb a thousand times in this review. So right, I watched Ghostbusters 2016 on DvD on the insistence of an ex-friend of mine. So I wouldn't be jumping to conclusions about said movie without watching it you know fairness comes first. Thats 2 hours 14 minutes i'm never going to get back. There are several reasons why this movie was horrible, the humor was on the level of south park, the special effects were gawd awful, the trailers lied to us, wasted opportunities and lastly the abject hypocrisy made it unwatchable. I will be using ~mostly~ a contrast and compare method to elaborate my views.
Humor:
1984:
In the 1984 Ghostbuster the humor was a nice, smooth mix of sexual humor, body humor, site gags, and subtle humor that I am unable to label properly. GB 1984 starts off with the Comedy GOD!! Bill Murray playing the lovable jerk Peter Venkman simultaneously torturing a geek by electroshock, and hitting on a hot college co-ed. As the "test" continues the geek starts getting the tests right, while at the same time the co-ed is off in lala land. By the end of the "test" the there is this delayed scene where Peter Venkman is slowing edging to shock the geek once again, with a jaws-esq duh nuh in the background. The camera focuses one the three characters faces right before the geek gets shocked. The geek quits, Peter Venkman starts trying to get a date with the co-ed, and right there is when the punchline of the scene when Dan Aykroyd's character Ray Stantz interrupts before Peter can "close the deal."
This one scene establishes several things, First Peter is a jerk, second he's in a field of science directly related to the paranormal (specifically para-psychology), third Ray is a clumsy goof ball, forth he's also in a field of science directly related to the paranormal, and fifth Ray is a charmer. You also learn that they are friends, or at-least colleagues ,and actively looking for paranormal activity Ray more than Peter. Was the geek humiliated? Probably but he was more pissed off about getting shocked several times in a row, with a BS answer for the reason why.
2016:
Ghostbusters 2016 relies heavily on body humor fart, queef, and cum jokes are not beneath the writers with a healthy dose of anti male sexism to round things off (see below for more detail). The corresponding scene of Ghostbusters 2016 has Kristen Wiigs character Erin Gilbert confronting her two "friends" about publishing a book that involved Jillian, that she didn't want to be a part of. After a verbal cat-fight Melissa Mccarthy, and Kate McKinnon's; Abby Yates, and Jillian Holtzmann respective convince Erin to listen closely to a recorded fart, excuse me queef.
The scene establishes that Abby, and Jillian are rather childish, Erin is gullible, and trusting of her friends. The entire scene was designed around a fart joke, it didn't really establish any character development except that Abby, and Jillian used to work with Erin, they're horrible to Erin, and they are maybe involved in science. All I remember is the fart/queef joke.
TLDR version when they get slimed...
Peter: "He slimed me Ray. I feel so funky"
Erin: "I got slime in every crack!"
Special Effects:
This is a simple one. What are people most pissed off about the Prequel Star Wars movies? The Remastered Original Trilogy? The Matrix Reloaded/ Revolution? The Hobbit? I'll tell you its PISS POOR CGI!!! and Ghostbusters 2016 is rife with piss poor CGI, it is reminiscent of the horrible CGI from the Scooby Doo movies, or a PS2 video game. As the CGI in movies improves you will see that it the CGI in this movie will not stand the test of time.
Ghostbusters 1984 had practical effects, and blue screen animation. Yeah actually the grey lady, slimer, and the rest of the ghosts in the movie still look pretty damn good. Can I tell that the firehouse that blows up near the end of the movie is a model? Yeah if I look closely at it. But it's not glaring. Can I tell that the ghost in the 2016 movies are CGI animations you bet, and they're only get worse as the technology improves.
Trailers:
This is a special category The trailer started out "30 years ago, four scientists saved the world. This summer, A new team will answer the call." This line is a freaking bald face lie! Ghostbusters 2016 is a reboot! The actors who played in the original only made cameos. It was a lie designed to play on the nostalgia of the original movies.
Wasted Opportunities:
Five names Dan Aykroyd, Bill Murray, Ernie Hudson, Annie Potts, and Sigourney Weaver.
Ghostbustersevery opportunity in the world to succeed, it had star power, including veteran and fresh Saturday night live alumni. The franchise had nostalgia on its side, and an accomplished director, not to mention a blockbuster budget. Further it had access to special effects techniques unheard of back in 1984. And it squandered the whole wad for nothing but a poorly written movie designed to appeal to 4th graders, and SJW's.
Abject Hypocrisy: This is the big one
In Ghostbusters 1984 you had two main female characters Annie Potts as Janine Melnitz, and Sigourney Weaver as Dana Barrette.
