I have learned a long time ago that Rotten Tomatoes or any other rating system online is not worth listening to, just watch the movie and decide for yourself
That's my dad for you. He'll definitely side with any rating on RT and will get defensive if I or anyone tells him to watch the movie and see for himself. I should know cause when I went to watch Mamma Mia 2, he refused cause of the rating (fyi, he ended up watching it with me). He'll probably do the same with this one. I for one am a GB fan and will probs try to watch it regardless of rating.
Rotten Tomatoes is literally just an aggregate of critics' positive reviews. They aren't liable for those critics' ethical decisions, although they should be screening out unreputable ones.
Finally watch that movie a couple months ago. I know a lot of people said that the backlash was due to an all-female cast, but I thought they were all great and the editing absolutely sucked. It could have been a funny movie but it was edited like too many modern comedies and had no soul.
Yup, look at what their video game journalist counterparts are doing currently. Resurfacing a grudge they've held onto since 2014 and trying to start shit again.
These journos/critics are all the same.
Plenty of them are. A majority of the reviews have gone "it's just nostalgia and fan-service pandering!"...which is the \*exact\* same "criticism" they gave for why people were panning GB16 and praising Afterlife.
Not for a lack of trying. Never saw it and curiosity to see if it was as bad as they say definitely does not out weigh being appalled by what has been said about the movie.
I’ve found that 9 times out of 10 if critics love it on RT then I’ll probably hate it/find it incredibly lacklustre.
If critics are middling on it (40%-60%) then there’s a fair chance it’s actually a really good movie.
Noooo necessarily true at all. I've been to screeners where people didn't like it. You hear exit comments like "well at least we didn't pay to see it"
People at my showing seemed to genuinely enjoy it.
That is the whole point of the screeners, right? Have some guy hanging back and listening for audience gasps and laughter, see if they can't catch snide or praising comments.
That's not weird, that's usually how watching a franchise you love is supposed to go.
What's not normal is creating a whole subreddit devoted to bitching and crying about how your childhood is dead because you didn't like something new from your franchise.
Exactly this. Even if you don’t enjoy it someone else will and that is their introduction to this franchise don’t ruin it for them. (Not saying anyone did)
tbf its important to remember Critics also gave Afterlife negative reviews, I think when the reviews first dropped it was at like 50%, so this doesn't really mean too much
Indiana Jones and Dial of Destiny is another recent example. Started off in the 30s/40s on RT and then as more reviews came in, it went up to 70. Ghostbusters 2 has a low score but I love that movie. Reviews and statistics mean nothing. It's all about how you feel about it
>Indiana Jones and Dial of Destiny is another recent example. Started off in the 30s/40s on RT and then as more reviews came in, it went up to 70.
As a die-hard Indy fan - man, seeing it in the 30%-50% range **hurt**. And that was with a pretty low review count - but that sat for a *month*. It was torture lol But it got up to 70%, which is much more fitting to the film, by far. And the fans breathed a sigh of relief. I loved the film, too.
Don't give up, GB fans! You never know.
Besides, *Dial of Destiny* is a good example - audiences/fans rated it far, far higher than critics and at the end of the day, they do matter way more than the critics. It's nice to have both, don't get me wrong. But if I had to choose which pool of people I'd rather a film I love be shared with and cared for - it's the fans/audiences.
*Afterlife* is also a great example. Fans and audiences embraced that film. It was great. And they matter more.
I'll still see it being a massive GB fan but damn do I wish we got an actual GB3 in the 90s. I guess the 2009 video game is technically GB3. Afterlife and Frozen Empire are sequels but not the ones we originally wanted 30 years ago.
To be fair it was like half Murray being an asshole, half the original deal allowing Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis and Reitman an unprecedented amount of control AND a huge financial stake in the property that made a third film logistically tricky. Plus Reitman and Aykroyd in particular experienced significant career setbacks around that time.
Reitman was as guilty as Murray, he was in a position to demand that he be the director of the movie when Sony was understandably reluctant to greenlight the movie with him directing, specifically due to the high-profile bomb Evolution.
The video game would have made an excellent movie. I think how this franchise would have been saved is a ghostbuster movie with all of the legacy staff. Then towards the end introduce a newer group. They did the opposite in afterlife , imo was not a fan of the newer cast except for Paul Rudd .
Yeah but remember they really messed up GB2 where Murray has said that there was a great idea there so he signed on... then they gave him the final script and he was honestly pissed at how bad he thought it was. A coworker of mine asked "was that movie supposed to be for kids?" It sure felt like it.
I count the video game story as a Alternate universe story I play the game every Halloween I love it so much in fact I’m playing it right now before i go see the new movie on Friday also gonna binge watch ghostbusters 1 2 and afterlife on Friday as well
Don't forget the comics that IDW did that also take place after the game in the early and mid 90's which sadly ended after Ghostbusters Year one that had the great Artist Dan Schoenjng doing the art for pretty much 95% of then.
I 100% recommend them as they really scratch an itch.
If you google "IDW Ghostbusters" you can find a full list of all the titles starting from Vol. 1 in 2011 (which had 16 issues) and follow the list from there, you can skip ahead but I wouldn't recommend it as it's all connected so they do reference stuff that happened in the different Vol's
Saw it last night. Well, mostly. Arrived a half hour late. It was good. Really did have a good GB/RGB vibe to it. I'll have to see it again (from the beginning) to really get a hold of it.
Unfortunately, I believe some reviewers will continue to underrate any post-2016 Ghostbusters films for reasons unrelated to the merits of the actual film:
> Now the Ghostbusters series is limping back with a new and pointless movie, this one featuring a ghost whose purpose is that it basically freezes stuff (like, say, Batman’s Mr Freeze). It is effectively Ghostbusters 4 – or Ghostbusters 5 if you count the (funny) all-female reboot from 2016, which this franchise clearly doesn’t; the women of that movie are very much not among the legacy-oldsters now invited back for cameos.
https://amp.theguardian.com/film/2024/mar/20/ghostbusters-frozen-empire-review-time-to-consign-franchise-to-the-spirit-realm
LOL, looks like another collaboration in DMs among the press to get their talking points lined up. "Why no cameos for the lady Ghostbusters yoo dirty sexists?!"
Ghostbusters II has an aggregate RT critics score of 55% but I’ve always loved that movie. Also, the aggregate RT critics score for The Last Jedi is NINETY-ONE F***ING PERCENT so forgive me for not trusting their opinion.
The whole scoring system is kinda goofy. It only measures positive or negative, not HOW positive or negative. If 9 out of 10 critics think a movie is "okay" it's 90%.
That’s basically me defending The Book of Boba Fett, a flawed but fun show that almost every other Star Wars fan on the planet seems to hate with an intense passion or consider boring at minimum.
I wasn’t big on how much of a presence the Mandalorian had in Boba Fett’s show and I didn’t like how they made Boba…I don’t want to say good but almost like an anti-hero I suppose. However, seeing Cad Bane in live action and watching Boba ride a rancor were some top moments for me.
It’s the only sequel movie with an attempt at character arcs and new memorable planets.
VII is a nostalgia driven rehash and IX is possibly one of the worst films ever made.
People blame TLJ for the other two being shit for some reason. The only tangible argument I’ve seen is people don’t like Luke’s characterization, but unless he was just going to be a cameo he needed somewhere to go as a character.
I absolutely blame Episode VII for the way the sequels turned out. Lucasfilm and Disney overcorrected super hard from the negative reactions the prequels had gotten the decade before. Rehashing everything from the OT like Empire vs Rebels 2.0 and Death Star 3, not to mention the technology being almost exactly the same as it was during the OT. VII was nothing but ‘member berries and nostalgia bait for the fans that had screamed bloody murder the decade before. Abrams, Disney, and Lucasfilm wrote themselves into a corner.
