1. GHOSTBUSTERS, whether good or bad, doesn’t need to be a referendum on female-driven comedies so long as we keep making them anyway.

2. it gives me no pleasure to report that GHOSTBUSTERS is a lazy, uninspired rehash of pre-existing iconography. at a certain point in the movie, the ghostbusters are attacked by their own logo — i sure know how they feel. ironically (in light of the misogyny directed its way), the gender-swap is the only thing this movie has going for it.

3. per Daniel Fienberg: "Nobody’ll buy this, but: If you pre-judge something for a year based on nothing, even if it *does* suck, it doesn’t mean you were 'right.'"

4. Kate McKinnon is indeed delightful, even…

71/100

Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Leslie Jones, Kate McKinnon, and Chris Hemsworth. Ghostbusters: Answer the Call has one hell of a cast up its sleeve, and this reboot/nostalgia hybrid succeeds because of the joke-after-joke-after-joke chemistry molded through Paul Feig's streak of modern, witty comedies. He has a knack for taking a room full of varied characters and supplying humor in sharp, frequent bursts. It's a film of improvisation, goofy personalities, spooky thrills, and a gigantic save the city climax. Robert Yeoman's cinematography in particular is brightly fluid and colorful, capturing the otherworldly beauty of portals, silly ghostbusting contraptions, and the various haunted locals with a degree of grace and style. It feels - and looks - like a fun horror…

It feels... empty? There is a disconnect here, something wrong with this film that resides, I think at this time, in the characters. In the dialogue, which is as far from human as possible while still being recognizable words. In the pacing, which gives no time for motivation and development to breath, no time for the world to come alive. Something is introduced, then it is whisked away, making it seem less like settings and myth-building, and more like excuses. The foreshadowing is lacking, perhaps, in the things that will turn out to matter. It doesn't come with surprises; it just makes the film feel abbreviated (despite an engorged runtime).

Perhaps it's the manner of the humor. I don't think…

I think all of you really have made up your minds on whether or not you're going to enjoy Paul Feig's latest offering judging by it's marketing and his own track record with people, so really? What's the point of even expressing my own opinion on it?

Either way, nay sayers who hate it will I say I was paid by Sony to give it a positive review or I'll have people who defend it saying I'm supporting their cause against the former I just mentioned.

Look, both sides to this argument are idiots. I'm not here to talk about gender politics or what this means for women in Hollywood blockbusters, or whatever it is everyone is getting their panties…

I should have trusted my instincts. This is terrible. Like really terrible. Like, I think I'm the living embodiment of Liz Lemon's permanent eyeroll terrible. Watching this film turned me into the villain saying "this world can not be cleansed fast enough." I screamed "MOVE ON" on multiple occasions, not a good look on a comedy.

The pacing is leaden, the editing is basic, the script is a boring remix of the original, the humor is easy and simplistic, and every joke is run into the ground before being hit by a subway train, then steamrolled and finally smothered by a vat of molten lava poop. If you found that sentence humorous, you might like this movie.

A large point…