S.O.S. fantômes

.... to quote a good Columbia (Sony) film from the classic era, trashing the fans before the film even comes out. But that was what Sony did when they got a negative reaction from their trailers and could see the train wreck that was coming that would be the release of this film.

The humor in this film is very forced, broad, and silly, where the original Ghostbusters film featured dry intelligent humor often coming from just who the characters were and how they interacted.

The villain was just awful. He seemed like he was yanked straight out of a cartoon or comic book. The scene at the rock concert - which is shown in trailers - is just goofy. It was like I was watching live action Scooby Doo. Throwing a story into the middle of a concert never really bodes well unless you want to conjure up images of rubber suited turtles doing the 'ninja rap'.

And last but not least, this film has absolutely zero problem defying the rules that are established. Proton beams hold the ghosts, the traps capture them until they're ready to be shoved off into a containment unit. They follow the same rules throughout most of the film, but then near the end, the Ghostbusters start using proton beams as if they were able to destroy ghosts, gunslinger style. What the??

Because there are fans of this franchise going back 35 years, history matters. And this installment just destroyed all of that. This is not the worst film ever made, but it is definitely not worth your time.

What's to say? At this point the movie is so mired in controversy that any opinion on it seems like a political statement more than a movie review. But here we go anyway - I didn't like it. It feels less like a movie with an idea (in this case a recycled one) and more like one of the many subpar comedies we have today where a few comedians who are friends in real life get together and give us two hours of smug back-patting. It offers nothing memorable of its own, just a few reworked things from the original movie, which was a classic with many iconic images and scenes. The only thing anyone will remember about this is the controversy surrounding it. I don't care much for Melissa McCarthy or Leslie Jones but I do like Kristen Wiig and I'm trying very hard to like Kate McKinnon (perhaps too hard). None of these women are impressive here. Chris Hemsworth's character is used too much. It's an obvious joke that doesn't get funnier the more you tell it. Ultimately the problem with this movie isn't that "women aren't funny," so much as comedy writers today are very lazy and uninspired.

I passionately dislike this movie as a Ghostbusters movie. Let alone the fact that it's also a bad movie but it's just- no! Rated higher than Ghostbusters II and they call themselves critics!? Its the worst in the series. Not in a sexist way but they might've created some of the dumbest most boring characters ever. Afterlife, though there isn't much development they still had decent characters (Paul Rudd was good but unfunny) It's just really stupid and to corny. I know Ghostbusters is a comedy series in general but this is just brainless and unfunny mish mash of a generic alien invasion film but with ghosts. . Yeah, it's got some alright ghosts and good VFX but it 50% just recycles the plot of the original! I mean if you "critics" are still gonna give Ghostbusters II a what, like 5? Well at least it has a unique story! It's just like your usual horror/science fiction "Oh look the paranormal is haunting all of the city!" Thing. It just tries to be chaotic and cinematic and you know what!? Its just a disgusting monster mess. Bad humor, unoriginal plot, but some cool ghosts and ghouls!

I'm afraid this is not a good film.

I like some things of it. Some people complain about the CGI but I really think the monsters/phantasm were good and it's the only one thing that is better than the OG (obviously due to tech limitations at that time). I also think some of the scenes at the end work even they are merely a copy of the OG and not better than it. I also liked some of the origin details, like the logo or the song.

However, this film has 4 major issues:

1st, the cast. Leslie Jones is the best one, she knows when to do her thing, when to stop, when to listen, she is funny, it doesn't feel forced. McKinnon is super praised and I get why. Even if I didn't love her role - sometimes it seems she replaced the lack of any substance by weird expressions all the time - she is charismatic and I can clearly see her working very well with a better plot. But then...Melissa McCarthy is so bland here, so insipid, I can't even remember a single take from her. Wigg, on the other hand...I would prefer to forget what I remember. There is one good moment from her (when she met Hemsworth character) but all the rest is super annoying, super unnatural and not funny. Hemsworth's role is funny (in fact, the funniest when it works) and good to see until...it's too repetitive and more of the same.

2nd, the plot/story. I'm still trying to find out how do you want to reboot a classic film with this story to tell. It doesn't make sense. It would work potentially as a stand-alone episode if they decided to create a TV series with 12 episodes per season, as a film is not enough. After 15 minutes, I don't even remember the villain and why he did what he did. I don't understand how things scalated so quickly.

3rd, the editing. What an atrocious thing. This film would work so much better with less 20/25 minutes, with much less stupid (and weak) jokes...sometimes you can even see when they did several takes with scenes not matching from different angles. Yeah, that bad.