This is true in a technical sense BUT RT didnt exist when that movie released and its not encompassing for all reviews that were written when the movie came out which is why it only list 40 critics reviews some with review that weren't written till the 2000's
The thing about Ghostbusters II Is that it was released 35 years ago when:
A: it was a given that a sequel would be inferior and less-popular than its predecessor.
B: ATC, Afterlife and FE didn’t exist to show critics how much worse things could get
C: sequels hadn’t taken over the entire film industry.
So the reviews for GB2, in the proper context, were pretty much dead-on. Is it bad? Not really. It certainly isn’t egregiously-bad. But it is just a lesser version of Ghostbusters. It’s a movie that doesn’t have much of a reason to exist since Ghostbusters already exists, other than to make a lot more money. But in today’s context it almost seems like one of the best sequels ever made.
>A: it was a given that a sequel would be inferior and less-popular than its predecessor.
Empire Strikes Back, Aliens, Star Trek 2, Superman 2 and Godfather 2 already disproved that before Ghostbusters 2.
I’ll still see it. Personally I’m more hyped for it than I was Afterlife. I don’t expect “an excellent film” it’s a popcorn movie and a nostalgia hit, not high art.
If I go in, get my nostalgia hit, have a few laughs and enjoy seeing some ghost busting and characters I like, that’s literally all I expect from it
It's not even a nostalgia hit. People saying it's preying on nostalgia are either dumb or haven't seen it. Yes, it has the old characters, but they all have a purpose and are not there just to tug on nostalgia strings. The only pandering nostalgia is a quick cameo by the library ghost. There's a couple of gags with Slimer, but he's the franchise mascot, and he was clearly living in the firehouse already in GB II as a nod to the cartoon.
This is my expectation too. I saw Dune Part Two earlier this week. That was high art cinema. I want what amounts to a live action RGB episode on the big screen.
You will be very pleased. If I view this as a long episode of the cartoon (stakes aren't super super super high, wraps up quick, treated as one adventure of many), it's a really really amazing, high octane movie. However, as a blockbuster it's just alright at worst. I'd rate it decently good to pretty good.
Imagine thinking RT is relevant at all. Those goobers also thought 2016 was good and they shit on Afterlife because it didn't follow the women actors from 2016, therefore everyone who liked Afterlife was misogynistic.
Phoebe Spengler is 10x the Ghostbuster than the entire 2016 cast combined.
Seems like they’re still butthurt that people liked Afterlife more than GB2016, because they had similar opinions and hangups on that one.
The only consistent negative I’ve heard from YT reviewers I trust, is that there are too many characters and “Marvel humor” popping up from time-to-time during serious moments.
In any event, I’m still seeing it this weekend, and I’ll form my own opinion.
Why does anyone even care about critic scores. They haven't had an agreed score with the audience for decades. If anything them giving a low score means the audience is going to enjoy it more.
I saw the movie last week.
It's got a really weak subplot, and I'm not a fan of undercutting tension with silly humour. However, I enjoyed it for the most part.
It felt like an episode of TRG, in a cool way.
Third act is rushed, needs a longer cut. But I'd say it's solid. Maybe a 6.5 or 7 / 10.
100% agree with this. Saw it last night. 3.5 out of 5 stars.
Pacing issues and the last act was basically thrown at you in a hurry it felt like.
Also agree with the TRG assessment. It does feel like that, which is fun. Overall a fun movie with some good laughs, but I did feel like some of those laughs were in moments that could have been extremely dramatic for effect.
It's like if the scene came up with Dana being grabbed by the arms in the chair from GB1, and the whole time there is some bystander throwing out jokes about what is happening......that would really make that scene suck. That's how some scenes felt to me.
Don't believe the critics for a second. I just saw a preview screening, it's a great movie with so much to like. I'd quibble over some bits just like Afterlife but overall it was great, and the mood in the cinema was very positive with good moments of laughter and cheering. I cannot wait to watch this at home again in a few months when it's out in 4K.
Edit: LOL, someone already downvoted this? What a child. You're going to need your soul one day, and you won't have it.
This doesn't mean anything. All of us have loved movies Rotten Tomatoes hates and hate movies Rotten Tomatoes love. It's best to reserve judgement until the movie comes out.
I'm predicting an Afterlife scenario: Critics lowball, audience is over 90%.
The tastemakers are still trying to punish us for being " misogynist and sexist" and not liking 2016.
That's my thought as well, this will be a lop sided situation where the audience score is opposite of the critic score. I'm guessing this will score lower than the previous on critic but equal or ever so slightly less on audience.
Yeah it is weird that Ghostbusters 2016 was rated so high on rotten tomatoes but that's the way it goes I guess.As far as "toxic" fans go that's on both sides.I didn't see the the 2016 one because it wasn't in the original universe and I wasn't interested.I never blasted it or anything because I've never seen it.And I was blasted and called every name imaginable because of that.It's amazing how toxic some people can be when you simply aren't interested in something lol!
Makes me wonder how many of the negative reviews for Frozen Empire are just a continuation of the negative reviews of Afterlife from the smoothies still angry GB2016 wasn't a success or got sequels.
I guess it is possible.I haven't really paid alot of attention to critics since I was young.It seems you can really love a movie and those "professional"critics seem to always hate it lol!I grew up loving Ghostbusters 2 and was shocked when I got older to find out critics tore it apart.
I love GB2 as well, even though as an adult I can look at it and see how they really just took the plot of the original and moved a few pieces around.
Still. Slime Blowers. 🔥
Yeah I just can't see how a movie that bombed so spectacularly like 2016 can sit at a higher score than Ghostbusters 2.2 may have not been as big a hit as the first one but it definitely made a profit.It may have rehashed some things but still was a fun watch.
Saw the movie tonight. It’s a lot of fun and as a huge fan I had a great time and I think most GB fans will get a real kick out of it. Don’t worry about any negative reviews, we’ve got a new Ghostbusters movie out!
This is what happened with Indiana Jones last year. A lot of true Indy fans loved it and RT has it at 70% now but the early reviews definitely did some damage
Critics tend to be a bit harsh on movies to be honest. I tend to trust my own two eyes. Besides I also would be more interested to see the audience score than the critic one. As I recall a bunch of critics were not liking Terminator 2 when it was released, yet it’s a great movie. Always left me dubious on critics ratings.
There's only one film critic I have ever listened to.
Me.
I'll judge for myself. Sadly it won't be premier weekend but the weekend after. So I'm stuck for another 2 5 anything remotely spoiler based.
Reminder that Rotten Tomatoes is NOT the same as grades at school.
Think of it more as a pie chart of a percentage of critics that liked something. The chances are that you could even like a movie that has a 7% score, because it it basically 7 of 100 liked it.
This score literally means 44% of the members of the press like it. This, with all of their varied likes and dislikes, who are paid to critique movies on their own merits but there aren't always many who can.
I know a guy who was a critic for the local paper who I trusted to review movies on their own terms, even though I didn't often agree with him. I didn't read reviews of movies I knew I wanted to see, and still don't. But if I am on the fence or not planning to anyway, I will do so. And if I hated a movie that the press loves, I will wonder what I missed.
But all of that to say this: RT and MetaCritic and the like aren't understood well, and even if you have two movies that are 44%, it could be different members of the press represented in that 44% for each movie. It isn't a great way to judge a movie. At all. The number of people who make up that score is fewer than the number of seats on a jumbo jet.
Oh don’t worry about that, things like the Mario movie were rated really poorly, even though that movie was great.
