Support NeoGAF

[Aiii]

*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.

This is not Mike, this is Mr. Plinkett, a fat basement dwelling piece of shit. The fat jokes are not meant to be taken as Mike fat-shaming, but as Mr Plinkett being Plinkett.

You can send him a message through his webspace if you want a pizza roll.

 

[Draper]

This is not Mike, this is Mr. Plinkett, a fat basement dwelling piece of shit. The fat jokes are not meant to be taken as Mike fat-shaming, but as Mr Plinkett being Plinkett.

You can send him a message through his webspace if you want a pizza roll.

It's how I feed my family

 

[Fixed2BeBroken]

he shits on freaks and geeks in this.....

I can't roll with that.

 

[DoubleYou]

He's so on point with the 'stop talking' bits.
Good review. I enjoyed it.

 

[CS_Dan]

This is not Mike, this is Mr. Plinkett, a fat basement dwelling piece of shit.

Ah fuck, maybe I should hire Dr Tracksuit to sort him out.

 

[Log4Girlz]

The review is hilarious

 

[PnCIa]

Awesome work as always.
I remember watching the movie on my trip to thailand...god damnit did this movie suck.
They really break it down what happens when you mix (in a different situation) talented people in front of the camera with hackjobs calling the shots.

 

[Booker Dewitt]

So I'm at point #11, it's been pretty well reasoned so far...but why is this an hour. I feel like they've been largely reiterating the same focal points over and over again. It seems like a college essay used as a script for a video review.

 

[Lupercal]

he shits on freaks and geeks in this.....

I can't roll with that.

Eh, Freaks & Geeks was decent, doesn't deserve all the adoration it gets around here.
Must be a GAF thing.

 

[Imbarkus]

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.

I got the point fine and I admitted it was a fair one. His other fair point was the lack of a real romance in the movie, compared to the first movie.

But he didn't edit together a custom scene cutting dialog from the dude at in the open who bugged him by taking an extra three minutes. He didn't edit together a custom scene reworking any of Chris Hemsworth's improv. And he did feature the few quiet moments in the first film from the original cast as if they were stoic man-heroes in comparison, which they weren't, really.

Is it weird to say I think it was, by no means, a sexist review--yet that I still think it was a review that pretty much expressed that he preferred more stoic, scientific, or exterminator-like characters, and less-talky comedy tropes in the framework?

My experience with this movie has been watching my wife and daughter initially get excited about it, and try to remain excited throughout the internet and the entire world ceaselessly bitching endlessly about it. It was not as good as the first one but better than the second one, which this review hardly mentioned. I've often found RedLetterMedia really insightful--they helped me put my finger on exactly all the things that bugged me about Star Trek: Into Darkness, for example. But this one was just kind of unfair and bandwagony to me. Bummer.

 

[Fixed2BeBroken]

Eh, Freaks & Geeks was decent, doesn't deserve all the adoration it gets around here.
Must be a GAF thing.

nope. Freaks and Geeks was amazing and is a Classic.

 

[EVOL 100%]

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."

Wow, as a mod you really should know better.

You can't use 'literally' like that!

 

[Azure Dream]

"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,"

Is "Judd Apatow style riff humour" where actors just spout whatever garbage they can think of that take, and keep rambling on instead of knowing when to stop a joke because they're mostly ad-libbing to begin with? Because I don't care if that's "modern", it's an awful, lazy way to do movies. Especially movies that cost as much as this one did. And had a beloved name attached to it.

It's not even fair to the actors, as Plinkett pointed ou- oh, that didn't fit in your summary.

 

[pbayne]

Good review a bit of overlap with their half in the bag tho.

No idea who he is but in the clips of him here Paul Feig reminds of a guy going to a job interview for a job he really dosent want. Just seems to have no real clear convictions or ideas of what he wants and just waffles his way through interviews.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

I agree with a lot of the review so far. Aside from the ads and marketing shit, the script for me is a lot of the problem.

The director obviously knew the script was trash, that's why so much of the movie was just riffing. "If we let them riff, maybe we can take the funniest parts and make a movie?" The problem is that its painfully obvious that they are receiving little or no direction in the scenes, beyond starting point and where to end it. I would not be shocked to see the script size during production was less than 30 pages.

With a comedy like Ghostbusters you need a tight script, with great comedy timing from the leads. I am shocked that no one in sony took a look at the early parts and said, fix this. Because this film is soooo unfunny. It's just awful and it felt like a chore to get through. The only good parts was the ghost fighting, but even that felt poorly planned and choreographed. Like suddenly the rest of the characters disappear, so you can see that one character do a cool flip and take out two ghosts. Why did the others disappear, why only two or one at a time? Why aren't the ghosts doing anything call, like go through walls or floors?

