• 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)

K

KalBalboa

Banned
For the record: I am a huge Ghostbusters fan. I spent thousands making my own Ghostbusters gear, flight suit, etc. My fandom runs embarrassingly deep.

I also worked on Ghostbusters 2016 when it was in production in Boston. I got to hang with Dan Aykroyd, Paul Feig, and even Dan's daughter the evening they shot Dan's cabbie cameo.

With all that being said... I can't stand the movie. It's trash.
 
S

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
Here's a 15 second version of the video with literally no loss of anything:

"Ghostbusters 2016 is not a good movie because it's not funny and the kind of humour it goes for is a modern, Judd Apatow style riff humour, rather than a Ramis/Reitman/Murray style 80s screwball comedy, and also as a reboot I like the original better. In addition, the editing is slow and scenes go on too long. Also for some reason I think Ghostbusters, the original, is the best movie ever made, which makes sense because I'm a guy who's paid to get angry about movies on the internet."
 
B

brianmcdoogle

Member
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I'm disappointed that Mike didn't go into Ghostbusters 2 at all, especially when he was comparing the 2016 reboot with the original. Mike really disliked Ghostbusters 2, and in a way, I think the review might have been stronger if he used it and the 2016 reboot to illustrate just how good the first movie is, and that no matter what, either doing a reboot which is a beat for beat recreation of the first movie, or the sequel which is a beat for beat recreation of the first movie, just doesn't work, and that maybe it was all lightning in a bottle that first time out.
 
K

KalBalboa

Banned
HariKari said:
That's cool.

They had yet to do a Plinkett video on it, so here we are. It's good. How do you feel about the actual content of the video? I think that's a more fruitful discussion than lamenting the existence of the video, something which can never be undone.
Click to expand...

I mean, you can hand wave away my observation that this is their third analysis of the movie, but to each their own. I'm going to comment on this feeling like covered ground by them, a perspective you can't dismiss out of existence. Sorry?

For this new video analyzing Ghostbusters 2016 from RedLetterMedia, I'm one of those who doesn't find the drawlish voice funny. I'm also hearing a lot of the same beats covered from their other videos and don't know if I can spend a complete hour of my free time on it due to how, well, redundant it all feels.

Jakten said:
Had to stop watching when he talked shit about Freaks and Geeks
Click to expand...

This too.
 
H

HariKari

Member
Jakten said:
Had to stop watching when he talked shit about Freaks and Geeks
Click to expand...

I think that part was tongue in cheek, because he liked Spy. I think it was meant to highlight that Feig can do some things right, but that he was a colossal fuckup on this movie.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
Stumpokapow said:
Here's a 15 second version of the video with literally no loss of anything:

"Ghostbusters 2016 is not a good movie because it's not funny and the kind of humour it goes for is a modern, Judd Apatow style riff humour, rather than a Ramis/Reitman/Murray style 80s screwball comedy, and also as a reboot I like the original better. In addition, the editing is slow and scenes go on too long. Also for some reason I think Ghostbusters, the original, is the best movie ever made, which makes sense because I'm a guy who's paid to get angry about movies on the internet."
Click to expand...

He covered a bit more, notably the discussion around how the original had discernible and relatable character motivations, took its premise seriously enough for the audience to care, and actually developed its side characters, all in stark contrast to the new film.
 
E

Exodust

Banned
KalBalboa said:
It's their 3rd analysis of the same movie...?

I'm not dying on this hill. I'm just making a basic observation here. No need to get this bent out of shape about it.
Click to expand...

HITB was a review, the trailer one is as a take that to youtube culture(which they do a lot of), and the scientist man was for the story around it.

Plinkett is the first and only analysis of the movie.
 
S

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
GhaleonEB said:
He covered a bit more, notably the discussion around how the original had discernible and relatable character motivations, took its premise seriously enough for the audience to care, and actually developed its side characters, all in stark contrast to the new film.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the new film and am pretty indifferent to the original which I view as an enjoyable but minor 80s comedy (I also met Dan Aykroyd and found him pretty disagreeable), so I can't evaluate the truth of the claim. While he did say those things, I'm not sure he covered those things.
 