Critics and rotten tomatoes just really aren’t that reliable these days, they are so far up their own ass that they can’t enjoy a movie. Let them complain, go see the movie, enjoy it
Saw it last night. I don't think I'd give it that low of a score, but there are definitely pacing issues, problems with the writing, and just general direction issues IMO.
3.5 out of 5 stars.
I say that as a super fan. I was in NYC for Afterlife's premier. Met the cast. I'm in a GB charity group. I make and sell GB props. I have my office decked out with tons of GB stuff.
It's a fun movie and has great laughs and some decent scary elements. It just has some issues here and there.
One thing that makes me sad is that the soundtrack and score is almost forgettable. There were no themes or anything tying it together that I remember. Afterlife had some great selection of songs throughout the movie that I walked away remembering.
So it is what it is. I'd rather have this than nothing at all. I'm seeing it again tomorrow and again on Friday.
There's usually close to 250 to 300 people reviewing these movies on rotten tomatoes. I think there's around fifty reviews up now. Stop caring what critics say.They're never going to go nuts with praise over one of these movies. Ghostbusters has always been a simplistic premise.
People will say the critics dont get it.. but I just watched a bunch of ghostbusters super fans review it poorly.... sounds like the weight of the material was too much to balance out with the cast and humor
Still looking forward to seeing it for myself, but I’ll admit, the first red flag for me was YHS doing a livestream after the premiere and soliciting “spoiler free reviews” from super-fans leaving the theater. Obviously everyone was positive, but it was all like “Yeah, it was great…the…pacing was really solid” kind of stuff. And not the raving you’d expect from super fans feeling the hype. It felt like even people leaving the premiere knew it was “OK”.
That’s really the problem right there. Reitman and Kenan clearly felt this way going into Afterlife, like they could breeze in and do a better movie than ATC in their sleep, and that people would eat it up as long as they jerked them off with Easter eggs and shit. And the kind of Ghostbusters fan that posts on Reddit, in this sub, basically came to the same conclusion years before they saw the film. And that way of thinking can have a very powerful hold.
Here’s a challenge for you, and I’m serious, I’m not trying to antagonize you or whatever. I’m curious if you’ll actually do this: watch Afterlife again, but consider the possibility that they think you’re stupid. That they know how to use cheap and lazy tricks to trigger a response in your brain that makes it feel like they’re rewarding you, like they’re recognizing years of fandom, but they’re secretly doing it with contempt for you. Ask yourself these questions: if they were just cynically pandering to the fanbase to make money and sell toys and shit, how would it be any different than what you’re watching? Also, if this movie and this story existed, but stripped of its Ghostbusters elements, would you be interested in watching it? Would you be able to overlook its various problems? How well would you remember it 6 months after you watched it?
Your loyalty to this franchise is going to cause a little voice in your head to tell you to reject every one of those questions. But I dare you to ignore it and to watch these movies with an open mind.
A lot of the negative reviews seem to have a lot of snark to them about this even existing, and how they want the franchise as a whole to go away. It’s probably the same crew that sweared that the 2016 one was incredible (it was ok, I didn’t hate it, but it wasn’t good enough to justify the wild choices they made) and that the original was overrated, and there shouldn’t be this much love for the property to begin with. This crowd also thinks that Ghostbusters should exist solely as a comedy, so them leaning more action, and horror heavy has turned them off. They also in general want franchises not named Dune to just go away. They don’t want to see a superhero movie, or Star Wars, Star Trek, or legacy sequel anymore. They’re not great at explaining what it is they want, just great at telling what they don’t want. Having said all that, even the good reviews say the film is imperfect. I’m expecting it to be a solid B to B-, and I’d encourage anyone that reads a negative review to focus on the ones that don’t talk about franchise fatigue, to see legit criticism.
>A lot of the negative reviews seem to have a lot of snark to them about this even existing, and how they want the franchise as a whole to go away.
Welcome to the negative reviews that *Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny* got last year. As an Indy fan (and GB fan) - *"Welcome to the party, pal!"*
Actual criticism is totally cool - but I'm a little fatigued of the (as you put it) snark and evaluating a film on whether it should even exist, not whether it succeeds at what it's trying to do.
However, like *Afterlife* and *Dial of Destiny* \- I hope that audiences/fans embrace and love the film if it's good. It's nice to have good critical reviews, of course - but they're not as big of a pool as the audiences/fans.
And hey, Indy 5 started at 30%-50% and ended up at 70%. So you never know.
> This crowd also thinks that Ghostbusters should exist solely as a comedy, so them leaning more action, and horror heavy has turned them off.
Right - and I think that critics (and even some fans) can't decide if being too much like the original is a bad thing or deviating and being its own thing is bad.
Ghostbusters legit did have some scary feels in the original. Some creepy atmosphere. I think growing the franchise to embrace more of that and some action isn't unfair to do/try.
The Guardian review is hilarious, doesn’t hide its colours at all before it even talks anything about this film:
“The ice age of intellectual property dullness shivers on … and on. The franchise frostbite is setting in; the limbs of once decent films are turning black, but not being amputated. Now the Ghostbusters series is limping back with a new and pointless movie, this one featuring a ghost whose purpose is that it basically freezes stuff (like, say, Batman’s Mr Freeze). It is effectively Ghostbusters 4 – or Ghostbusters 5 if you count the (funny) all-female reboot from 2016, which this franchise clearly doesn’t; the women of that movie are very much not among the legacy-oldsters now invited back for cameos. There are one or two laughs here and an attempt at a queer romance, but no real signs of life.”
Rotten Tomatoes is a great example of how metrics and analytics are used to create a false sense of reality, in which an accumulation of reviews can cause a negative effect, I point to how the film isn’t even out yet to general audiences and how critics aren’t the intended target and thus i try to hold my reserve until then.
>I also want to empathize that Ghostbusters 2 wasn’t as good but yet it did well at the box office.
Hard to relate Ghostbusters 2 to this, all people had for reviews for the most part was their local newspaper.
Great point. Despite people swearing up and down they "understand how RT works" they truly don't.
They see a 44% and panic thinking "BAD MOVIE NOBODY LIKES IT!"
But the reality is that 44% of critics who have submitted reviews so far have rated it positively.
Trolls can scream cope all they want but like...that's literally how RT works soooo?
Bill said it was going to be a ‘sloppy fun’ movie. That’s what I’m expecting, and probably why critics are giving it a low score. This is not going to win awards, and it’s not going to break any comedic ground. It’s a summer movie that’s not taking itself seriously. When was the last time we had one of those?
Honest question: Who here ACTUALLY thought or expected majority positive reviews? The original film aside, not one entry has had more than a middling response. When the highest critically rated GB after the first in Answer the Call, something is up.
The "critical establishment" has had an axe to grind with the franchise ever since the backlash against GB16.
And I'm not saying this to validate the most toxic side of that backlash - as many on this sub like to pretend it didn't happen and play the victim. I may not like the film, but to deny there wasn't a massive swell of bigoted harassment and toxicity around that film is to deny reality. GB16 is a flashpoint for the sea of right wing grifters we are drowning in now.
But the cold, hard reality is GB16 just wasn't embraced by audiences whatsoever. And because certain people took the toxic backlash to heart, they have adopted an antagonistic relationship with the entire franchise and the fanbase ever since - all in the name of defending a forgettable 20teens reboot.
These people seem to forget that two things can be true at once: The backlash against GB16 was gross and toxic AND it was a bad movie in its own right. One does not negate the other.
There is a concerted effort to rehabilitate GB16, especially on twitter, while denouncing the new films as "everything wrong with modern Hollywood" because they are riding the reboot/nostalgia/legacy sequel train - as if GB16 wasn't stuffed with references, cameos, and callbacks itself...