Janine was a no nonsense full time secretary who was incredibly proficient, didn't take crap from the four men she worked for, and even slowed down the authorities trying to shut down the containment grid. Again Janine Melnitz was portrayed as a smart, capable, professional woman, who while attractive was not sexualized.
Dana was a damsel in distress but she was not a steryotyped one. She was an accomplished musician, and a well paid one considering her apartment size in New York. On central park west no less. She is a capable foil for Peter Venkman, rebukes his advances, and demands, and receives respect from him. Again Dana Barrette is smart, well paid, and strong willed.
In Ghostbusters 2016 you had one main male character Chris Hemsworth as Kevin No-Last-Name. Who is depicted as a piece of meat. He's blatantly dumb, and a caricature of a man. He is constantly sexually harassed by the four women, and he's played in such a way that he's not even capable at menial tasks. Again Kevin No-Last-Name is a dumb, incompetent, sexually harassed, piece of meat, only there to be eye candy for mostly the opposite sex.
DOES ANY ONE SEE THE HYPOCRISY HERE!
I get it, honestly do it's a role reversal but it's hypocrisy. Why you might ask is it hypocrisy it's simple the people who would have called the director on the carpet because an attractive female was treated a a dumb, incompetent, sexually harassed, piece of meat did it them selves, and championed it as feminism. It's not feminism it's sexism, just socially acceptable sexism, and it flies in the face of any one who has ever invoked the words "equal opportunity". If you're going to claim equal opportunity than you your self must treat people equal.
Speaking of equal opportunity who know how every one accuses Ghostbusters 1984 as having Ernie Hudson as the "token black dude" well Gostbusters 2016 does the same with Leslie Jones. It's played worse than in 1984 because you now have an African American woman quitting her job and stealing company property I quote "I got these from work." The coveralls she took, to fit all four women could not all have been hers. Again hypocrisy because no one has called Ghostbusters 2016 out on the carpet for the treatment of Leslie Jones VS Ernie Hudson.
There is a lot more wrong with Ghostbusters 2016 the final act action scene being total garbage, the story being a ripoff from the Ghostbusters video game from 2009, the villain being a "Guy who's tired of being picked on" the nonchalance of his suicide, and the mild stereotyping of Leslie Jones' character just to name a few.
But this is just my rant.
My
God!
Did Ghostbusters 2016 suck! I am listening to Bob Ross right now just to not drop the F-bomb a thousand times in this review. So right, I watched Ghostbusters 2016 on DvD on the insistence of an ex-friend of mine. So I wouldn't be jumping to conclusions about said movie without watching it you know fairness comes first. Thats 2 hours 14 minutes i'm never going to get back. There are several reasons why this movie was horrible, the humor was on the level of south park, the special effects were gawd awful, the trailers lied to us, wasted opportunities and lastly the abject hypocrisy made it unwatchable. I will be using ~mostly~ a contrast and compare method to elaborate my views.
Humor:
1984:
In the 1984 Ghostbuster the humor was a nice, smooth mix of sexual humor, body humor, site gags, and subtle humor that I am unable to label properly. GB 1984 starts off with the Comedy GOD!! Bill Murray playing the lovable jerk Peter Venkman simultaneously torturing a geek by electroshock, and hitting on a hot college co-ed. As the "test" continues the geek starts getting the tests right, while at the same time the co-ed is off in lala land. By the end of the "test" the there is this delayed scene where Peter Venkman is slowing edging to shock the geek once again, with a jaws-esq duh nuh in the background. The camera focuses one the three characters faces right before the geek gets shocked. The geek quits, Peter Venkman starts trying to get a date with the co-ed, and right there is when the punchline of the scene when Dan Aykroyd's character Ray Stantz interrupts before Peter can "close the deal."
This one scene establishes several things, First Peter is a jerk, second he's in a field of science directly related to the paranormal (specifically para-psychology), third Ray is a clumsy goof ball, forth he's also in a field of science directly related to the paranormal, and fifth Ray is a charmer. You also learn that they are friends, or at-least colleagues ,and actively looking for paranormal activity Ray more than Peter. Was the geek humiliated? Probably but he was more pissed off about getting shocked several times in a row, with a BS answer for the reason why.
2016:
Ghostbusters 2016 relies heavily on body humor fart, queef, and cum jokes are not beneath the writers with a healthy dose of anti male sexism to round things off (see below for more detail). The corresponding scene of Ghostbusters 2016 has Kristen Wiigs character Erin Gilbert confronting her two "friends" about publishing a book that involved Jillian, that she didn't want to be a part of. After a verbal cat-fight Melissa Mccarthy, and Kate McKinnon's; Abby Yates, and Jillian Holtzmann respective convince Erin to listen closely to a recorded fart, excuse me queef.