A

A Link to the Past

Banned
DrSlek said:
in the last 5 years you were never exposed to the famous Phantom Menace Review?

IqdgDxy.gif
Click to expand...

...does the image intentionally look like Jay at the end?
 
E

Exodust

Banned
Stumpokapow said:
Here's a 15 second version of the video with literally no loss of anything:

"Ghostbusters 2016 is not a good movie because it's not funny and the kind of humour it goes for is a modern, Judd Apatow style riff humour, rather than a Ramis/Reitman/Murray style 80s screwball comedy, and also as a reboot I like the original better. In addition, the editing is slow and scenes go on too long. Also for some reason I think Ghostbusters, the original, is the best movie ever made, which makes sense because I'm a guy who's paid to get angry about movies on the internet."
Click to expand...

That's an oversimplification to say the least.
 
V

Vagabundo

Member
Stumpokapow said:
I haven't seen the new film and am pretty indifferent to the original which I view as an enjoyable but minor 80s comedy (I also met Dan Aykroyd and found him pretty disagreeable), so I can't evaluate the truth of the claim. While he did say those things, I'm not sure he covered those things.
Click to expand...

Oh dear... Stump... It's Ghostbusters, man!!!
 
Z

Zabka

Member
Stumpokapow said:
I haven't seen the new film and am pretty indifferent to the original which I view as an enjoyable but minor 80s comedy (I also met Dan Aykroyd and found him pretty disagreeable), so I can't evaluate the truth of the claim. While he did say those things, I'm not sure he covered those things.
Click to expand...
The original Ghostbusters is still the top grossing horror comedy in the US. Also the #2 movie the year it came it. It's a bit bigger than that.
 
D

Draper

Member
Stumpokapow said:
I haven't seen the new film and am pretty indifferent to the original which I view as an enjoyable but minor 80s comedy (I also met Dan Aykroyd and found him pretty disagreeable), so I can't evaluate the truth of the claim. While he did say those things, I'm not sure he covered those things.
Click to expand...

I mean, the majority of the review was based around those concepts. You're erroneously playing semantics for some reason.
 
T

Tom Nook Sawyer

Member
Stumpokapow said:
Here's a 15 second version of the video with literally no loss of anything:

"Ghostbusters 2016 is not a good movie because it's not funny and the kind of humour it goes for is a modern, Judd Apatow style riff humour, rather than a Ramis/Reitman/Murray style 80s screwball comedy, and also as a reboot I like the original better. In addition, the editing is slow and scenes go on too long. Also for some reason I think Ghostbusters, the original, is the best movie ever made, which makes sense because I'm a guy who's paid to get angry about movies on the internet."
Click to expand...

What a silly reductionist summary, that could be done similarly of any critique.

Yours was also considerably less entertaining and I regret the 15 seconds I spent reading it, unlike the video
 
Dsyndrome

Dsyndrome

Member
Stumpokapow said:
Here's a 15 second version of the video with literally no loss of anything:

"Ghostbusters 2016 is not a good movie because it's not funny and the kind of humour it goes for is a modern, Judd Apatow style riff humour, rather than a Ramis/Reitman/Murray style 80s screwball comedy, and also as a reboot I like the original better. In addition, the editing is slow and scenes go on too long. Also for some reason I think Ghostbusters, the original, is the best movie ever made, which makes sense because I'm a guy who's paid to get angry about movies on the internet."
Click to expand...
Your latter commentary is a bit disingenuous. People are entitled to their opinions without you commenting on their motivation.
 
F

Fercho

Member
Personally i don't like the guys working at RLM, i found them really snobbish and antipathic in general.

Having said that i think it was an insightful and fair review and think they were spot on the Bill Murray part especially, opinion that i share way before this movie was announced.
 
A

Admiral Woofington

Member
Fercho said:
Personally i don't like the guys working at RLM, i found them really snobbish and antipathic in general.

Having said that i think it was an insightful and fair review and think they were spot on the Bill Murray part especially, opinion that i share way before this movie was announced.
Click to expand...