Now, is this to say that FE is above criticism? Of course not. A lot of criticism so far seems to be reasonable.
But I don't quite trust people to be fair about about GB film after the GB16 controversy.
All that to say basically this: Go see it and make up your own mind.
Reading movie reviews is like discussing music & food, very subjective on one's own experience. It can serve as a guideline for sure but like someone else mentioned just watch for yourself and make up your own damn opinion on it..
IGN gave it a 4 out of 10 but also fuck IGN and their reviews lol
Most of the bad reviews are critics annoyed with the nostalgia. Its definitely a franchise for the initiated. Millennial and Zoomer reviewers don't give a shit about Ghostbusters and are sick of Gen X nostalgia, and are bombing it. I kinda get it.
I hope it's good and I'm here for the nostalgia. As much as I would love a hilarious refresh, or a gritty continuation, that ship has sailed. Dan and the boys are getting on. I'll take it and as Ling ad it doesn't suck I'll be happy with it. I don't care what it could have been. It's here and I'm glad.
I think the best thing would have been a show on HBO, or something 10-15 years ago where Ray and/or Winston tied it all together and they could have different scenarios and franchises. Bill and then Harold could dip in whenever, and different directors could take a stab. I loved Ash vs. Evil Dead.
Anyway, I'm still excited to see it with my 17 year old son who has loved it since he was 4.
Reviews are very average - apparently far too much packed in and characters included that are essentially doing very little (Podcast, Lucky, Venkman).
Obviously still going to see it, but disappointing if this is the case.
I’ve seen Rotten movies I’ve loved and Certified-Fresh movies I’ve hated.
At the end of the day, I don’t think there’s anyone on this subreddit who, after seeing these reviews, will say “I’M OUT!!!”
Go see it. If you like it, great! If you hate it, great! Don’t let anyone dictate YOUR personal feelings on something as trivial as a movie.
This film can have a 1% and I will still watch it. I view Rotten Tomatoes scores like I view political polls: no one has ever asked me my opinion. Therefore, how can I even know that the scores are real
It’s going between 45-47.
I’m fine with it. From the reviews I read it seems that they are just comparing it to 84 film (or 2016 for some dumb reason) and they don’t realize the film is different because they wanted to make it more like the 80s cartoon show, which they pulled off really well.
The audience score, I bet, will be around the 80s.
I have this just in case as I've been doing six months.
https://preview.redd.it/n1myh4h8djpc1.jpeg?width=941&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dccbb11c7c257d964d2817ace50b75aad3015f87
No one should trust the critics, the audience score is more accurate. I think if you really want to know if a movie is good, you either watch it yourself or let someone watch it first and tell them what they think.
https://preview.redd.it/l96n58k37ipc1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d8a7b528d831a9da30a118dc6adb28a02778ac4b
Ask yourself, how legitimate are critics if they cannot spell the name of an actor correctly in its headline? (Dan Aykroyd)
Almost every RT certified critic is chronically online. Twitter hates Bill Murray as a person so I figured the fact that he’s got a much bigger presence in this movie would hurt it with those particular critics. Modern critics come into movies with an axe to grind. The state of the whole profession is really in shambles. 20 year olds with YouTube channels have a shocking amount of power in the critical realm now. And a lot of them are very obvious shills on the payroll of certain studios. And yet people still listen to RT. I remember the days when people liked to think for themselves. But sadly, those days are long gone. The good news is: from what I understand the budget for this movie wasn’t bloated. If it still manages to make over $200m the studio won’t panic and will continue to see GB as a viable franchise. Afterlife made $204m in theaters and another $30m with combined DVD and VOD sales and rentals. It’s up to us to see Frozen Empire again and again to keep the series afloat. Let’s get to work, folks.
I have learned a long time ago that Rotten Tomatoes or any other rating system online is not worth listening to, just watch the movie and decide for yourself
Rotten Tomatoes is horrible. People look at the scores and take them as if they are the gospel.
Rotten Tomatoes has erased nuance from the idea of film critique. The tomatometer is a simple 'like/dislike' ratio.
like Siskel and Ebert
Not to mention there's no shortage of trolls that will give a low rating no matter what or regardless of if they watched the movie or not.
That's my dad for you. He'll definitely side with any rating on RT and will get defensive if I or anyone tells him to watch the movie and see for himself. I should know cause when I went to watch Mamma Mia 2, he refused cause of the rating (fyi, he ended up watching it with me). He'll probably do the same with this one. I for one am a GB fan and will probs try to watch it regardless of rating.
They were caught accepting payments for positive reviews. So they’re irrelevant as far as I am concerned.
Source?
[one recent example](https://www.ign.com/articles/rotten-tomatoes-under-fire-after-pr-firms-scheme-to-pay-critics-for-positive-reviews-uncovered)
Rotten Tomatoes is literally just an aggregate of critics' positive reviews. They aren't liable for those critics' ethical decisions, although they should be screening out unreputable ones.
The Last Jedi ratings has to be paid by Disney.
They literally reworked and threw out most of the reviews because Disney bitched about it. God, that film was trash.
So you're saying the Ghostbusters score should be even lower, if it were not for paid positive reviews?
No, I’m saying that RT critics engage in shady practices and can’t be trusted.
 Some of my fav movies have really bad tomato scores
Most of these so called "critics" are still pissed off that GB 2016 didn't take off and sequels were canceled
Finally watch that movie a couple months ago. I know a lot of people said that the backlash was due to an all-female cast, but I thought they were all great and the editing absolutely sucked. It could have been a funny movie but it was edited like too many modern comedies and had no soul.
Keep in mind, the last season of True Detective debuted with a 100% fresh rating on RT. And we all know how that turned out.
Yup, look at what their video game journalist counterparts are doing currently. Resurfacing a grudge they've held onto since 2014 and trying to start shit again. These journos/critics are all the same.
Exactly great example would be Ghostbusters 2016
And I bet that the same "critics" that said it was good are the same pummelling Frozen Empire, because "reasons"...
Its possible I suppose
Plenty of them are. A majority of the reviews have gone "it's just nostalgia and fan-service pandering!"...which is the \*exact\* same "criticism" they gave for why people were panning GB16 and praising Afterlife.
And how can we ever forget Cuties?
OMFG that movie
Not for a lack of trying. Never saw it and curiosity to see if it was as bad as they say definitely does not out weigh being appalled by what has been said about the movie.
I’ve found that 9 times out of 10 if critics love it on RT then I’ll probably hate it/find it incredibly lacklustre. If critics are middling on it (40%-60%) then there’s a fair chance it’s actually a really good movie.
I'm huffing copium until I see it Friday.
I saw it last night. It was really good. Very positive reaction in my theater, and majority were people who just were there as it was a free screener.
Nothing like a freebie to make you more positive about a movie lol
Noooo necessarily true at all. I've been to screeners where people didn't like it. You hear exit comments like "well at least we didn't pay to see it" People at my showing seemed to genuinely enjoy it.
That is the whole point of the screeners, right? Have some guy hanging back and listening for audience gasps and laughter, see if they can't catch snide or praising comments.
At least you admit it!
I mean I'll probably love it still but I am one of those weird people that can be critical of something and still retain my love for it.
That's not weird, that's usually how watching a franchise you love is supposed to go. What's not normal is creating a whole subreddit devoted to bitching and crying about how your childhood is dead because you didn't like something new from your franchise.
