Since it continues on from the original story I wouldn’t call it a reboot except that it has the same title as the original.
It does not continue, it starts over from scratch. Or at least, that’s what we’ve been led to believe.
In the trailer there’s the Ghostbusters logo on a wall. Did the graffiti artist copy it from the original Ghostbusters or make it up himself? The new Ghostbusters have the logo on their car. If the graffiti appeared before the new Ghostbusters formed, then it means they copied the logo on their car from the graffiti.
I thought the trailer was misleading saying things like “30 years ago”. I was under the impression that in the movie that also happened 30 years ago.
Every Paul Feig movie we have to go through this. People see the trailers, insist it doesn’t look funny and that they don’t like Melissa McCarthy. Movie opens, it’s ‘surprisingly’ good and goes on to do reasonably well.
I certainly thought Spy, for example, looked like a dud based on the marketing. Turned out to be funny as hell.
Maybe Feig’s brand of humor just doesn’t translate well to snippet form somehow.
I like to think that my testicles are securely enough attached to my body that going to see a movie with a mainly-female cast won’t cause them to pop off and roll away. But that’s just me. Maybe every other man in the world except me (and Miller) lives on the edge of danger as far as that’s concerned.
What in the world are you talking about? Why would casting four women as leads in a comedy alienate all men?
Hollywood Reporter says this is a bad film…
Hell, the trailers indicates it’s going to be a bad film. 
UK reviews are in. Turns out it’s pretty good. I’m looking forward to illegally downloading it 
This is going to be one of those movies where two sides firmly plant their feet and argue for years about whether it’s good or not.
Which is why I think a lot of it has to do with the main cast being women.
When it was announced that the cast was going to be all women… Mass Hysteria! Looooong before the trailer came out.
Then there are people, (Like ‘The Angry Video Game Nerd’,) who had legitimate reasons why they don’t want want to see it. They want to “preserve” the first one and didn’t find the trailers all that appealing.
But the hate was there before the trailer.
I have plans to see it Friday.
Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
While we don’t have too many reviews, those that are coming in seem to vary pretty widely. Overall trend on Metacritic is 62, with some seeming to believe it’s the Second Coming and others the long-foretold dread Anti-Humor incarnate.
Because my son has gotten into Ghostbusters, I had occasion to watch Ghostbusters II for the first time in decades. It is an inferior follow up, but after all these years I’ve pretty much forgiven it for that, it seems, and I can recognize that it does have a lot of solid jokes and it advances the lore in a way that pays off in the Ghostbusters video game which basically substitutes for a third movie, capping off the saga of Ivo Shandor.
As to the new movie – overall, this round up of critical responses seems to be pretty positive:
I don’t think that’s really a fair overview of the critical response. Variety, in the review quoted, thinks it’ll bomb. Richard Roeper reviewed it like it gave him cancer. About 7/10 critics really liked it, but the 30% who didn’t often hated it.
I haven’t seen it and can’t say, but it seems quite polarising.
Im sure a substantial number of the reviews are politicised rubbish. The reboot will in all likelihood be ok-ish. Im just not yet sure whether it’s ok-ish going on decent or ok-ish going on poor.
Ok-to-decent seems to be the verdict of most unbiased sources. Not good enough to sway the haters. Not bad enough to sink with critics.
The Ringer’s review is out:
That’s one of the worst movie reviews I’ve ever read, if it’s supposed to be a movie review.
I agree, all I got from it is that the author thinks she’s much cleverer than she actually is.
This is probably the fairest negative review that I’ve read so far:
There are plenty of positive reviews, of course.