Bongo Heracles
Junior Member
Technically illegal to ride on public land
Posts: 4,633
|
Post by Bongo Heracles on Aug 25, 2021 8:28:45 GMT
I mean... it's not like Stranger Things was particularly original in the first place No but it codified that aesthetic. And you cant really blame the cast for being in everything, they are pretty good. |
|
Bongo Heracles
Junior Member
Technically illegal to ride on public land
Posts: 4,633
|
Post by Bongo Heracles on Aug 25, 2021 8:29:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by beastmaster on Oct 10, 2021 21:03:56 GMT
Reviews have gone up for this. Seem to be the 4 star and 8/10 variety. It’s not out for a while yet but there you go. It’s good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jambowayoh on Oct 10, 2021 21:51:00 GMT
I've read that it goes too much into fan service that essentially spoils the movie.
|
|
aubergine
Junior Member
I must get over myself
Posts: 2,181
|
Post by aubergine on Oct 10, 2021 22:56:12 GMT
I’ve read that it doesn’t.
|
|
|
|
Post by probablymuttler on Oct 11, 2021 0:18:18 GMT
Female Ghostbusters or whatever it was called really was a pile of woke shit wasn't it.
|
|
MolarAm🔵
Full Member
Bad at games
Posts: 6,853
|
Post by MolarAm🔵 on Oct 11, 2021 0:37:36 GMT
I think you could probably just say that it was shit without going all culture war.
Anyway, this one looks like it's going to give the fans what they want. I guess we'll see whether what the fans want is any good or not.
|
|
Bongo Heracles
Junior Member
Technically illegal to ride on public land
Posts: 4,633
|
Post by Bongo Heracles on Oct 11, 2021 6:46:13 GMT
Yeah, it wasn’t great all on its own. It doesn’t really need lowest common denominator buzzwords thrown at it, too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2021 6:59:53 GMT
It's muttler. He gets a peanut every time he uses an alt right buzz word. And he really likes to eat a peanut.
|
|
|
|
Post by britesparc on Oct 11, 2021 9:40:23 GMT
Ghostbusters 2016 was so disappointing, because I really like everybody involved in it, but it was very "three star", and that might be me being generous.
I really struggle to articulate what it did wrong, but there was just a total tonal problem the whole way through; the original GB films were relatively straight, the ghosts portrayed as actually threatening/scary, and the humour came out of subtle eccentricities of performance, or witty one-liners. I have a feeling it (GB '84) was probably a bit of a mess that was honed really carefully in the edit suite, which is maybe why the sequel wasn't quite capable of capturing lightning a second time.
GB '16 was also way too long and not terribly funny, which didn't help.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jambowayoh on Oct 11, 2021 9:53:26 GMT
Well one of the biggest problems is a director letting the main cast improvise too much and not actually direct them. It wasn't funny in the slightest. It was just very, very painful on every level. 3 stars is generous.
|
|
H-alphaFox
Junior Member
Buy Kramer Coin now!
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by H-alphaFox on Oct 11, 2021 10:22:32 GMT
For what it's worth I enjoyed the 2016 one far more than I expected too based on all the negativity around it.
I almost enjoyed it.
|
|
robthehermit
Junior Member
Subjectively amusing
Posts: 2,462
|
Post by robthehermit on Oct 11, 2021 10:33:53 GMT
For what it's worth I enjoyed the 2016 one far more than I expected too based on all the negativity around it. I almost enjoyed it. I think it's biggest problem is that to get the most out of it you have to be a fan of the original and fans of the original were only ever going to see it as a deeply unfunny, pointless remake. Taken on it's own without any of the legacy of the original and it's just an average, mostly forgettable comedy and on that basis it's a fun enough film. I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it, but I probably wouldn't go out of my way to turn it off either. |
|
H-alphaFox
Junior Member
Buy Kramer Coin now!
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by H-alphaFox on Oct 11, 2021 11:02:03 GMT
Yeah I can go along with that mostly. I mean our kids really enjoyed it so but kids go along with those sorts of movies easily anyway.
