• 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)

shoelacer

Banned
I can't say I still don't wish they did something different given how infrequent the Plinkett videos are, but they expounded on the HitB for GB2016 pretty well. Good lord at the product placement section, that Papa Johns Coke thing is hilarious.

Also loved Jack and Rich in their little skits.
 

nomis

Member
i'm old enough to remember when pre-scandal devin faraci went to bat for this movie like it was a modern masterpiece
 

sobaka770

Banned
I'm still flabbergasted how this is a 73% fresh movie. It's shit, it's utter shit and the only conclusion is that the reviewers were so scared or the whole anti-feminism angle that they inflated the scores for this turd.

But RT is an aggregator which means dozens of professionals were too scared to give an honest opinion because: women, haters, conservatives or whatever... Such a loss of respect.
 

AndersK

Member
I'm still flabbergasted how this is a 73% fresh movie. It's shit, it's utter shit and the only conclusion is that the reviewers were so scared or the whole anti-feminism angle that they inflated the scores for this turd.

But RT is an aggregator which means dozens of professionals were too scared to give an honest opinion because: women, haters, conservatives or whatever... Such a loss of respect.

Or maybe dozens of professionals thought the movie was a 6/10. But hey, dont make that stop you being woke about the feminist cabal that guides critics.

I mean, the average rating is even 6,5. Thats almost Thor 2 by RT metrics.
 

wetwired

Member
I'm still flabbergasted how this is a 73% fresh movie. It's shit, it's utter shit and the only conclusion is that the reviewers were so scared or the whole anti-feminism angle that they inflated the scores for this turd.

But RT is an aggregator which means dozens of professionals were too scared to give an honest opinion because: women, haters, conservatives or whatever... Such a loss of respect.

I can't agree it's utter shit, it's decidedly average and borderline mediocre but I wouldn't go as far as it's completely irredeemable. But yes 73% seems too high. For me it's a 5/10 and somehow that's almost worse as it's neither utter shit or good, it's just...there.
 

Arkanius

Member
This review is fantastic.
I loved the small edits he did to give some silence to the film.

I was never against a "gender bended" remake of the first movie. It had potential, if it at least preserved the tone.

They didn't. At least, we still have the originals.
 

AndersK

Member
Why am I not surprised that Plinkett fans don't understand how Rottentomatoes works? ��

It's really more that a 73 % okay ratio is somehow a smoking gun that sinks all critic aggregates.

Somehow they got Fury Road right. One specific example You vehemently disagree with doesn't suddenly invalidate all others.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mad_max_fury_road/

Checkmate, atheists.

Edit: Actually, i'm going deeper due to this:


If you look at all currently released Star Wars movies and their RT % and average rating you get:

A New Hope: 93 %, 8.6 average
Empire: 94 %, 8.9 average
Jedi: 80 %, 7,2 average

TPM: 55 %, 6.0 average
Clones: 65 %, 6.7 average
Sith: 79 %, 7.3 average

TFA: 92 %, 8,2 average
Rogue One: 85 %, 7,5 average.


Thus, we get an equation thats states that: Empire > A New Hope > TFA > Jedi/Rogue one/Sith > Clones > TPM.

Is that a all a horrible tierlist? Its certainly close to widespread consensus. I'd put Rogue and Jedi a tier above Sith, and switch Clones and TPM. As far as a generic agreegate site, RT clearly functions fairly well, in this example.

I even think Clones should be lower by a considerable margin, I just don't feel my opinion suddenly invalidates hard data. I'm not big on that.
 

DavidDesu

Member
Lol at the utter shit comments. C'mon. Utter shit is something like Pixels. This film was far better made and generally enjoyable to watch compared to that. I find some of the Avengers films frankly dull, Age of Ultron was a dud. I'd much rather watch this Ghostbusters film 10 times than watch that boring crap once more.

Maybe it's just a matter of personal opinion perhaps..?
 
Lol at the utter shit comments. C'mon. Utter shit is something like Pixels. This film was far better made and generally enjoyable to watch compared to that. I find some of the Avengers films frankly dull, Age of Ultron was a dud. I'd much rather watch this Ghostbusters film 10 times than watch that boring crap once more.