The scene establishes that Abby, and Jillian are rather childish, Erin is gullible, and trusting of her friends. The entire scene was designed around a fart joke, it didn't really establish any character development except that Abby, and Jillian used to work with Erin, they're horrible to Erin, and they are maybe involved in science. All I remember is the fart/queef joke.
TLDR version when they get slimed...
Peter: "He slimed me Ray. I feel so funky"
Erin: "I got slime in every crack!"
Special Effects:
This is a simple one. What are people most pissed off about the Prequel Star Wars movies? The Remastered Original Trilogy? The Matrix Reloaded/ Revolution? The Hobbit? I'll tell you its PISS POOR CGI!!! and Ghostbusters 2016 is rife with piss poor CGI, it is reminiscent of the horrible CGI from the Scooby Doo movies, or a PS2 video game. As the CGI in movies improves you will see that it the CGI in this movie will not stand the test of time.
Ghostbusters 1984 had practical effects, and blue screen animation. Yeah actually the grey lady, slimer, and the rest of the ghosts in the movie still look pretty damn good. Can I tell that the firehouse that blows up near the end of the movie is a model? Yeah if I look closely at it. But it's not glaring. Can I tell that the ghost in the 2016 movies are CGI animations you bet, and they're only get worse as the technology improves.
Trailers:
This is a special category The trailer started out "30 years ago, four scientists saved the world. This summer, A new team will answer the call." This line is a freaking bald face lie! Ghostbusters 2016 is a reboot! The actors who played in the original only made cameos. It was a lie designed to play on the nostalgia of the original movies.
Wasted Opportunities:
Five names Dan Aykroyd, Bill Murray, Ernie Hudson, Annie Potts, and Sigourney Weaver.
Ghostbustersevery opportunity in the world to succeed, it had star power, including veteran and fresh Saturday night live alumni. The franchise had nostalgia on its side, and an accomplished director, not to mention a blockbuster budget. Further it had access to special effects techniques unheard of back in 1984. And it squandered the whole wad for nothing but a poorly written movie designed to appeal to 4th graders, and SJW's.
Abject Hypocrisy: This is the big one
In Ghostbusters 1984 you had two main female characters Annie Potts as Janine Melnitz, and Sigourney Weaver as Dana Barrette.
Janine was a no nonsense full time secretary who was incredibly proficient, didn't take crap from the four men she worked for, and even slowed down the authorities trying to shut down the containment grid. Again Janine Melnitz was portrayed as a smart, capable, professional woman, who while attractive was not sexualized.
Dana was a damsel in distress but she was not a steryotyped one. She was an accomplished musician, and a well paid one considering her apartment size in New York. On central park west no less. She is a capable foil for Peter Venkman, rebukes his advances, and demands, and receives respect from him. Again Dana Barrette is smart, well paid, and strong willed.
In Ghostbusters 2016 you had one main male character Chris Hemsworth as Kevin No-Last-Name. Who is depicted as a piece of meat. He's blatantly dumb, and a caricature of a man. He is constantly sexually harassed by the four women, and he's played in such a way that he's not even capable at menial tasks. Again Kevin No-Last-Name is a dumb, incompetent, sexually harassed, piece of meat, only there to be eye candy for mostly the opposite sex.
DOES ANY ONE SEE THE HYPOCRISY HERE!
I get it, honestly do it's a role reversal but it's hypocrisy. Why you might ask is it hypocrisy it's simple the people who would have called the director on the carpet because an attractive female was treated a a dumb, incompetent, sexually harassed, piece of meat did it them selves, and championed it as feminism. It's not feminism it's sexism, just socially acceptable sexism, and it flies in the face of any one who has ever invoked the words "equal opportunity". If you're going to claim equal opportunity than you your self must treat people equal.
Speaking of equal opportunity who know how every one accuses Ghostbusters 1984 as having Ernie Hudson as the "token black dude" well Gostbusters 2016 does the same with Leslie Jones. It's played worse than in 1984 because you now have an African American woman quitting her job and stealing company property I quote "I got these from work." The coveralls she took, to fit all four women could not all have been hers. Again hypocrisy because no one has called Ghostbusters 2016 out on the carpet for the treatment of Leslie Jones VS Ernie Hudson.
There is a lot more wrong with Ghostbusters 2016 the final act action scene being total garbage, the story being a ripoff from the Ghostbusters video game from 2009, the villain being a "Guy who's tired of being picked on" the nonchalance of his suicide, and the mild stereotyping of Leslie Jones' character just to name a few.
But this is just my rant.