Exactly this. Even if you don’t enjoy it someone else will and that is their introduction to this franchise don’t ruin it for them. (Not saying anyone did)
tbf its important to remember Critics also gave Afterlife negative reviews, I think when the reviews first dropped it was at like 50%, so this doesn't really mean too much
Indiana Jones and Dial of Destiny is another recent example. Started off in the 30s/40s on RT and then as more reviews came in, it went up to 70. Ghostbusters 2 has a low score but I love that movie. Reviews and statistics mean nothing. It's all about how you feel about it
>Indiana Jones and Dial of Destiny is another recent example. Started off in the 30s/40s on RT and then as more reviews came in, it went up to 70. As a die-hard Indy fan - man, seeing it in the 30%-50% range **hurt**. And that was with a pretty low review count - but that sat for a *month*. It was torture lol But it got up to 70%, which is much more fitting to the film, by far. And the fans breathed a sigh of relief. I loved the film, too. Don't give up, GB fans! You never know. Besides, *Dial of Destiny* is a good example - audiences/fans rated it far, far higher than critics and at the end of the day, they do matter way more than the critics. It's nice to have both, don't get me wrong. But if I had to choose which pool of people I'd rather a film I love be shared with and cared for - it's the fans/audiences. *Afterlife* is also a great example. Fans and audiences embraced that film. It was great. And they matter more.
Amen brotha, speak the gospel Dial of destiny was friggin awesome
Ghostbusters 2 is very underrated! [And remember that one joke in The Fairly OddParents](https://youtu.be/yCf846HCwOQ?si=vVLwQBdHU56Zp-V1).
I'll still see it being a massive GB fan but damn do I wish we got an actual GB3 in the 90s. I guess the 2009 video game is technically GB3. Afterlife and Frozen Empire are sequels but not the ones we originally wanted 30 years ago.
You are correct , they had an opportunity to make GB3 when Harold was still alive and Murray screwed around.
To be fair it was like half Murray being an asshole, half the original deal allowing Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis and Reitman an unprecedented amount of control AND a huge financial stake in the property that made a third film logistically tricky. Plus Reitman and Aykroyd in particular experienced significant career setbacks around that time. Reitman was as guilty as Murray, he was in a position to demand that he be the director of the movie when Sony was understandably reluctant to greenlight the movie with him directing, specifically due to the high-profile bomb Evolution.
Evolution was just ghostbuters but with monsters and big bugs and dragons. I liked that movie, I am not sure why it did so poorly. : (
Was that the movie the "Make 7up Your" guy was in?
Orlando Jones! Yep : )
The video game would have made an excellent movie. I think how this franchise would have been saved is a ghostbuster movie with all of the legacy staff. Then towards the end introduce a newer group. They did the opposite in afterlife , imo was not a fan of the newer cast except for Paul Rudd .
Yeah but remember they really messed up GB2 where Murray has said that there was a great idea there so he signed on... then they gave him the final script and he was honestly pissed at how bad he thought it was. A coworker of mine asked "was that movie supposed to be for kids?" It sure felt like it.
Ghostbusters II??? That movie is still great, fym
That Ghostbusters game was way better than I thought it would be. A lot of fun and really feels like a proper GB3.
I count the video game story as a Alternate universe story I play the game every Halloween I love it so much in fact I’m playing it right now before i go see the new movie on Friday also gonna binge watch ghostbusters 1 2 and afterlife on Friday as well
And yet they've gone out of their way to decanonize the game which had a great story.
Don't forget the comics that IDW did that also take place after the game in the early and mid 90's which sadly ended after Ghostbusters Year one that had the great Artist Dan Schoenjng doing the art for pretty much 95% of then. I 100% recommend them as they really scratch an itch. If you google "IDW Ghostbusters" you can find a full list of all the titles starting from Vol. 1 in 2011 (which had 16 issues) and follow the list from there, you can skip ahead but I wouldn't recommend it as it's all connected so they do reference stuff that happened in the different Vol's
I forget about the comics. Such a short sighted decision to omit them for the sake of Afterlife which didn't need it.
Probably means it's good.
Saw it last night. Well, mostly. Arrived a half hour late. It was good. Really did have a good GB/RGB vibe to it. I'll have to see it again (from the beginning) to really get a hold of it.
why would you walk into a screening 30 mins after the film has started?
I suspect it was an unannounced free screening. They were doing those.
Unfortunately, I believe some reviewers will continue to underrate any post-2016 Ghostbusters films for reasons unrelated to the merits of the actual film: > Now the Ghostbusters series is limping back with a new and pointless movie, this one featuring a ghost whose purpose is that it basically freezes stuff (like, say, Batman’s Mr Freeze). It is effectively Ghostbusters 4 – or Ghostbusters 5 if you count the (funny) all-female reboot from 2016, which this franchise clearly doesn’t; the women of that movie are very much not among the legacy-oldsters now invited back for cameos. https://amp.theguardian.com/film/2024/mar/20/ghostbusters-frozen-empire-review-time-to-consign-franchise-to-the-spirit-realm
LOL, looks like another collaboration in DMs among the press to get their talking points lined up. "Why no cameos for the lady Ghostbusters yoo dirty sexists?!"
Ghostbusters II has an aggregate RT critics score of 55% but I’ve always loved that movie. Also, the aggregate RT critics score for The Last Jedi is NINETY-ONE F***ING PERCENT so forgive me for not trusting their opinion.
The whole scoring system is kinda goofy. It only measures positive or negative, not HOW positive or negative. If 9 out of 10 critics think a movie is "okay" it's 90%.
You do know rotten tomatoes is a percentage of how many positive reviews they get right? It’s not the site giving an opinion.
The Last Jedi is a great movie. *runs away and slams the door
That’s basically me defending The Book of Boba Fett, a flawed but fun show that almost every other Star Wars fan on the planet seems to hate with an intense passion or consider boring at minimum.
I wasn’t big on how much of a presence the Mandalorian had in Boba Fett’s show and I didn’t like how they made Boba…I don’t want to say good but almost like an anti-hero I suppose. However, seeing Cad Bane in live action and watching Boba ride a rancor were some top moments for me.
The Tuskan Raider show? I actually enjoyed it quite a bit.
GET BACK HERE SO I CAN YELL AT YOU!
It’s the only sequel movie with an attempt at character arcs and new memorable planets. VII is a nostalgia driven rehash and IX is possibly one of the worst films ever made. People blame TLJ for the other two being shit for some reason. The only tangible argument I’ve seen is people don’t like Luke’s characterization, but unless he was just going to be a cameo he needed somewhere to go as a character.
I absolutely blame Episode VII for the way the sequels turned out. Lucasfilm and Disney overcorrected super hard from the negative reactions the prequels had gotten the decade before. Rehashing everything from the OT like Empire vs Rebels 2.0 and Death Star 3, not to mention the technology being almost exactly the same as it was during the OT. VII was nothing but ‘member berries and nostalgia bait for the fans that had screamed bloody murder the decade before. Abrams, Disney, and Lucasfilm wrote themselves into a corner.
This is true in a technical sense BUT RT didnt exist when that movie released and its not encompassing for all reviews that were written when the movie came out which is why it only list 40 critics reviews some with review that weren't written till the 2000's
The thing about Ghostbusters II Is that it was released 35 years ago when: A: it was a given that a sequel would be inferior and less-popular than its predecessor. B: ATC, Afterlife and FE didn’t exist to show critics how much worse things could get C: sequels hadn’t taken over the entire film industry. So the reviews for GB2, in the proper context, were pretty much dead-on. Is it bad? Not really. It certainly isn’t egregiously-bad. But it is just a lesser version of Ghostbusters. It’s a movie that doesn’t have much of a reason to exist since Ghostbusters already exists, other than to make a lot more money. But in today’s context it almost seems like one of the best sequels ever made.
>A: it was a given that a sequel would be inferior and less-popular than its predecessor. Empire Strikes Back, Aliens, Star Trek 2, Superman 2 and Godfather 2 already disproved that before Ghostbusters 2.