Agreed it will be mostly forgettable in the long run. I'm not overly sure I could recall the actual plot if I tried but do remember not disliking it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2021 11:37:54 GMT
What's the deal with taking kids under 12 to 12's? I know it's allowed bit is it frowned upon?
|
|
robthehermit
Junior Member
Subjectively amusing
Posts: 2,462
|
Post by robthehermit on Oct 11, 2021 11:46:13 GMT
I don't think anyone cares as long as they're not annoying little shits.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2021 11:47:52 GMT
What's the deal with taking kids under 12 to 12's? I know it's allowed bit is it frowned upon? We've been taking mine to 12As for a couple of years now and he's still only 11. I've seen much younger children than him at every one of those screenings as well, so it's pretty much widely accepted to be the norm as far as my own experiences go. |
|
|
|
Post by simple on Oct 11, 2021 11:59:23 GMT
I think 12a means they can go but its your fault if they cry
|
|
MolarAm🔵
Full Member
Bad at games
Posts: 6,853
|
Post by MolarAm🔵 on Oct 11, 2021 13:27:13 GMT
For what it's worth I enjoyed the 2016 one far more than I expected too based on all the negativity around it. I almost enjoyed it. I think it's biggest problem is that to get the most out of it you have to be a fan of the original and fans of the original were only ever going to see it as a deeply unfunny, pointless remake. Taken on it's own without any of the legacy of the original and it's just an average, mostly forgettable comedy and on that basis it's a fun enough film. I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it, but I probably wouldn't go out of my way to turn it off either. I think it suffered (as the new one will probably suffer) by not being centred around Bill Murray. It's a bit like the Indy movies and Harrison Ford, in that their charm is in large part due to one or two main performances. Take those away, or replace them, and there's... not much left. |
|
|
|
Post by Jambowayoh on Oct 11, 2021 14:27:14 GMT
The best part is Bill Murray sitting down for his scenes not wanting to expend any energy in his role.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jambowayoh on Oct 11, 2021 14:42:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by 😎 on Oct 11, 2021 14:46:30 GMT
To speak in broad terms, a crucial ethical line is crossed whenever computer technology starts marching around the ghostly form of a dead person, doubly so when that person was famous for their smirking irreverence and their digitally reanimated corpse instead arrives just in time for a movie’s most nauseating cornball moment. Oof |
|
|
|
Post by Jambowayoh on Oct 11, 2021 14:47:44 GMT
Yeah that was a yikes moment.
|
|
anephric
Junior Member
The first 6 I took out with a whirlwind kick
Posts: 1,511
|
Post by anephric on Oct 11, 2021 14:49:47 GMT
Mistah Egon, he dead.
Ooh no wait, no he's not!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2021 14:54:52 GMT
Ouch. That's quite scathing indeed. That actually seems to echo some of my own preconceptions about this film as well. I think I'll enjoy it more than this one star reviewer has but I have a feeling that a lot of what is written there will be in the back of my mind as well, going by what I've seen in the trailers so far. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2021 14:57:43 GMT
It doesn't really surprise me. They are one of the remaining publications still pushing the agenda that the 2016 one is some kind of masterpiece, that everyone who didn't like it is a man baby mega misogynist. You're not allowed to say "was alright, not very funny tho". I do like and respect the Guardian but they're just like any other paper/website. When they've got an axe to grind they'll do it. |
|
|
|
Post by Jambowayoh on Oct 11, 2021 15:02:09 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2021 15:13:47 GMT
Different reviewers mind, regardless of publication. Like every review that's ever been written ever, you pick out the bits that may apply, ignore the bits you don't. That review of the new one happened to address a few thoughts that were already in my head. Not saying I'll agree with it when I watch the film mind you.
I quite realistically may just hate them both equally. Actually hate is too strong. I don't hate the 2016 one, just couldn't give a toss if it exists or not. Same will no doubt apply to this. I don't think I'm who this film is aimed at though. Likewise if I was the age I am now when the first Ghostbusters came out, I'm not sure I would enjoy it. It's the whole Star Wars thing again as far as I'm concerned. I'm just not the target for these kind of things any more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jambowayoh on Oct 11, 2021 15:18:36 GMT
I know, but it's objectively wrong to call Ghostbusters 2016 persistently hilarious. Just wrong. I feel like I need to write to Points of View and resurrect Wogan just to get my message across.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2021 15:23:20 GMT
To be fair I don't agree with Bradshaws reviews much.
|
|