"Ghostbusters" (2016), for those of you that might have missed any of my previous reviews, I'm a really big fan of "Ghostbusters" (1984). It's one of my top ten all-time favorite comedy films! However, the ones that came after it were the epitome of unnecessary. That being said, this "movie" is a whole different league. For all the wrong reasons! I've seen some pretty bad reboots and remakes in my life. But, this "film" is easily one of the top ten, if not top five, worst remakes I have ever seen in my life. Just typing about it is enough to make me cringe painfully! I remember when I saw the first teaser trailer. For a second, I thought: "cool! Are they going to bring back the original cast? It's more than likely not going to be as good as the original movie." But then, as soon as I saw the main characters, I said to myself: "wait, who are these people? Where are the Ghostbusters?" Yeah, you can probably already see where this is going. Just from seeing the trailer and knowing that it was going to be a remake, I could tell it was going to be a pile of filthy slime. However, that would be an insult to slime! "Ghostbusters" has a boring and cliched storyline, standard to terrible acting, and an abysmal soundtrack to try and tie this diarrhea stain together. The plot is, ghosts invade New York City and it's up to paranormal enthusiasts Erin Gilbert and Abby Yates, nuclear engineer Jillian Holtzmann, and subway worker Patty Tolan to team up and save the day. Yep, it's about as redundant as it sounds. Seen it! Seriously, if you've seen the original "Ghostbusters" film, then you've seen this one already. It's the exact same story, except the lead characters are played by women. Now, before you get all riled up about me saying that, I'm not going to debate that fact about this "movie", I'm just sticking with the storyline for now. I'll go into more details about the acting in a minute. Any way, the writing and pacing for this "film" is absolutely juvenile and embarrassing. Did no one proof-read the screenplay? It's like they were thinking: "how obnoxious can we make this movie?" Well, they more than succeeded on that fact. There are bad films out there where I cringe while I watch them, and this one is no exception. No more than five minutes went by where I didn't cringe once. I just sat there in depressed silence and awaited the glorious end credits. That's how much I hate this "movie"! It angers me, just as much as it bores me, which are the two worst things any film can do, in my opinion. I did not smile, let alone laugh one single time. Not one time! Bottom line, the people who wrote this script, and the people who green-lit production should really take a brain exam. Come up with some fresh new ideas already! As for the acting, it's overall terrible from the whole cast. Let me just say this, I have nothing against an all-female cast in any movie or TV show. As long as it has a purpose and is entertaining, that's all that matters. Now that being said, casting women as the Ghostbusters was a huge mistake. Their performances do nothing but insult the original film! The sad thing is, this "movie" has a decent cast lineup. I've seen the majority of these actors and actresses in other films, where they do a much better job. They can act, and a lot of them can be funny. So, what happened to them here? It's like director Paul Feig told them to forget about being funny, or putting on a good performance. He just ran the cameras for 116 minutes, and attempted to make a movie out of it. Don't even get me started on the cameos in this "film"! Wow, I can only imagine how humiliated they were when they had to subject themselves to this pile of garbage of a movie. I'm not going to mention their names at all, because I don't want to embarrass them at all. Thankfully, it appears that this "film" didn't ruin their reputations in the movie industry. As far as the soundtrack goes, it's about as abysmal as you can possibly get. There is nothing redeemable about this film score whatsoever. It's about as forgettable as music can be. Congratulations, Theodore Shapiro. You have successfully created one of the most dull soundtracks I've ever heard. To add insult to injury, there are multiple cover versions of the "Ghostbusters" theme. But, the worst one here, is easily the horrible "Ghostbusters" cover version by Fall Out Boy. That song is about as bad as it is pointless. The fact that I can even barely stand this unbearable excuse for a song, is a miracle. Although to be honest, even though the Ray Parker Jr. Version is used here, it still doesn't redeem a thing. If I were to rate film scores, this one would easily be on my top ten worst list, I'm not joking. Any way, why don't we go ahead and move on to the only two good elements in this piece of crap. The only good things are the sets/locations and the special effects. All of the sets/locations are great and give this "film" a decent atmosphere. You can't go wrong with filming your movie in New York City! Finally, as far as the special effects go, they are well-done and still hold up today. Which is no surprise, being released in 2016! "Ghostbusters" is yet another pointless reboot film that nobody asked for. I know I didn't! It's completely unnecessary in every sense of the word. I'm struggling to give this "movie" 2 out of 5 stars on my personal scale, which equates to 4 out of 10 IMDB stars. Just stick with the original "Ghostbusters" film. Even "Ghostbusters II" (1989) is better than this worthless reboot! Beware of this horrible "movie", and all that's affiliated with it. Otherwise, you might turn into a ghost yourself!