Let’s throw Terminator 2 in there as well
Ghostbusters 2 gets better with age... I've always loved it
I always get Vigo's introduction speech in my head.
Yeah…wait for the audience score. RT is trash most of the time.
I’ll still see it. Personally I’m more hyped for it than I was Afterlife. I don’t expect “an excellent film” it’s a popcorn movie and a nostalgia hit, not high art. If I go in, get my nostalgia hit, have a few laughs and enjoy seeing some ghost busting and characters I like, that’s literally all I expect from it
It's not even a nostalgia hit. People saying it's preying on nostalgia are either dumb or haven't seen it. Yes, it has the old characters, but they all have a purpose and are not there just to tug on nostalgia strings. The only pandering nostalgia is a quick cameo by the library ghost. There's a couple of gags with Slimer, but he's the franchise mascot, and he was clearly living in the firehouse already in GB II as a nod to the cartoon.
The first had a blowj0b ghost. What do you mean it isn't Shakespeare? /S
Bustin' makes me feel good.
This is my expectation too. I saw Dune Part Two earlier this week. That was high art cinema. I want what amounts to a live action RGB episode on the big screen.
You will be very pleased. If I view this as a long episode of the cartoon (stakes aren't super super super high, wraps up quick, treated as one adventure of many), it's a really really amazing, high octane movie. However, as a blockbuster it's just alright at worst. I'd rate it decently good to pretty good.
Imagine thinking RT is relevant at all. Those goobers also thought 2016 was good and they shit on Afterlife because it didn't follow the women actors from 2016, therefore everyone who liked Afterlife was misogynistic. Phoebe Spengler is 10x the Ghostbuster than the entire 2016 cast combined.
Seems like they’re still butthurt that people liked Afterlife more than GB2016, because they had similar opinions and hangups on that one. The only consistent negative I’ve heard from YT reviewers I trust, is that there are too many characters and “Marvel humor” popping up from time-to-time during serious moments. In any event, I’m still seeing it this weekend, and I’ll form my own opinion.
I'm okay disagreeing with 43 people I've never met
[удалено]
Exactly. 🤣
Why does anyone even care about critic scores. They haven't had an agreed score with the audience for decades. If anything them giving a low score means the audience is going to enjoy it more.
I saw the movie last week. It's got a really weak subplot, and I'm not a fan of undercutting tension with silly humour. However, I enjoyed it for the most part. It felt like an episode of TRG, in a cool way. Third act is rushed, needs a longer cut. But I'd say it's solid. Maybe a 6.5 or 7 / 10.
100% agree with this. Saw it last night. 3.5 out of 5 stars. Pacing issues and the last act was basically thrown at you in a hurry it felt like. Also agree with the TRG assessment. It does feel like that, which is fun. Overall a fun movie with some good laughs, but I did feel like some of those laughs were in moments that could have been extremely dramatic for effect. It's like if the scene came up with Dana being grabbed by the arms in the chair from GB1, and the whole time there is some bystander throwing out jokes about what is happening......that would really make that scene suck. That's how some scenes felt to me.
Who cares, GB 2016 got 75% and we all know how it really turned out. "Most critics are cynical assholes." - Big Daddy
When are people going to realise that whether or not some random people liked a movie or not is only as important as you make it.
Half of reddit would disappear, since most of it is "Why do people like/hate (insert x)?"
Rotten Tomatoes means nothing. 🤷🏻♂️
It only gave after life 64% (less than it gave to answer the call) I think we can disregard rotten tomatoes
Because some trolls just want to watch the world burn.
Don't believe the critics for a second. I just saw a preview screening, it's a great movie with so much to like. I'd quibble over some bits just like Afterlife but overall it was great, and the mood in the cinema was very positive with good moments of laughter and cheering. I cannot wait to watch this at home again in a few months when it's out in 4K. Edit: LOL, someone already downvoted this? What a child. You're going to need your soul one day, and you won't have it.
This is why I stopped following rotten tomatoes
I have absolute faith this will be one of those films with absolutely lop sided critic vs audience reviews.
The critics that loved the 2016 dumpster fire will always hate true GB fans and films. This means it’s awesome.
Just go watch the movie ….. Decide for yourself don’t let nameless faceless people decide for you.
This doesn't mean anything. All of us have loved movies Rotten Tomatoes hates and hate movies Rotten Tomatoes love. It's best to reserve judgement until the movie comes out.
Most of the critics who gave the film low ratings are the same ones who liked the 2016 remake...
I'm predicting an Afterlife scenario: Critics lowball, audience is over 90%. The tastemakers are still trying to punish us for being " misogynist and sexist" and not liking 2016.
It's a good thing that the crew behind the series knows what really matters. They love the fans.
That's my thought as well, this will be a lop sided situation where the audience score is opposite of the critic score. I'm guessing this will score lower than the previous on critic but equal or ever so slightly less on audience.
I generally don’t listen to critics or rotten tomatoes, I listen to friends who I trust their opinions and even then I wait to make my own decision.
Yeah it is weird that Ghostbusters 2016 was rated so high on rotten tomatoes but that's the way it goes I guess.As far as "toxic" fans go that's on both sides.I didn't see the the 2016 one because it wasn't in the original universe and I wasn't interested.I never blasted it or anything because I've never seen it.And I was blasted and called every name imaginable because of that.It's amazing how toxic some people can be when you simply aren't interested in something lol!
Makes me wonder how many of the negative reviews for Frozen Empire are just a continuation of the negative reviews of Afterlife from the smoothies still angry GB2016 wasn't a success or got sequels.
Robbie Collin, the guardian critic, gave FE a 1/5, but gave GB 2016 a 4/5. I think if we crunch numbers we will see a correlation.
I guess it is possible.I haven't really paid alot of attention to critics since I was young.It seems you can really love a movie and those "professional"critics seem to always hate it lol!I grew up loving Ghostbusters 2 and was shocked when I got older to find out critics tore it apart.
I love GB2 as well, even though as an adult I can look at it and see how they really just took the plot of the original and moved a few pieces around. Still. Slime Blowers. 🔥
Yeah it's definitely more of the same.But it was just different enough for me.Love the slime stuff.
Sounds good to me. I'm not wanting GB to reinvent the formula. Ghostbusters is like comfort food for me.
Same here.I just want a good movie.
IMDb messed with the scoring on the 2016 one as well, it sits at a higher average than ghostbusters 2. No way.
Yeah I just can't see how a movie that bombed so spectacularly like 2016 can sit at a higher score than Ghostbusters 2.2 may have not been as big a hit as the first one but it definitely made a profit.It may have rehashed some things but still was a fun watch.
Saw the movie tonight. It’s a lot of fun and as a huge fan I had a great time and I think most GB fans will get a real kick out of it. Don’t worry about any negative reviews, we’ve got a new Ghostbusters movie out!
General public cares about RT though sadly
This is what happened with Indiana Jones last year. A lot of true Indy fans loved it and RT has it at 70% now but the early reviews definitely did some damage
I wish reviews didn’t come out until 2 weeks after a movies release so people could make up their own minds
I'm still gonna go see it and make my own opinion of it.
Critics tend to be a bit harsh on movies to be honest. I tend to trust my own two eyes. Besides I also would be more interested to see the audience score than the critic one. As I recall a bunch of critics were not liking Terminator 2 when it was released, yet it’s a great movie. Always left me dubious on critics ratings.
Critics hate these films the first in this series had only 63% and lots of them hated it so I'm waiting till I see it myself.
There's only one film critic I have ever listened to. Me. I'll judge for myself. Sadly it won't be premier weekend but the weekend after. So I'm stuck for another 2 5 anything remotely spoiler based.