The internet loves Bill Murray so much I was taken aback at the straight up attack on him lol. I don't care for him all that much tbh. I mean I love Groundhog Day and enjoy Ghostbusters. But that's about it as far as Bill Murray for me.
 
Swass

Swass

Member
"Remember Scarface"
"Stop Dancing"
"Stop Talking"

This review was great and really highlights how bad the new film is compared to the original.. It also made me want to sit down and watch the original because it is one of the best films I've ever had the pleasure of watching.

Also amazed at how good Plinkett made the subway scene with just some minor sound edits..
 
O

OmnipotentO

Member
Stumpokapow said:
Here's a 15 second version of the video with literally no loss of anything:

"Ghostbusters 2016 is not a good movie because it's not funny and the kind of humour it goes for is a modern, Judd Apatow style riff humour, rather than a Ramis/Reitman/Murray style 80s screwball comedy, and also as a reboot I like the original better. In addition, the editing is slow and scenes go on too long. Also for some reason I think Ghostbusters, the original, is the best movie ever made, which makes sense because I'm a guy who's paid to get angry about movies on the internet."
Click to expand...
Having not seen this yet but seen and enjoyed some of the older reviews.... yea, this seems about right.
 
A

Admiral Woofington

Member
Draper said:
To what degree of heresy is it if I have yet to see Groundhog's Day?
Click to expand...

I hadn't watched it until recently (like 1 year ago). Luckily my friends aren't the kind to find a record and scratch it while they spit out their drinks and complain at you. They just opted to watch the movie with me right there and then. I really really loved it.
 
J

Jangowuzhere

Banned
The review was good. 1000x better than their crap TFA review.

However, I do think RLM needs to tighten up the run time on these reviews. I don't think this review needed to be this long. You can definitely hear Plinkett ramble on at times about needless stuff. It still feels a bit unfocused, and the old Plinkett reviews didn't have this problem.
 
D

Draper

Member
Admiral Woofington said:
I hadn't watched it until recently (like 1 year ago). Luckily my friends aren't the kind to find a record and scratch it while they spit out their drinks and complain at you. They just opted to watch the movie with me right there and then. I really really loved it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I really have to find a way to watch it.
 
P

PizzaFace

Banned
Stumpokapow said:
Here's a 15 second version of the video with literally no loss of anything:

"Ghostbusters 2016 is not a good movie because it's not funny and the kind of humour it goes for is a modern, Judd Apatow style riff humour, rather than a Ramis/Reitman/Murray style 80s screwball comedy, and also as a reboot I like the original better. In addition, the editing is slow and scenes go on too long. Also for some reason I think Ghostbusters, the original, is the best movie ever made, which makes sense because I'm a guy who's paid to get angry about movies on the internet."
Click to expand...

Well, that's grossly incorrect.
 
I

Imbarkus

As Sartre noted in his contemplation on Hell in No Exit, the true horror is other members.
Stumpokapow said:
Here's a 15 second version of the video with literally no loss of anything:

"Ghostbusters 2016 is not a good movie because it's not funny and the kind of humour it goes for is a modern, Judd Apatow style riff humour, rather than a Ramis/Reitman/Murray style 80s screwball comedy, and also as a reboot I like the original better. In addition, the editing is slow and scenes go on too long. Also for some reason I think Ghostbusters, the original, is the best movie ever made, which makes sense because I'm a guy who's paid to get angry about movies on the internet."
Click to expand...

Don't forget an extended freeze frame tirade about the product placement of every location featured in Times Square, an extended derogatory rundown of the past works of the writer/director and cowriter of the film, and plenty of helpful comments pointing out that Melissa McCarthy is fat.

I may gave him some ground on the points that some of the humor in the final result got stampeded by a bit too much improv. But claiming that the more scripted and less improved original is somehow a more "scientific" comedy--and reediting scenes just to silence those noisy female main characters--came off as backward-looking, no matter how many romantic girl/girl subplots he proposed.
 
