Script of the Bridge
Banned
Brilliant review, funny and very on the mark.
I love you Plinkett.
I love you Plinkett.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Mr Plinkett reviews Ghostbusters (2016)
- Thread starter jack_package_200
- Start date
ultracal31
You don't get to bring friends.
Minor note but I noticed upon rewatching the review the ghosts design differences in the original and remake outside of slimer who basically looks exactly the same.
I feel like the remake made the ghosts not scary looking? They sure look more zany though
I feel like the remake made the ghosts not scary looking? They sure look more zany though
NekoFever
Member
Just finished it. Great review.
It was the constant talking and unfunny ad-libbing that did the movie for me. I remember early on, in that scene where there's the confusion between the guy who died and his son with the same name, just thinking it was so aimless and overly long. Ditto the scenes of them getting fired with the middle finger guy, and the scene where they meet the mayor. All three scenes are called out in the video, which is gratifying.
The original Ghostbusters is a comedy, but it's tightly written and played straight for the most part. The 2016 one is aimless and filled with people badly ad-libbing, never shutting up, trying to out-zany each other while making lowest common denominator jokes. It's a fucking terrible movie.
It's unfortunate that the politics around it has poisoned the well for some people because no one should be arousing suspicions for calling a piece of shit a piece of shit.
It was the constant talking and unfunny ad-libbing that did the movie for me. I remember early on, in that scene where there's the confusion between the guy who died and his son with the same name, just thinking it was so aimless and overly long. Ditto the scenes of them getting fired with the middle finger guy, and the scene where they meet the mayor. All three scenes are called out in the video, which is gratifying.
The original Ghostbusters is a comedy, but it's tightly written and played straight for the most part. The 2016 one is aimless and filled with people badly ad-libbing, never shutting up, trying to out-zany each other while making lowest common denominator jokes. It's a fucking terrible movie.
It's unfortunate that the politics around it has poisoned the well for some people because no one should be arousing suspicions for calling a piece of shit a piece of shit.
Inferno313
Banned
It's not like it's a universally held opinion that it's bad. I think it's fine. Enjoyable, even. It has a 73 on RT and a 60 on Metacritic. That's far from "universally reviled" territory.
Script of the Bridge
Banned
I haven't met anyone who has said anything good about it. Thinking about it the only people I've ever seen say it was a good/great movie are on this here forum!
Nekketsu Kõha
Banned
Same and on Twitter.
seems like a pretty universally held opinion tbh but maybe that's just me
regardless rt and meta score don't really mean all that much in the grand scheme, especially in regards to a movie's reception long term. it's been said but there have been great movies that have shit scores and garbage movies with good scores.
QuantumZebra
Member
Don't disrupt the false narratives!
You're mistaking your opinion for fact, it happens easily, don't worry.
Hilarious how many people think their echo chambers reflect reality
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
?? Knightmare, mate, are you ok?
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
I thought it was harmless.. I thought parts of ad lib stuff was funny, and the Hemsworth stuff was funny as well.
I think it's better than Ghostbusters 2.
I think it's better than Ghostbusters 2.
Inferno313
Banned
lmao. You're always one of my favorite posters Zebra.
stan423321
Member
I found the review surprisingly enjoyable after... whatever I have watched last time. Really liked the relative cutback on Plinkett talking about himself, the oven thing was the only part where it was noticeable and not even that much (not to mention, it was all way more funny than the parts of Force Awakens review he quoted himself as an example of not disliking particular brand of humour in other contexts).
I made it through the whole thing, so it was better than the TFA review.
Otherwise not much to add. I personally have no problem admitting that I already zoned out during that overlong opening sequence. The rest of the movie, well, I guess not my kind of humor is the diplomatic thing to say.
Still, how do you go from fighting a god in front of an interdimensional gate on top of a skyscraper to a dancing and flying Hemsworth as a climax. Swing and miss.
Otherwise not much to add. I personally have no problem admitting that I already zoned out during that overlong opening sequence. The rest of the movie, well, I guess not my kind of humor is the diplomatic thing to say.
Still, how do you go from fighting a god in front of an interdimensional gate on top of a skyscraper to a dancing and flying Hemsworth as a climax. Swing and miss.
itwasTuesday
He wasn't alone.
Watched it, agree with a bit. My theater made the movie a bit better with the audience participation. And they served alcohol. And giant leather recliners.
Fox Mulder
Member
I never cared to watch the film, but it was funny watching all the fury around a garbage forgettable film.
I'd love to see the Sony Pictures shit factory shut down though.
I'd love to see the Sony Pictures shit factory shut down though.
well you are correct I've seen this very thing happen with you countless times ;p
edit: also you never got back to me about your opinion on the review. snark aside I am genuinely curious about your thoughts considering your posts in that other thread about the original movie and the reboot.
