27/03/2017

Ghostbusters

                  
“Don't even listen to what the sexist detractors are pouting so much about, this excellent, hilarious reboot is even better than the original movie, with great actresses playing intelligent women who can kick more ass than a lot of men - and the special effects are sensational.”
                       
This made me angrily vomit into my closed fist. Shut the fuck up Carlos Magalhães, and stop contributing to the artificial --- that is effectively free publicity for this terrible movie - I wouldn't pout, but when a studio makes money they tend to keep going, and it's people like this who are helping along the current (time or writing is early 2017) trend of crappy re-boots and re-makes and soft re-boots and flaccid re-makes.
I thought I'd feel better after that but I don't, for (shakespear quote about hate being a monster that feeds on itself), so I'll just keep going and base my whole thing around criticising this dope. Carlos is a “super reviewer” at 'Rotten Tomatoes', by the way.
                      
                     
Alright, so weather or not you care about the genders of the leads (I don't, but I don't mind if you do, Carlos) this is not better than the original movie. It's not the worst thing I've ever seen, but it's not at all good, and it's not nearly close to the original. I know any art form is totally subjective, but I think the majority would agree with me, and I'm currently writing this thing, so..
The actors were alright, but given a little too much leeway for my blood. Without even checking I can tell a lot of the quirky little comedy moments were ad libbed, and it often detracted from their characters (what I'm saying is, they didn't have characters). The main one had a backstory, as did her old buddy, so an extent, but other than that it was just sort of... now we're ghost busters! Like I said though the actors themselves were fine. Jones was my favourite in the film (a surprise, because she seemed irritating in the trailer and I haven't seen her before, but she was actually the most grounded of the bunch), and if I still watched more SNL than the odd clip I think I'd enjoy them all on that. I don't tend to lie an actors performance more or less based on how much ass the fiction character they're playing can kick, Carlos, you prick.
The special effects were perfectly acceptable. I don't think Slimer needed to make such an embarrassing appearance, and neither did any one of the litany of old cast members. They turned up everywhere, usually in boring roles, to look depressed and deliver a snarky line or two before going away again or dying.
The villain of the piece is badly fleshed out too. His main trait is that he's weird, and he does weird well, but that's it. He doesn't get a chance to build a relationship with our protagonists either, as they're both too busy doing their own things for almost the entire movie (part of this is the extended development of the ethereal weaponry scenes, which I quite enjoyed, but they felt like filler nonetheless).
                   
The last little thing is the way the creators repeatedly showed their contempt for the fans of the originals. Maybe don't call them ass holes when they call you out on shitting on the property? It's usually a bad idea to fuck with the fans.
On the whole a fairly bland comedy horror that shamelessly rips off a classic. It's very cosmetic, there are so many little poop jokes and random weird Pringle eating and needless crap shoved in.
                    
Ghostbusters: 24.5