Maybe it's just a matter of personal opinion perhaps..?

Yes, people enjoy bad films and dislike good ones all the time
 

Audioboxer

Member
Lol at the utter shit comments. C'mon. Utter shit is something like Pixels. This film was far better made and generally enjoyable to watch compared to that. I find some of the Avengers films frankly dull, Age of Ultron was a dud. I'd much rather watch this Ghostbusters film 10 times than watch that boring crap once more.

Maybe it's just a matter of personal opinion perhaps..?

Yup

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/nier

:p

What some Ghostbusters fans have to accept is some of the reviews were probably subconsciously or consciously reviewing a "Paul Feig film". If you like his previous films or styles of humour, you might find this film better than anyone who was wanting or has more history/preference for Ghostbusters. Hence why you've got some saying the film was terrible and others saying but it isn't. It often depends on what perspective someone is coming from, and this to the fans of the film, you just have to accept as well that this WASN'T a clean slate/new IP/completely Feig's creation. It was taking an old existing franchise and one which did for a while have rumours and desires around GB3. No matter if you call it a reboot/re-envisioning or whatever, it is what it is. Both sides having to accept some truths about why reviews and opinion are what they are.
 

silenttwn

Member
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.

Great post, and yes the biggest problem with this movie is the characters. The movie is incapable of making you care about them at all because most of them are obnoxious turds of human beings.
 
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.

Doesn't do much to explain the bizarre point of The Force Awakens looking like a college pamphlet.
 
The interview on how he wants to use real science is just horrendous. The amount of BS talking done by that guy is astounding and embarrassing.
 

Sanjuro

Member
Lol at the utter shit comments. C'mon. Utter shit is something like Pixels. This film was far better made and generally enjoyable to watch compared to that. I find some of the Avengers films frankly dull, Age of Ultron was a dud. I'd much rather watch this Ghostbusters film 10 times than watch that boring crap once more.

Maybe it's just a matter of personal opinion perhaps..?

Pixels and Ghostbusters drew comparisons in the marketing stages. In the end, I thought the former was a more consistent film.
 
RT score is useful, but not what decides whether I think (or many others think) a movie sucks or not.

Wet Hot American summer is a superior comedy and has a shit RT score for instance.
 

Downhome

Member
I had absolutely no clue that this movie had as many defenders on this forum as it seemingly does. It's horrible at face value but when you especially look at it in context from the franchise to the story of how it was produced and everything else then I absolutely do believe it's one of the biggest train wrecks in recent Hollywood history.
 
RT considers a 60% to be Fresh and 59% and less as Rotten.

the problem with putting a "numerical" value on a movie review is that it kills the purpose of a movie review in the first place: the content and details of the review itself.
 
RT considers a 60% to be Fresh and 59% and less as Rotten.

the problem with putting a "numerical" value on a movie review is that it kills the purpose of a movie review in the first place: the content and details of the review itself.

Agreed, but there's value in having a quick snapshot of a movie's critical reception. If the way you engage with film criticism is to simply glance at RT scores and never read anything, then I agree that's sort of a misuse of the tool. However, that's not to say that having a quick snapshot and a place to aggregate reviews for easy-access is not useful.
 

Schlorgan

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.
At a certain point, that's really not important, what's important is the final product.

Like with video games, reviewers shouldn't take studio drama or "the developer was forced to put this in by the publisher" into consideration with reviews because it really doesn't matter; if the end product is bad, it's bad.
 

Sephzilla

Member
I want to know how Attack of the Clones has a 6.7 average. There's nothing redeemable about that movie.

The cycle with the prequel movies was denying that the newest prequel movie was bad, until the next prequel movie came out. Then it was okay to admit it the previous one was shit. It's sort of like Peter Molyneux and the Fable cycle

204729-fable.jpg
 

Jazzem

Member
Great post, and yes the biggest problem with this movie is the characters. The movie is incapable of making you care about them at all because most of them are obnoxious turds of human beings.