LinkSlayer64
Member
AcademicSaucer
Member
If a comedy movie isnt funny whats left?
30yearsofhurt
Member
Ghostbusters 2016
I think the review was really fair, and reasonable, and if I were to name one summary take away from the whole thing, it would be that the material didnt seem suitable for anyone involved in the project. The talent had nothing to work with, didn't seem suitable for their roles which were somewhat undefined, the improv style wasn't funny and didn't fit the concept, the core concept was misunderstood by the director and writer, etc.
The interview clips with Feig are really awkward at times- he just seems like one of those guys that can put out funny material but doesn't quite seem to grasp the nuances of why some things are funny and others are not; and finding out that they will do four hour long improv dialogue sessions for singular scenes explains a lot of the rambling inane and unfunny bullshit that wound up in the final movie
This is really on the point and insightful review that managed to avoid retreading a lot of the things that have been said before in other videos they did.
I guess what I'm saying is that it broke new ground.
Robot Pants
Member
Remember Scarface?
BassForever
Member
Stop dancing
mechashiva
Member
Dead on with how I felt about the movie. It took after 15 stop/starts to finish it. That's the most work I've put into seeing a movie in a long time but I wanted to make sure I gave it a watch before hating on it. The modern improv scenes for way too long thing is killing comedy.
As he points out the actors took over, there's no pacing, no straight man, and essentially no point.
As he points out the actors took over, there's no pacing, no straight man, and essentially no point.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Finally got around to it, was decent. Way better than TFA's review, and it didn't have any diversity talk, thankfully. Dunno if Mike learned that he was wrong or to be quiet about it; hopefully the former and not the latter.
My only issue is that a lot of stuff he said I've heard people say in other videos, though there were some interesting things, like talking about Paul Feig.
My only issue is that a lot of stuff he said I've heard people say in other videos, though there were some interesting things, like talking about Paul Feig.
I think the original was an entertaining movie but it was also a bit slow. It's certainly not perfect. A lot of the Bill Murray scenes are drags, take the scene where he visits Weavers apartment, it's fucking slow and boring.
To me, Murray is the worst thing about the original. It's like he didn't want to be there. Everyone else was great.
To me, Murray is the worst thing about the original. It's like he didn't want to be there. Everyone else was great.
Script of the Bridge
Banned
What else can I go by? Elsewhere on the net the reaction has been insanely negative too.
chromatic9
Member
Would like to see the test cut before they had to add $40 million worth of scenes that Dan talked about.
Say hello to my little reference
Say hello to my little reference
CartridgeBlower
Member
I'm curious where all the people from the earlier thread went who liked the movie and don't like RLM in general.
Anyone want to step forward and make any genuine counterpoints to this review? Doesn't seem to be very much of that in this thread, maybe I missed it earlier.
Or maybe those people just didn't watch it, which I guess is fair. But then I'm not sure what they're doing in these threads in the first place since the focus is on RLM's criticism...
Anyone want to step forward and make any genuine counterpoints to this review? Doesn't seem to be very much of that in this thread, maybe I missed it earlier.
Or maybe those people just didn't watch it, which I guess is fair. But then I'm not sure what they're doing in these threads in the first place since the focus is on RLM's criticism...
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Oh please, no summoning.
The thread has been (mostly) civil with very little circle-jerking.
The thread has been (mostly) civil with very little circle-jerking.
AcademicSaucer
Member
Man after watching the whole review I just feel bad for Paul Feig.
CartridgeBlower
Member
Yeah, they really went after him. Not that it was unjustified, but that condensed in an hour-long critique...it's almost hard to not feel bad for the guy. I mean, they said they liked Spy, but then they seemed to give all the credit of Bridesmaids to Kristin Wiig and the other writer, and kinda left him off that...even though he directed it. Probably in the exact same manner he directed this film. I guess that was their point -- Feig has talent, just not for this type of film. But damn, they really held nothing back.
I mean considering he said he was fine with the female swap to the cast before this movie even came out, I would think that is proof that he isn't sexist or against diversity. He is against boring characters, bad stories, unfunny jokes, etc.
AcademicSaucer
Member
I feel like if anything it highlights the incompetence of the Sony executives, this should have never been given the green light .
CartridgeBlower
Member
This is the biggest problem with RLM and internet reviewers in general who are outside the industry and not actually inside it -- they only criticize what the think they can see -- i.e. the acting, writing, and directing -- but they have no idea so much of that is dictated and hamstrung by factors BEHIND THE SCENES that come down from executives.