This film is painfully unoriginal. It is a lot of the time a beat for beat remake of the original, even though it should really just try to be its own thing. Ughh. This film leaves a bad taste in my mouth. At least Samurai Cop had heart.

 

[Dick Justice]

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."

You seem rather upset. Also, acting like RLM/Plinkett reviews are just generic angry critic stuff is hilariously out of touch. What's even more hilarious is acting like a snob because someone happens to consider Ghostbusters to be their favourite film, because clearly everyone's preferences should line up with yours. Would the review be more acceptable if he claimed that Citizen Kane or Gone With The Wind was his favourite film?

 

[uncelestial]

The Freaks and Geeks jab seemed like a joke to me. Among all the other stuff that painted Feig in a bad light, it was funny to note F&G and just say that "it suuuucks" with no explanation as to why, when it's a highly-regarded cult classic.

I quite appreciated the video and pretty much agreed with it all, though I do think there was something sexist and off when he would layer multiple women all "nattering" at once and then start yelling "shut up!" at the screen. I've seen too many guys who just don't like when women talk, find their voices "shrill" (think: Hillary), compare them to nagging moms/wives, etc.

The TFA Plinkett video was unfortunate; it was kind of forced. It was like he had to make one because the prequel reviews were a big part of his legacy, but TFA was a lot more solid than the prequels so there was really no call for the angry/dismissive tone. In fact much of it seemed like filler.

If you're gonna hate, Ghostbusters 2016 clearly has more meat on the bone. There's plenty to dislike, and this video really works as a result. RLM aren't perfect; I feel like I have to scan them for sexism more often than I want to... But I rarely come up with anything. And to be honest they are pretty insightful. Those example edits of how they could've improved the movie were really dead on.

 

[Melon Husk]

Sloppy start but fine work after the first 20min. TFA review had a whole hour of filler.

It's got the Plinkett edge but with less live action stuff. It's not to the point of (literally) shitting on JJ Abrams and George Lucas levels of Plinkett.

Passion turned to anger, anger turned to art.

 

[Blablurn]

oh god, the dancing

 

[ronaldthump]

RLM really did nail how fucking annoyingly talky GB is. The movie is poorly put together, annoying as hell and not well directed. The whole thing is a mess.

I loved the bit where they cut in ackroyd slagging off feig over the reshoots.



Them contrasting the characters in both movies really made GB2016 look exactly like the stupid cartoon it is

 

[Rymuth]

Great review ~ I enjoyed it

 

[Sony]

--and reediting scenes just to silence those noisy female main characters--

Did you watch the video? Honestly, did you? How on Earth could you prefix main characters with female given the video? You're grasping at straws, stop trying to involve sexisim with this video review, very pathetic of you to do that. Apart from that, Plinkett actually praised the acressess for their other work.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

Not a big fan of a lot of RLM content and was not a big fan of the last time I saw Plinkett but I enjoyed this one.

 

[Pie and Beans]

Large part of the internet deserves this delicious reckoning.

 

[Mirado]

Is it weird to say I think it was, by no means, a sexist review--yet that I still think it was a review that pretty much expressed that he preferred more stoic, scientific, or exterminator-like characters, and less-talky comedy tropes in the framework?

Yes it is, when the only thing he really praised are the four women (in particular Leslie Jones) and even went at length to discuss how much he enjoyed their time on SNL or specific films they've done, which he didn't do for Hemsworth and did the opposite for Feig, the two major male names associated with the movie. It seemed like he made a very clear distinction between the casting (which he thought was good) and the script (which was so terrible that no amount of good casting could save it), and that it was the script which made the four so unlikeable and annoying.

I really would like to know how you got the idea that his main issue was the gender of the main cast, when it seems like he shit on everything BUT that.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Large part of the internet deserves this delicious reckoning.

It's a movie review...

Not the hand of God

 

[Pie and Beans]

It's a movie review...

Not the hand of God

The internet is a crowd-sourced sea of consciousness god to most people now.

 

[excelsiorlef]

The internet is a crowd-sourced sea of consciousness god to most people now.

Ummm k.

It's a movie that some liked

Some hated

And some had an obscene sexist reaction to.

Who exactly is having a reckoning brought upon them because of a movie review?

 

[Turin Turambar]

Why is he reviewing this movie now?

This isn't real review.

They make real reviews, in the 'half in the bag' videos, usually. This is their review of Ghostbusters 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEKreyTkvA

Mr Plinkett reviews are a good ol' pile on. So to the question of why now? It's because they wait until it's clear the Internet consensus has decided that the film is very popular but with mixed or directly bad opinions, so that way they know they will have a ton of hits, they know people love blood.

