[InChiefsHeaven]

Originally Posted by JD10367

So I was 16 when I saw the original "Ghostbusters" and loved it. In hindsight, rewatching it nowadays, it's an awful movie. Dumb plot, badly written, not much in it really funny. So, comparatively, the new "Ghostbusters" (which I finally saw today) doesn't fare too badly. It's also a pretty awful movie, with a dumb plot, bad writing, and not much in it really funny. It's 100% pointless (as in, there was no point for making this film at all). On the good side, the effects were decent, and Wiig and McCarthy and Leslie Jones were toned-down versions of themselves. Hemsworth was also entertaining as a "dumb blonde" making fun with the reversed stereotype. And Kate McKinnon was definitely the strong point. I agree with a writer who said they were almost too deferential to the original film, treating it like it was "The Godfather" or something (instead of the silly trivial summer comedy it was). They didn't need the gratuitous cameos, the reuse of the song, the reuse of the logo, the reuse of the Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man, the reuse of the little green gobliny ghost, the reuse of the fire station, the... well, you get the point. It's pretty much not a film I would even flip to if it were on television, that's how utterly pointless and forgettable it is.

Not sure how you can say the original was an "awful" movie, but whatever. You are definitely in the minority there.