Max Landis tried explaining this to them, but I get the sense they just hand-waved away a lot of the good things he actually had to tell them because, well, in their opinion...it was coming from Max Landis.
I mean, Pascal got hit a little bit in the beginning, but then that's that. Why? Because you can't really see things that she did. She put all the wrong pieces together, but then what else are you left to talk about for an hour?
There's no DVD footage of her mistakes they can easily cut to like with Feig or the actors.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
I think the point wasn't that the movies were awful. Just that in terms of genre and tone, Ghostbusters doesn't play to the strengths of his past filmography.
Audioboxer
Member
I didn't know Gozer The Destructor posted on GAF?! lol.
Random Human
They were trying to grab your prize. They work for the mercenary. The masked man.
This is all true. Instead of whining about product placement this should really have gotten more focus. You can tell they don't really get it with how many knocks at the screenwriter they took.
So I watched the movie in anticipation of the review, and one thing I feel like adding is... McCarthy's character is an asshole. And not the lovable kind of asshole like Venkman, she's a complete piece of shit.
So the backstory is... Wiig's character saw a ghost when she was a kid, and nobody believed her except McCarthy, who became her only friend. They wrote a book together (which is nice), and eventually stuff like therapy forced Wiig to try and put ghosts behind her, and that apparently caused a breakup.
Setting the backstory aside, the movie begins with McCarthy violating Wiig's half of the book they wrote together by publishing it, using Wiig's name and picture, against Wiig's explicit non-consent (Wiig says she "burned both copies", aka one copy was made for Wiig and another for McCarthy. Wiig revoked and then burned McCarthy's copy, but not before McCarthy secretly made a third copy), simply because McCarthy wants a new mini-fridge for her lab.
This apparent cry for attention forces Wiig to come around to try and speak to McCarthy. Nope, McCarthy tries to throw her out of the building.
Wiig explains that this intrusion is badly timed and that it could ruin her shot at tenure, aka the green light which allows her to research anything she wants at the university's expense, without getting fired. Rather than seeing what a gift that could be for their friendship and their fringe research, if only McCarthy temporarily stops violating Wiig's rights for a fucking fridge, McCarthy says "Nope, fuck your life. Now step over here. Hah! Queef joke! For a moment there, I really had you interested in paranormal science again. Fuck you."
And then there's the lead Wiig drops in McCarthy's lap. Nope. Fuck you, you can't come along. McCarthy is not interested in restoring their friendship or Wiig's interest in the paranormal. Wiig only tags along by blackmailing McCarthy, pointing out that they need Wiig to gain entry.
Then a ghost pukes on Wiig, and Wiig conclusively believes in the paranormal again. Yay! Conflict resolved? McCarthy posts Wiig's face all over youtube without telling her, and not only costs her the shot at tenure, but now Wiig is straight-up fired.
McCarthy: "That's fine (that I ruined your life without asking, when you asked me to do the exact opposite). Just join us in this shithole university. They throw money at anything you want" (except fridges, apparently). Oh wait, McCarthy is wrong, and now she's thrown out too.
This is apparently the end of their mended-relationship story, until the very end of the movie when Wiig literally jumps into hell to pull McCarthy back out, because McCarthy is such a precious friend. Is that the ultimate resolution that this movie needed to run with? That McCarthy is such an amazing friend that Wiig needs to go to the ends of the Earth to beg McCarthy's forgiveness for that fight that we never saw but can infer was about Wiig giving in to the weight of the world and being wrong about ghosts not existing? Also, why does McCarthy believe so strongly in ghosts anyways? Was it because her willingness to believe helped her form a bond of friendship (that was too weak to survive without their exclusive shared interest)?
Mr Plinkett pointed out how all the background characters in the movie were shit, making it hard to care if the world lives or dies, but the movie literally asked McCarthy's character what was worth saving in the world, what was worth living for, and all McCarthy could come up with was that weaksauce soup from the Chinese food restaurant, which the movie went out of it's way to hammer home was pathetic. That's how terrible McCarthy's character is. She just reunited with her best friend, and the only trace of positivity she can see in the entire world is a lukewarm cup of yellow liquid.
So the backstory is... Wiig's character saw a ghost when she was a kid, and nobody believed her except McCarthy, who became her only friend. They wrote a book together (which is nice), and eventually stuff like therapy forced Wiig to try and put ghosts behind her, and that apparently caused a breakup.
Setting the backstory aside, the movie begins with McCarthy violating Wiig's half of the book they wrote together by publishing it, using Wiig's name and picture, against Wiig's explicit non-consent (Wiig says she "burned both copies", aka one copy was made for Wiig and another for McCarthy. Wiig revoked and then burned McCarthy's copy, but not before McCarthy secretly made a third copy), simply because McCarthy wants a new mini-fridge for her lab.
