Mr. Plinkett reviews Ghostbusters (2016)

[Saul]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I used to look forward to his reviews but this is very poor compared to the stuff he came out with before. Seems a bit of a rushed job. I can understand that the good reviews he made probably took a crap load of time to do but this Ghostbusters review is missing his usual qualities.

He raises good points though and pretty much covers everything that is wrong with the film, over talking, ad libbing, time wasting scenes.

 

[Dream]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

There's no such thing as Ghostbusters (2016). That's the only review you'll need.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I used to look forward to his reviews but this is very poor compared to the stuff he came out with before. Seems a bit of a rushed job. I can understand that the good reviews he made probably took a crap load of time to do but this Ghostbusters review is missing his usual qualities.

He raises good points though and pretty much covers everything that is wrong with the film, over talking, ad libbing, time wasting scenes.

Maybe because there's nothing to deconstruct with this film. It's flaws on on it's sleeves and everyone except the people who worked on the film and the critics who rated it "Certified Fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes acknowledge the film is a dud.

Unlike the RedLetterMedia reviews for the Star Wars Prequels and Titanic for example. Which were financial, critical and public successes. With a vocal minority of detractors before he did his reviews.

No one champions or defends Ghostbusters 2016 and Sony's financial and internal troubles bare out this misadventure to revive a 30 year old IP.

 

[Timby]

No one champions or defends Ghostbusters 2016

I don't think it's a stone-cold classic, but I think it's perfectly enjoyable, particularly the extended cut (which fixes one particularly glaring hole in the third act).

In any event, what a godawful review. It's so nauseatingly hypocritical. So, so much of it is filled with "but it isn't like the original

" and then in the same breath it complains about sticking too close to the original. You can't have it both ways.

And then at the end he pisses and moans at Bill Murray despite Murray being the one voice of reason throughout the 25 years of Sony trying to make GB3. "I'm glad you spent all those years while Harold Ramis was still alive voicing Garfield movies. Fuck you." Um, Ramis couldn't fucking walk for the last five years of his life, you ghoul.

 

[Jax]

No one champions or defends Ghostbusters 2016

I saw the extended version and it was ok at the end of the day. GB1 & GB2 are much better but GB 2016 is not the travesty many claim. I cba with hyperbolic crap coming from some of the over touchy fans and the sexist stuff can definitely fuck off.

As for Plinkett's review, it was awful and not funny in the slightest (their channel is negative about anything, gets tiresome after a while) + his voice makes me sleepy

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I saw the extended version and it was ok at the end of the day. GB1 & GB2 are much better but GB 2016 is not the travesty many claim. I cba with hyperbolic crap coming from some of the over touchy fans and the sexist stuff can definitely fuck off.

As for Plinkett's review, it was awful and not funny in the slightest (their channel is negative about anything, gets tiresome after a while) + his voice makes me sleepy

I saw the regular version and I'd rewatch that over GB 2 any day.

 

[Saul]

I don't think it's a stone-cold classic, but I think it's perfectly enjoyable

Not the worst movie ever as the review claimed. Worth a watch at least.

, particularly the extended cut (which fixes one particularly glaring hole in the third act).

Haven't seen the extended cut yet. I can't imagine it being better even with fixed plot holes.

I saw the regular version and I'd rewatch that over GB 2 any day.

Ghostbusters 2 is a good movie in the same way that Home Alone 2 was enjoyable. It's biggest sin was that it followed the same beats of the first film.

 

[Timby]

Haven't seen the extended cut yet. I can't imagine it being better even with fixed plot holes.

There are some dialogue changes that baffle me, but I can't imagine watching the theatrical cut again. The extended one breathes so much more and the character beats actually make sense.

 

[LJones41]

Another film critic whose opinion I will have no trouble avoiding. Good riddance.

 

[Gaith]

In any event, what a godawful review. It's so nauseatingly hypocritical. So, so much of it is filled with "but it isn't like the original

" and then in the same breath it complains about sticking too close to the original. You can't have it both ways.

He isn't. When he criticizes the movie for being unlike the original, it isn't because of the new characters and different story; it's because, as he demonstrates, the vast majority of jokes are obvious ad-libs that have nothing to do with the movie's theme or genre, and the few good jokes get drowned out by more adlibs. When he complains that it sticks too close to the original, he's critizing the endless re-use of plot points, cameos, and other pointless callbacks, which distract from the new characters. If anything's trying to have it both ways, it's the movie itself, as the review makes clear. Hell, he plays a clip of Paul Feig boasting about having it both ways.

And then at the end he pisses and moans at Bill Murray despite Murray being the one voice of reason throughout the 25 years of Sony trying to make GB3. "I'm glad you spent all those years while Harold Ramis was still alive voicing Garfield movies. Fuck you." Um, Ramis couldn't fucking walk for the last five years of his life, you ghoul.

Obviously, that was an extended joke. Anyone who watches RLM's Half in the Bag reviews understands Stoklassa doesn't actually begrudge Murray not making another Ghostbusters. Mr. Plinkett is a character, not an earnest, irony-free reviewer à la Chris Stuckmann, except with a goofy voice. (And yes, the character is a ghoul - again, that's the joke.)

Anyhow, I recently watched, without having seen either official cut, a fan edit of the extended cut by one TM2YC, re-titled (just for kicks) Ghostbusters III. It trims out half an hour of mostly riffing, as shown in this sample:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

​

It was a passable ~105 minutes of entertainment, but I'm not inclined to watch any version of the movie again, nor am I interested in a follow-up with the same characters, unless Feig and Hemsworth's character were gone, and they were sticking closely to a solid script.

 

[Jayson1]

I found the movie to be really boring but I am one of the few who still wouldn't mind a sequel because the talent is there with the actors. They should just bring in someone else to write and direct it. I would even go as far as sort of pretend the first movie didn't happen. I am also a big fan of them taking it out of New York and use a new setting.

Jason

 

[ichab]

Glad that I never bothered with this one. The trailers didn't sell it for me plus I'm through with reboots. Come up with something original.

 

[MacLeod]

I haven't seen the movie at all, I might watch it when it airs on TV or pick up the DVD or BR when it's cheap but I can't say I'm motivated enough to watch it to go out of my way to watch it.