 

[Agent Gibbs]

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.

I'm in the same boat, massive fan, built my own pack, etc,
I flip flopped on the movie, but hoped for the best, then I saw the film and it felt like a syfy remake, it had some mild gags and spent the rest of the film on gross out humour and a weak villain. I wouldn't say I hate the film I just think its okay, it really shouldn't be viewed as anything but forgettable.

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.

damn Stump you are a mod and you're in here basically shit posting, you've not seen the film and are comment on how you disagree with the video the thread is on? I've never read war and peace so I wouldn't go in a thread about it, let alone comment.
I'm sure on page one a mod said not to comment unless you'd watched things.

Ummm k.

It's a movie that some liked

Some hated

And some had an obscene sexist reaction to.

Who exactly is having a reckoning brought upon them because of a movie review?

I think in Pie and Beans (the best way to have a pie! down with Mushy peas) in his odd way is referring to those who latched onto the movie as a sort of feminist icon a spear head, and whilst yes it is to an extent (I'd argue Wonder Woman would be the far better choice), there were some who made out this film was the second coming and a blueprint for how all movies should be made. I think he's referring to them

the problem with generalisation posts, you need to elaborate some times!

I went to school with one such person, he is a director, makes indy movies (some quite good) and he still praises this movie like its on par with speilberg's best work and I'm not sure why as he only seemed to like some of Feig's previous work, now he suddenly thinks he's one of the best directors about. Its an odd thing, like he is forcing himself to defend this film for reasons unknown.

 

[-shadow-]

An hour long new Plinkett review just after waking up? Oh hell yeah!

 

[SandTorso]

This isn't real review.

They make real reviews, in the 'half in the bag' videos, usually. This is their review of Ghostbusters 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEKreyTkvA

Mr Plinkett reviews are a good ol' pile on. So to the question of why now? It's because they wait until it's clear the Internet consensus has decided that the film is very popular but with mixed or directly bad opinions, so that way they know they will have a ton of hits, they know people love blood.

That, and well, most of the plinkett reviews are WAY after the fact too. See all the star trek ones. Or Titanic. The only one that really wasn't that immediately comes to mind is The Force Awakens (was there a rogue one review? I can't remember, I know they did a ton with it otherwise so it wouldn't surprise me, but I don't really remember it). I feel like they at the very least wait until the movie is out so the cast and crew can make comments on it, or so they can get something from director's commentary tracks. Or maybe they just felt the need to make a new plinkett review and it was an easy target, I know in the past they've made jokes about how the character itself is super tired and made it seem like they wanted to avoid it, but for a large segment of their audience I'm sure it's what they watch RLM stuff for (I'm more of a best of the worst kind of guy).

I enjoyed the review, but I haven't seen Ghostbusters 2016. I was a fan of the original, not so much 2, and the trailer really put me off on 2016. It's actually funny to see the Leslie Jones character be, well, the best part of it after that horrible trailer made her look like some sort of awful stereotype. Maybe with a better directing choice the movie could have been decent instead of what appears to be a constant mess of improv.

 

[Saya]

I forgot how terrible the final battle was in this movie. It's like the team is just popping balloons.

 

[Ban Puncher]

Ghostbusters 2016 was the most disappointing thing since Space Cop.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa7uLxu0XAc

 

[excelsiorlef]

I think in Pie and Beans (the best way to have a pie! down with Mushy peas) in his odd way is referring to those who latched onto the movie as a sort of feminist icon a spear head, and whilst yes it is to an extent (I'd argue Wonder Woman would be the far better choice), there were some who made out this film was the second coming and a blueprint for how all movies should be made. I think he's referring to them

the problem with generalisation posts, you need to elaborate some times!

I went to school with one such person, he is a director, makes indy movies (some quite good) and he still praises this movie like its on par with speilberg's best work and I'm not sure why as he only seemed to like some of Feig's previous work, now he suddenly thinks he's one of the best directors about. Its an odd thing, like he is forcing himself to defend this film for reasons unknown.

There is not nearly enough of these hypothetical/Anecdotal people to consider them a large part of the internet.

Nor would this review be a reckoning for them even still.

 

[HotHamBoy]

This is a good critique.

You see, movies can be objectively bad. You can analyze a film and say "this is why the movie is not good." And it really doesn't matter if some people liked it, it just means they enjoyed a thing that is bad.

It's okay if you like a bad thing but that doesn't make it less bad. It's just bad.

The movie is objectively bad.