This apparent cry for attention forces Wiig to come around to try and speak to McCarthy. Nope, McCarthy tries to throw her out of the building.
Wiig explains that this intrusion is badly timed and that it could ruin her shot at tenure, aka the green light which allows her to research anything she wants at the university's expense, without getting fired. Rather than seeing what a gift that could be for their friendship and their fringe research, if only McCarthy temporarily stops violating Wiig's rights for a fucking fridge, McCarthy says "Nope, fuck your life. Now step over here. Hah! Queef joke! For a moment there, I really had you interested in paranormal science again. Fuck you."
And then there's the lead Wiig drops in McCarthy's lap. Nope. Fuck you, you can't come along. McCarthy is not interested in restoring their friendship or Wiig's interest in the paranormal. Wiig only tags along by blackmailing McCarthy, pointing out that they need Wiig to gain entry.
Then a ghost pukes on Wiig, and Wiig conclusively believes in the paranormal again. Yay! Conflict resolved? McCarthy posts Wiig's face all over youtube without telling her, and not only costs her the shot at tenure, but now Wiig is straight-up fired.
McCarthy: "That's fine (that I ruined your life without asking, when you asked me to do the exact opposite). Just join us in this shithole university. They throw money at anything you want" (except fridges, apparently). Oh wait, McCarthy is wrong, and now she's thrown out too.
This is apparently the end of their mended-relationship story, until the very end of the movie when Wiig literally jumps into hell to pull McCarthy back out, because McCarthy is such a precious friend. Is that the ultimate resolution that this movie needed to run with? That McCarthy is such an amazing friend that Wiig needs to go to the ends of the Earth to beg McCarthy's forgiveness for that fight that we never saw but can infer was about Wiig giving in to the weight of the world and being wrong about ghosts not existing? Also, why does McCarthy believe so strongly in ghosts anyways? Was it because her willingness to believe helped her form a bond of friendship (that was too weak to survive without their exclusive shared interest)?
Mr Plinkett pointed out how all the background characters in the movie were shit, making it hard to care if the world lives or dies, but the movie literally asked McCarthy's character what was worth saving in the world, what was worth living for, and all McCarthy could come up with was that weaksauce soup from the Chinese food restaurant, which the movie went out of it's way to hammer home was pathetic. That's how terrible McCarthy's character is. She just reunited with her best friend, and the only trace of positivity she can see in the entire world is a lukewarm cup of yellow liquid.
You could make the argument that they didn't spend as much time on it as they should've, but they made like three separate gags about it, so to say that they're completely unaware of the fact that a lot of that is corporate mandate or studio executive involvement is incorrect.
They also cover that more at length in the Half in the Bag review of the movie, highlighting that Sony as a studio mishandles films and the corporate shill aspect of it all was problematic for the movie as a whole
I think this review also chose to focus more on dissecting areas of the movie they hadn't covered at length already because when they did the Force Awakens review, it got knocked pretty hard for spending a large amount of time focused on things unrelated to the movie itself, but more about the corporate production and culture that led to the movie.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Yes, because there is nothing more entertaining and insightful in a film review than spending lots of time explaining the nuts-and-bolts behind a movie getting green lit and then going into preproduction.
Thats what an audience watching a film review looks for: studio politics!
CosmicGroinPull
Member
It really was a bad movie. Hilarious that reviewers didn't dare to call it what it was and it got a pretty high 73% rt rating.
Thank goodness we had Wonder Woman. Look at that succeed solely on the merit of being a good movie without needing to drag in the gender issue.
Thank goodness we had Wonder Woman. Look at that succeed solely on the merit of being a good movie without needing to drag in the gender issue.
While both are very different movies, it is pretty interesting how Wonder Woman was able to address the issues in a way that complemented the film (and its style) without having any major transition issues overall.
ScaryShark
Banned
I wanted nothing more than for this to have been a great movie after all the transparently sexist garbage that was thrown at it pre-release but it's simply not good at all. The climax of the film felt like it went on for hours in the theater. Bad, bad, bad.
I think it'll be interesting which direction opinions on this film will veer in 10-20 years time. Will it be largely forgotten or gather cult status? I don't think it's good enough for the latter tbh, but it might cos of Holtzmann, the sfx, a sort of over course correction against the backlash.
God help us all if a movie this bad can achieve cult status
FloweryMarston
Member
i think that they did a great job highlighting the actors and their ability. I think it was an interesting way to say their feelings about the movie without falling into the trap of complaining about diversity. Highlighting how good the cast is and how fun they could've been with a better script/direction is a much better way to criticize the movie.