Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

How do!

So quite a while back I did a loose series of this sort of thread, where I offered my optimist view on Not Very Well Regarded Movies. In essence, I watch them with an open mind, then report back with any positives I took away.

The important thing for you to understand here Dear Reader? This isn’t meant to be a snide or sneaky thing. It’s just an opinion, and shouldn’t be seen as a “wElL aCtUaLlY tHiS fIlM iS aCtUaLlY a MaStErPiEcE aCtUaLlY” where it’s at all implied that disagreement is a sign of not being very smart. And hopefully? My positives might encourage others to rewatch and give it a whirl, or otherwise spark some interesting conversation.

Here I’ll begin by addressing the elephant in the room. I don’t care about the gender of the lead cast. It makes sod all difference to anything. Whilst it certainly had some level of misogynistic hysteria at the time of its release? That doesn’t mean anyone who didn’t enjoy it is therefore misogynistic. So please don’t anyone begin that dance here, yeah?

Right. Let’s get down to business.

First? As a big Ghostbusters fan (and through reissues and vintage, I’ve a complete set of hero figures and vehicles for Kenner’s Real Ghostbusters range) I don’t think this is terribly good as a Ghostbusters flick. But I do think it’s an otherwise largely competent comedy movie.

The ghosts do look great, nice a colourful with a neon vibe. But the old school stuff (Ecto-1 being a Hearse/Ambulance, Slimer, Mr Stay-Puft) just feel a bit too tacked on. Member Berries for the sake of Member.

I do like that whilst hinted at in the original Ghostbusters movie, we see Holtzman actively developing new tech for trapping/eradicating the ghosts. That was something new, and indeed something I think the originals could’ve done a bit more with, if they weren’t already pretty densely plotted.

Our cast are fun, even if Chris Hemsworth was overly hammy. The Ghostbusters themselves work, but it’s a shame that it’s really only Abby and Erin that get real character moments. All the more disappointing because there was genuine chemistry between the four of them.

The villain however I really like. He’s quite different to what we see in the other films, and I appreciate that novel approach. Certainly he offers a different challenge, as someone using essentially the same tech to different, more malevolent ends. As I mentioned before for a film with fairly lazy Member Berries? He stands out as a solid addition to the concept.

So, whilst I wouldn’t say this was a particularly good Ghostbusters film? It’s far from being utter drivel. And for my money? Is better than its reputation. Not a great film, no. But competent enough and a decent enough watch for the curious.

In terms of the overall series? It’s definitely in 5th Place. Because someone is gonna ask? I’d have GB1 and GB2 tied for first, then Frozen Empire, followed by Afterlife (with not much between them). Then GB 2016.

If it’s on TV or free on Streaming? There’s far worse out there to give a whirl. I won’t promise you’ll love it, but I do think you won’t find your time wasted.

Overall? A comfortable 6.5/10. Competently Average. Had they tied it into the main series more (for instance, Abby and Erin picking up where Egon left off) it might’ve been something quite special. But they’d didn’t. Also whilst it’s funny to see Chris Hemsworth titting around as a Himbo? We got the joke first time around, maybe just dial that back a bit.

The single biggest problem with GB 2016 is those lazy nostalgia bits.

It starts out as a complete reboot, no one has ever heard of the original Ghostbusters or ghosts being real, and that would have been fine. They had a good cast (even Melissa McArthy was having a good day; I often hate her films), some interesting ideas (Chris Hemsworth as the stereotypical dumb blonde receptionist is brilliant) and I like the super vibrant neon look as something different to the originals.

Then they randomly end up in the firehouse with a converted hearse and original cast members are popping up as cameos. It’s just…confusing. Is this a reboot? Is it a sequel? And it jolts you out of the film, a bit like a fourth wall break. Would it have been a great film without that? No. Would it have been better, cleaner and more able to stand on its own? Yes.

What I think rankles me a bit about Kevin is that whilst yes, it is fun to see the dumb blonde secretary inverted? It’s not something Ghostbusters itself did.

Don’t get me wrong, Janine is a good looking woman. But she’s not there as eye candy, and performs her role competently if somewhat grumpily. Even into the cartoon.

I do appreciate that the new leads are blended versions of the originals. The elements are there, but rejigged so we just end up with merely gender swapped versions. Holtzman is probably my favourite, she’s got her nutty inventor just right.

I’d argue Afterlife did some clever Member Berries. Gozer returning makes sense, as does the presence of the proton packs. The additional gear feel like genuine progressions and applications. It even features some of the ghosts from the toyline. But they’re there as an Easter Egg. Fun thing to spot, and not belaboured.

The difference between “hey, that was Bug Eye Ghost. Neat!” And “HEY LOOK ITS SLIMER AND HE’S GOT A GIRLFRIEND LOOK EVERYONE ITS SLIMER”.

I mean, I’m all for nostalgia. But it can be overdone.

I thought I was alone in enjoying it, despite its faults. I haven't watched it in ages though.

Following up the original Ghostbusters was always going to be a tough act, especially with a reboot. I liked the premise and the cast, I think it was let down by heading into slapstick comedy, rather than the deadpan delivery of the originals. As mentioned, the cameos and fan references detracted somewhat, rather than allowing the film to stand on its own. I'm guessing some exec forced them to shoehorn these things in to try and entice old fans who were already not very happy with the project.

I quite like that it leaned more into the the comedy. It stopped it being a lazy rehash, becoming an attempt at reinterpreting the core themes.

Whilst the least Ghostbusters movie? It works perfectly well as a sci-fi comedy. The more dramatic moments blend in nicely, when they could’ve been jarring tonal shifts.

In terms of scenes which didn’t quite work for me? The Rock Concert. It felt too much like someone who’s not into that scene’s impression of what a Rock Concert is like. I’m also not terribly fond of Kevin’s “hey let’s make them all dance” moment.

I don’t think those scenes are necessarily bad, but they certainly didn’t really work for me, being a step beyond the rest of the comedy.

Though the shift toward a more outright comedic tone reminds me of my favourite Ghostbusters Factoid.

Specifically that the runaway success of The Real Ghostbusters is the reason Ghostbusters 2 was more comedic than its predecessor. Likewise why Louis and Janine are a bit more prominent. And Slimer returned.

Still has some of the most horrifying moments (Yanosh’s Glowing Eyes and Evil Ghost Nanny Yanosh still give me the heebiejeebies to this very day!).

Anyways, back to GB2016. I do like that they kept with the general theme that for Ghosts to interact? Someone or something has to be thinning the veil.

There was a guy on YouTube that quantified why GB2016 failed, and non of it was opinion based.

A good chunk of the movie was actually unscripted Ad-lib that got hashed together in post production.

The movie cost more to make than any of the LotR movies, while not having near as many big stars, or caliber of names.

It leaned more into racist tropes than the original from more than 30 years prior.

While some liked the look of the ghosts, I didn't. The look like ghosts from the 2003 Scooby Doo movie.

The opening scene that was supposed to be an omage to the original movie, lasted 2.5 times as long as the original. Kind of ruined it.

I like slapstick, and somehow the (need to get around Dakka censoring ) lady-parts-gas-expulsion jokes just fell flat.

Bridesmaids was, and still is, one of my favorite movies. LOVED how the actresses interacted. When I saw the cast included a good chunk of the cast I was hyped. A lot of the former chemistry wasn't there.

 cuda1179 wrote:


While some liked the look of the ghosts, I didn't. The look like ghosts from the 2003 Scooby Doo movie.

Zoinks, Scoob! They do look look like the ghosts from Scooby-Doo.

Why did I never make that connection?