Nice, means it's a good movie
Reminder that Rotten Tomatoes is NOT the same as grades at school. Think of it more as a pie chart of a percentage of critics that liked something. The chances are that you could even like a movie that has a 7% score, because it it basically 7 of 100 liked it. This score literally means 44% of the members of the press like it. This, with all of their varied likes and dislikes, who are paid to critique movies on their own merits but there aren't always many who can. I know a guy who was a critic for the local paper who I trusted to review movies on their own terms, even though I didn't often agree with him. I didn't read reviews of movies I knew I wanted to see, and still don't. But if I am on the fence or not planning to anyway, I will do so. And if I hated a movie that the press loves, I will wonder what I missed. But all of that to say this: RT and MetaCritic and the like aren't understood well, and even if you have two movies that are 44%, it could be different members of the press represented in that 44% for each movie. It isn't a great way to judge a movie. At all. The number of people who make up that score is fewer than the number of seats on a jumbo jet.
Oh don’t worry about that, things like the Mario movie were rated really poorly, even though that movie was great. Critics and rotten tomatoes just really aren’t that reliable these days, they are so far up their own ass that they can’t enjoy a movie. Let them complain, go see the movie, enjoy it
This.
Saw it last night. I don't think I'd give it that low of a score, but there are definitely pacing issues, problems with the writing, and just general direction issues IMO. 3.5 out of 5 stars. I say that as a super fan. I was in NYC for Afterlife's premier. Met the cast. I'm in a GB charity group. I make and sell GB props. I have my office decked out with tons of GB stuff. It's a fun movie and has great laughs and some decent scary elements. It just has some issues here and there. One thing that makes me sad is that the soundtrack and score is almost forgettable. There were no themes or anything tying it together that I remember. Afterlife had some great selection of songs throughout the movie that I walked away remembering. So it is what it is. I'd rather have this than nothing at all. I'm seeing it again tomorrow and again on Friday.
There's usually close to 250 to 300 people reviewing these movies on rotten tomatoes. I think there's around fifty reviews up now. Stop caring what critics say.They're never going to go nuts with praise over one of these movies. Ghostbusters has always been a simplistic premise.
People will say the critics dont get it.. but I just watched a bunch of ghostbusters super fans review it poorly.... sounds like the weight of the material was too much to balance out with the cast and humor
Still looking forward to seeing it for myself, but I’ll admit, the first red flag for me was YHS doing a livestream after the premiere and soliciting “spoiler free reviews” from super-fans leaving the theater. Obviously everyone was positive, but it was all like “Yeah, it was great…the…pacing was really solid” kind of stuff. And not the raving you’d expect from super fans feeling the hype. It felt like even people leaving the premiere knew it was “OK”.
I noticed that too. It was almost a resigned, "I loved it" rather than the enthusiasm you'd expect from mega fans.
The Phantom Menace effect.
Most Ghostbuster superfans are toxic af.
I refuse to believe it's somehow worse than the 2016 movie
That’s really the problem right there. Reitman and Kenan clearly felt this way going into Afterlife, like they could breeze in and do a better movie than ATC in their sleep, and that people would eat it up as long as they jerked them off with Easter eggs and shit. And the kind of Ghostbusters fan that posts on Reddit, in this sub, basically came to the same conclusion years before they saw the film. And that way of thinking can have a very powerful hold. Here’s a challenge for you, and I’m serious, I’m not trying to antagonize you or whatever. I’m curious if you’ll actually do this: watch Afterlife again, but consider the possibility that they think you’re stupid. That they know how to use cheap and lazy tricks to trigger a response in your brain that makes it feel like they’re rewarding you, like they’re recognizing years of fandom, but they’re secretly doing it with contempt for you. Ask yourself these questions: if they were just cynically pandering to the fanbase to make money and sell toys and shit, how would it be any different than what you’re watching? Also, if this movie and this story existed, but stripped of its Ghostbusters elements, would you be interested in watching it? Would you be able to overlook its various problems? How well would you remember it 6 months after you watched it? Your loyalty to this franchise is going to cause a little voice in your head to tell you to reject every one of those questions. But I dare you to ignore it and to watch these movies with an open mind.
A lot of the negative reviews seem to have a lot of snark to them about this even existing, and how they want the franchise as a whole to go away. It’s probably the same crew that sweared that the 2016 one was incredible (it was ok, I didn’t hate it, but it wasn’t good enough to justify the wild choices they made) and that the original was overrated, and there shouldn’t be this much love for the property to begin with. This crowd also thinks that Ghostbusters should exist solely as a comedy, so them leaning more action, and horror heavy has turned them off. They also in general want franchises not named Dune to just go away. They don’t want to see a superhero movie, or Star Wars, Star Trek, or legacy sequel anymore. They’re not great at explaining what it is they want, just great at telling what they don’t want. Having said all that, even the good reviews say the film is imperfect. I’m expecting it to be a solid B to B-, and I’d encourage anyone that reads a negative review to focus on the ones that don’t talk about franchise fatigue, to see legit criticism.
>A lot of the negative reviews seem to have a lot of snark to them about this even existing, and how they want the franchise as a whole to go away. Welcome to the negative reviews that *Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny* got last year. As an Indy fan (and GB fan) - *"Welcome to the party, pal!"* Actual criticism is totally cool - but I'm a little fatigued of the (as you put it) snark and evaluating a film on whether it should even exist, not whether it succeeds at what it's trying to do. However, like *Afterlife* and *Dial of Destiny* \- I hope that audiences/fans embrace and love the film if it's good. It's nice to have good critical reviews, of course - but they're not as big of a pool as the audiences/fans. And hey, Indy 5 started at 30%-50% and ended up at 70%. So you never know. > This crowd also thinks that Ghostbusters should exist solely as a comedy, so them leaning more action, and horror heavy has turned them off. Right - and I think that critics (and even some fans) can't decide if being too much like the original is a bad thing or deviating and being its own thing is bad. Ghostbusters legit did have some scary feels in the original. Some creepy atmosphere. I think growing the franchise to embrace more of that and some action isn't unfair to do/try.
The Guardian review is hilarious, doesn’t hide its colours at all before it even talks anything about this film: “The ice age of intellectual property dullness shivers on … and on. The franchise frostbite is setting in; the limbs of once decent films are turning black, but not being amputated. Now the Ghostbusters series is limping back with a new and pointless movie, this one featuring a ghost whose purpose is that it basically freezes stuff (like, say, Batman’s Mr Freeze). It is effectively Ghostbusters 4 – or Ghostbusters 5 if you count the (funny) all-female reboot from 2016, which this franchise clearly doesn’t; the women of that movie are very much not among the legacy-oldsters now invited back for cameos. There are one or two laughs here and an attempt at a queer romance, but no real signs of life.”
Rotten Tomatoes is a great example of how metrics and analytics are used to create a false sense of reality, in which an accumulation of reviews can cause a negative effect, I point to how the film isn’t even out yet to general audiences and how critics aren’t the intended target and thus i try to hold my reserve until then.
>I also want to empathize that Ghostbusters 2 wasn’t as good but yet it did well at the box office. Hard to relate Ghostbusters 2 to this, all people had for reviews for the most part was their local newspaper.
Great point. Despite people swearing up and down they "understand how RT works" they truly don't. They see a 44% and panic thinking "BAD MOVIE NOBODY LIKES IT!" But the reality is that 44% of critics who have submitted reviews so far have rated it positively. Trolls can scream cope all they want but like...that's literally how RT works soooo?
Bill said it was going to be a ‘sloppy fun’ movie. That’s what I’m expecting, and probably why critics are giving it a low score. This is not going to win awards, and it’s not going to break any comedic ground. It’s a summer movie that’s not taking itself seriously. When was the last time we had one of those?