Yeah, Plinkett raised a really interesting point in how even every background character is wildly unlikable. It's an oddly bitter movie when you break it down...
 

creatchee

Member
At a certain point, that's really not important, what's important is the final product.

Like with video games, reviewers shouldn't take studio drama or "the developer was forced to put this in by the publisher" into consideration with reviews because it really doesn't matter; if the end product is bad, it's bad.

This. I've never consumed media and consciously adjusted my perceived enjoyment of it because of the events or circumstances pertaining to its development cycle.
 
Yeah, Plinkett raised a really interesting point in how even every background character is wildly unlikable. It's an oddly bitter movie when you break it down...

That's what happens when your direction is essentially "do funny things and we'll pick the funniest things you do."

Every character is always on. And since background characters don't have any real substance or depth to draw from, they have to be funny by making fun of things. It's cheap and easy humor.

The movie has no straight men. Look at the original. Everyone besides Murray and Moranis plays the straight man, or at least uses subtle humor.

GB16 reminds me of that Futurama episode where Harold Zoid is directing a movie. "Action! And I mean circus grade action!"
 

NekoFever

Member
I had absolutely no clue that this movie had as many defenders on this forum as it seemingly does. It's horrible at face value but when you especially look at it in context from the franchise to the story of how it was produced and everything else then I absolutely do believe it's one of the biggest train wrecks in recent Hollywood history.

I honestly think a lot of people who spent this movie's production defending it from the misogynistic attacks haven't come round to the acceptance stage where they can admit that it isn't very good.

Don't get me wrong: the movie, its cast and everyone involved was subject to ridiculous levels of opprobrium simply for existing, and it was absolutely right to call that out. But the movie still sucks.
 
I honestly think a lot of people who spent this movie's production defending it from the misogynistic attacks haven't come round to the acceptance stage where they can admit that it isn't very good.

Don't get me wrong: the movie, its cast and everyone involved was subject to ridiculous levels of opprobrium simply for existing, and it was absolutely right to call that out. But the movie still sucks.

Or maybe a lot of us just...enjoy it? Maybe it's not more complicated than that. And maybe it's ok that you don't like it, and others do. Maybe we don't have to come to a decisive conclusion about the quality of every movie.
 

NekoFever

Member
Or maybe a lot of us just...enjoy it? Maybe it's not more complicated than that. And maybe it's ok that you don't like it, and others do. Maybe we don't have to come to a decisive conclusion about the quality of every movie.

Sure. I didn't say that's the case with everyone.
 
Or maybe a lot of us just...enjoy it? Maybe it's not more complicated than that. And maybe it's ok that you don't like it, and others do. Maybe we don't have to come to a decisive conclusion about the quality of every movie.

Right? It's not some fucking weird denial from the "SJWs." I watched it at home with my fiancé and her dad. All three of us chuckled throughout. We all agreed it was a solid 3/5 star movie, or so. It's not anymore complicated than that.
 
Right? It's not some fucking weird denial from the "SJWs." I watched it at home with my fiancé and her dad. All three of us chuckled throughout. We all agreed it was a solid 3/5 star movie, or so. It's not anymore complicated than that.

I prefer it to Ghostbusters 2 and I think the original is the motherfucking Holy Grail of film.

I do recognise some of the problems people have with it though.
 

TheJoRu

Member
Watched this now, really good (the review that is). He seems to agree with me that casting is rarely a significant issue; it's writing, directing and editing mostly, which he demonstrated perfectly with the reedit of a few minor scenes. The casting for this movie was fine, but the direction was awful.
 
It is also possible to like something and also admit its not of good quality.

Quality, when it comes to art, is wholly subjective though. What we deem to be 'good' is what we deem to fit into the current fashions and trends for art and creativity. There is no objective "good quality" and "bad quality", simply how a work fits into our consensualized norms and fashions.

Personally, I think the idea of "I like it, even though it's not very good" is intellectual dishonesty. If you like something, own it! You can recognize it's flaws, sure. I like plenty of unpopular movies, while recognizing their flaws at the same time, but if I like something, that's ultimately because I do think it is good and entertaining.
 
Top Bottom