G

gosox333

Member
today I learned convection ovens are things

This was good. I don't know how often they've already gone over this in their other videos, but this clearly articulated to me why this movie was bad.
 
F

Fat4all

Banned
Imbarkus said:
--and reediting scenes just to silence those noisy female main characters--
Click to expand...

He didn't imply that the constant improvising was bad because they are 'noisy females', but that the constant improvising hurt a lot of the comedy/writing of the film.
 
D

David H Wong

Banned
Stumpokapow said:
Here's a 15 second version of the video with literally no loss of anything:

"Ghostbusters 2016 is not a good movie because it's not funny and the kind of humour it goes for is a modern, Judd Apatow style riff humour, rather than a Ramis/Reitman/Murray style 80s screwball comedy, and also as a reboot I like the original better. In addition, the editing is slow and scenes go on too long. Also for some reason I think Ghostbusters, the original, is the best movie ever made, which makes sense because I'm a guy who's paid to get angry about movies on the internet."
Click to expand...

There's no way you watched the entire video, and actually paid attention to it, and came to this conclusion. He carefully breaks down specific moments and digs in detail into why they worked in the first film but not the second.

That's why people enjoy long form criticism like this; it actually helps appreciate good films more, by seeing how easy it is to get it wrong, and why some methods work great in some circumstances and not others (in this case, why improv-heavy styles don't work with a high-concept premise that requires a ton of exposition and world-building).
 
J

Jarmel

Banned
Imbarkus said:
I may gave him some ground on the points that some of the humor in the final result got stampeded by a bit too much improv. But claiming that the more scripted and less improved original is somehow a more "scientific" comedy--and reediting scenes just to silence those noisy female main characters--came off as backward-looking, no matter how many romantic girl/girl subplots he proposed.
Click to expand...
You clearly missed Plinkett's point. He took out the dialogue because the characters talking either ruined a joke or the atmosphere. Also the raw amount of dialogue comes off more as a desperate attempt to make the audience laugh at all times rather than trying to use the dialogue in a more directed manner.
 
D

David H Wong

Banned
Fat4all said:
He didn't imply that the constant improvising was bad because they are 'noisy females', but that the constant improvising hurt a lot of the comedy/writing of the film.
Click to expand...

And explained that at length!

Silence and pauses are crucial for comedic timing! This is not a controversial point! The whole premise is that these "females" made some great jokes and then another cast member immediately stepped on the punchline, and then he specifically pointed the finger at the (male) director for doing it that way.

He had nothing but good things to say about the cast, and took time to mention other great work they had done.
 
A

Admiral Woofington

Member
It's been mentioned multiple times but his edit of the 'but he's been dead for years' scene would have most definitely gotten at least a moderate chuckle from me. The actual scene was just like BAM joke punchline, banter moving on next scene!
 
H

HariKari

Member
Inspector Jones said:
Got to say that this is the best Plinkett review I've seen in awhile after the meh TFA one.
Click to expand...

I think he liked TFA quite a bit and was happy they didn't fuck up Star Wars completely like the prequels, so he had a hard time being critical with it. The review ended up being worse off for it.
 
C

CS_Dan

Member
DrSlek said:
in the last 5 years you were never exposed to the famous Phantom Menace Review?
Click to expand...
*8 years, it's a re-upload I think :) Originally was up in 2009. I was doing A-Levels when I first watched it.


This review was decent, with some good analysis and funny moments. I like RLM, but some of their recent stuff has put me off a bit. The worst thing they put in this was some fairly pointless fat shaming and overuse of "retard", which I thought Mike was past.
EDIT: Now I'm doubting if he said that word or not. Fuck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dune: Part Two - Review Thread
News 6 7 8 9 10
496
25K
Ulysses 31 replied
Another Crab's Treasure | Review Thread
Analysis Review
10
1K
Fart Knight replied
Sand Land | Review Thread
Opinion Analysis Review
12
1K
bender replied
WWE 2K24 - Reviews Thread
7
2K
adamsapple replied
Unicorn Overlord | Review Thread
Analysis Review 2
93
6K
Draugoth replied
Top Bottom