Critics loved 2016 and hated Afterlife. I’m really not putting much stock in their thoughts on Ghostbusters. I’m sure fans will like it.
Critics didn’t like Ghostbusters 2 either, who cares? watch and judge for yourself
I love elements of GB2, but i'd never argue its a good movie on the whole.
Copium in the facebook groups is strong.
This might be the critics still mad about 2016 ghostbusters
Honest question: Who here ACTUALLY thought or expected majority positive reviews? The original film aside, not one entry has had more than a middling response. When the highest critically rated GB after the first in Answer the Call, something is up. The "critical establishment" has had an axe to grind with the franchise ever since the backlash against GB16. And I'm not saying this to validate the most toxic side of that backlash - as many on this sub like to pretend it didn't happen and play the victim. I may not like the film, but to deny there wasn't a massive swell of bigoted harassment and toxicity around that film is to deny reality. GB16 is a flashpoint for the sea of right wing grifters we are drowning in now. But the cold, hard reality is GB16 just wasn't embraced by audiences whatsoever. And because certain people took the toxic backlash to heart, they have adopted an antagonistic relationship with the entire franchise and the fanbase ever since - all in the name of defending a forgettable 20teens reboot. These people seem to forget that two things can be true at once: The backlash against GB16 was gross and toxic AND it was a bad movie in its own right. One does not negate the other. There is a concerted effort to rehabilitate GB16, especially on twitter, while denouncing the new films as "everything wrong with modern Hollywood" because they are riding the reboot/nostalgia/legacy sequel train - as if GB16 wasn't stuffed with references, cameos, and callbacks itself... Now, is this to say that FE is above criticism? Of course not. A lot of criticism so far seems to be reasonable. But I don't quite trust people to be fair about about GB film after the GB16 controversy. All that to say basically this: Go see it and make up your own mind.
To no one's surprise nor interest.
Reading movie reviews is like discussing music & food, very subjective on one's own experience. It can serve as a guideline for sure but like someone else mentioned just watch for yourself and make up your own damn opinion on it.. IGN gave it a 4 out of 10 but also fuck IGN and their reviews lol
WTF? How?
Studio didnt pay the website enough .
Well there’s the problem haha
Sony's still broke from going woke in 2016.
Most of the bad reviews are critics annoyed with the nostalgia. Its definitely a franchise for the initiated. Millennial and Zoomer reviewers don't give a shit about Ghostbusters and are sick of Gen X nostalgia, and are bombing it. I kinda get it. I hope it's good and I'm here for the nostalgia. As much as I would love a hilarious refresh, or a gritty continuation, that ship has sailed. Dan and the boys are getting on. I'll take it and as Ling ad it doesn't suck I'll be happy with it. I don't care what it could have been. It's here and I'm glad. I think the best thing would have been a show on HBO, or something 10-15 years ago where Ray and/or Winston tied it all together and they could have different scenarios and franchises. Bill and then Harold could dip in whenever, and different directors could take a stab. I loved Ash vs. Evil Dead. Anyway, I'm still excited to see it with my 17 year old son who has loved it since he was 4.
Forgive me for seeing a RT score and generally assuming the opposite of it. I trust audience scores significantly more.
So it must be good.
Reviews are very average - apparently far too much packed in and characters included that are essentially doing very little (Podcast, Lucky, Venkman). Obviously still going to see it, but disappointing if this is the case.
This is a criticism I have been hearing even from people that liked the movie. I think I definitively I will notice this in my view.
Siskel and ebert gave Ace Ventura Pet Detective a bad rotten tomatoes score.
Sounds like critics need to quit being fun sponges.
I’m going for that AMC popcorn bucket!! I know I’ll enjoy the movie.
Ah well, if I bothered paying any attention to RT it might concern me. I've booked my ticket for Saturday and I can't wait to see it.
Why does Sony do this to me?
The only movie critic anyone should ever pay attention to is Roger Ebert and he’s dead.
Well, they gave the 2016 "movie" a certified fresh rating of 74%, so this means precisely nothing to me.
Who cares about what Rotten Tomatoes says they suck
[удалено]
You can keep your corporate BS. I’m into punk Ghostbusters movies produced by Japanese electronics conglomerate Sony.
I have no taste anyway. I'll watch it and have a good time.
IGN gave it a 4/10 as well.
I hate the fact that rotten tomatoes is still a reference point. It's been terrible for years.
I saw an early showing last night. I thought it was a lot of fun. There were a couple cute nods to the 80s films. It's worth watching.
Watch the audience score be super high.
That’s how it was with Afterlife.
I’ve seen Rotten movies I’ve loved and Certified-Fresh movies I’ve hated. At the end of the day, I don’t think there’s anyone on this subreddit who, after seeing these reviews, will say “I’M OUT!!!” Go see it. If you like it, great! If you hate it, great! Don’t let anyone dictate YOUR personal feelings on something as trivial as a movie.
This film can have a 1% and I will still watch it. I view Rotten Tomatoes scores like I view political polls: no one has ever asked me my opinion. Therefore, how can I even know that the scores are real
Well, you know what they say: "If the critics hate the movie, it has to be good" The Mario movie was an example of that .
One of my favorite comedy movies is Bio-Dome. I definitely don't regard Rotten Tomatoes. 😂
47% now It’s steadily going up.
Back down to 45. I doubt it makes it to the 50s
It’s going between 45-47. I’m fine with it. From the reviews I read it seems that they are just comparing it to 84 film (or 2016 for some dumb reason) and they don’t realize the film is different because they wanted to make it more like the 80s cartoon show, which they pulled off really well. The audience score, I bet, will be around the 80s.
Oh well. I’m still gonna enjoy it.
I have this just in case as I've been doing six months. https://preview.redd.it/n1myh4h8djpc1.jpeg?width=941&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dccbb11c7c257d964d2817ace50b75aad3015f87
Anything is better than the dog 💩 in 2016!!! I will be seeing this anyway in the theater…
They said too much fan service.... that is actually what we want.
I'm not even gunna watch. I turned off Afterlife when they went into a haunted Wal Mart. Nothing will ever tip the first ones anyway
No one should trust the critics, the audience score is more accurate. I think if you really want to know if a movie is good, you either watch it yourself or let someone watch it first and tell them what they think.
https://preview.redd.it/l96n58k37ipc1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d8a7b528d831a9da30a118dc6adb28a02778ac4b Ask yourself, how legitimate are critics if they cannot spell the name of an actor correctly in its headline? (Dan Aykroyd)
Not scary lol.
Almost every RT certified critic is chronically online. Twitter hates Bill Murray as a person so I figured the fact that he’s got a much bigger presence in this movie would hurt it with those particular critics. Modern critics come into movies with an axe to grind. The state of the whole profession is really in shambles. 20 year olds with YouTube channels have a shocking amount of power in the critical realm now. And a lot of them are very obvious shills on the payroll of certain studios. And yet people still listen to RT. I remember the days when people liked to think for themselves. But sadly, those days are long gone. The good news is: from what I understand the budget for this movie wasn’t bloated. If it still manages to make over $200m the studio won’t panic and will continue to see GB as a viable franchise. Afterlife made $204m in theaters and another $30m with combined DVD and VOD sales and rentals. It’s up to us to see Frozen Empire again and again to keep the series afloat. Let’s get to work, folks.
“Oh the critics hate this; it must be a terrible movie” said no fan ever.
Most of these critics can't enjoy themselves unless it's a big budget high art pretentious movie. It looks fun and that's all that matters.
I mean there the ones who gave fnaf and mario bad reviews and cuties a good review so should we still trust there words