 

[Yukinari]

Im really glad the reputation of James Rolfe was slandered over a garbage movie.

Im also glad it bombed. Still cant believe there are people like Nostalgia Critic or Johnny who legit wanted someone to pay money for this because they were afraid of criticizing it.

RLM were the only ones keeping it real.

 

[kinoki]

This is a good critique.

You see, movies can be objectively bad. You can analyze a film and say "this is why the movie is not good." And it really doesn't matter if some people liked it, it just means they enjoyed a thing that is bad.

It's okay if you like a bad thing but that doesn't make it less bad. It's just bad.

The movie is objectively bad.

Objectively here, I guess, would be "subjective but largely agreed upon standards". Something, regardless of what it is, can't be objectively "good" because "goodness" is a measurement that's based on subjectivity. Regardless, we can agree on that most people didn't think very highly of it.

Ps. Liked the critique of the movie. RLM does some entertaining stuff albeit a bit overly long and not the best paced. Also, haven't seen the new Ghostbusters nor do I intend to.

 

[Pie and Beans]

I think in Pie and Beans (the best way to have a pie! down with Mushy peas) in his odd way is referring to those who latched onto the movie as a sort of feminist icon a spear head, and whilst yes it is to an extent (I'd argue Wonder Woman would be the far better choice), there were some who made out this film was the second coming and a blueprint for how all movies should be made. I think he's referring to them

the problem with generalisation posts, you need to elaborate some times!

I went to school with one such person, he is a director, makes indy movies (some quite good) and he still praises this movie like its on par with speilberg's best work and I'm not sure why as he only seemed to like some of Feig's previous work, now he suddenly thinks he's one of the best directors about. Its an odd thing, like he is forcing himself to defend this film for reasons unknown.

excelsiorlef was putting in serious work on the defence force here and I guess still is, so he's like yer director buddy. That's why his posts also have that added "BUT REMEMBER THE SEXISTS" bolt ons in this thread too.

 

[MarkMclovin]

"And of course Patty is Louis Tulley" haha

I enjoyed the movie though but yeah it's a stinker next to the original.

 

[Blobbers]

that was pretty good

 

[excelsiorlef]

excelsiorlef was putting in serious work on the defence force here and I guess still is, so he's like yer director buddy. That's why his posts also have that added "BUT REMEMBER THE SEXISTS" bolt ons in this thread too.

Her, she..

And ya never answered my question.

Weirdly enough I enjoyed the movie but have never demanded anyone else like it. Nor have I called it anything but something I found fun and enjoyable. Hell I even criticized the ridiculous budget.

The only defense I've ever made is saying hey there are a lot of people who did like it on some level and maybe people should accept that instead of arguing that those who did only did so because they were afraid to give it a bad review.

 

[Pie and Beans]

And ya never answered my question.

Fine: all the people that lined up behind the movie like it was a feminist masterpiece and if you didn't like it, it was obviously because you were a sexist monster. The start of the mountain was the "but how can you judge movies from trailers!!" brigade, and the James Rolfe stuff was the peak.

I mean sometimes for whatever reason you just like the taste of trash. Michael Bay has put a genjutsu on me and I went away from The Last Knight having enjoyed it. Do I know thats a garbage can I was feasting loudly out of? Yes. To its credit though it was a remake of Transformers 2, 3 and 4, which were already bad movies. Answer The Call was a terrible remake of one of the best movies of all time.

 

[barit]

That were some very depressing but highly entertaining 56 minutes. Well done. And fuck Sony Pictures, Paul Feig, Bill Murray and whoever was responsible for this big fucking trash can.

 

[nekkid]

I thought it was alright.

A bit disappointed it was a full reboot, rather than reboot that was linked to the original (same universe).

 

[Messofanego]

Eh, Freaks & Geeks was decent, doesn't deserve all the adoration it gets around here.
Must be a GAF thing.

 

[Lupercal]

There are other shows who brought the teenage drama / comedy to life way better than F&G.

I watched when I was young, okay I guess, I tried rewatching it on Netflix, no thanks.

 

[chugen]

great review! and get your shit together sony

 

[Messofanego]

excelsiorlef was putting in serious work on the defence force here and I guess still is, so he's like yer director buddy. That's why his posts also have that added "BUT REMEMBER THE SEXISTS" bolt ons in this thread too.

Not sure if it's intentional that you're misgendering excelsiorlef considering if you know her posts for any length of time, she's never used a male pronoun or given that impression...

 

[Pie and Beans]

Not sure if it's intentional that you're misgendering excelsiorlef considering if you know her posts for any length of time, she's never used a male pronoun or given that impression...

Yeah that must be it. Good lord. DULY NOTED.