Yeah I finished it and I liked it. They even jump ahead in time quite a bit for season 2.I started what For All Mankind and after the 4th episode I still don't get where this is going... I understand the stakes, it's an alternate history cold war where USSR is winning, but I can't seem to fathom what the end goal is and what they are fighting for, besides beating the russians. Anyone seen it? Does it pick up the pace soon?
I was the opposite: I love the original mini-series (that and Salem's Lot are two of my favourite King adaptations), and really disliked the new films, especially the first one, where they were kids.
Glad you enjoyed it.October 31st
I think this is probably my favourite film ever, although it's close between this, Escape from New York and Big Trouble In Little China.
Well, I managed to watch a horror(ish )film every day in October, pretty pleased with that.
Thanks to FunktionJCB for the idea
Yep, pacing is a bit off and some characters are underused, but it is a very good homage to the original, as well as a perfect passing-the-torch movie to what's to come. I still can't stop thinking about it today.Ghostbusters Afterlife is pretty good, It has its problems, but overall its everything I could had asked for.
McNenna Grace killed It.
The "problem" is that nowadays, anyone is a critic.Don't listen to critics or review score. If you are a fan, you will no doubt enjoy Afterlife.
Yeah, I read a few after watching and all of them are exactly what you have described. Many people fail to understand that the 2016 reboot was badmouthed because it is a bad Ghostbuster movie, instead of anything relating to masculinity or hate towards women.The "problem" is that nowadays, anyone is a critic.
Gone are the actual film critics that knew about cinema, and even when I disagreed with them they provided some "justification" about their ratings, and their opinions. Nowadays, anyone tweets, has a blog, or does contract work for some film website, and is called a critic.
I had the displeasure of reading several negative reviews for the film, all released a month or so ago.
None were actually about the film itself, and hilariously enough, all said the following, with minor variations: "toxic male trolls put down the previous film because it had women; that film was brilliant, better than what the original films deserved; now, these trolls are getting exactly what they wanted, which is some fan service disguised as a movie, and they removed the women; this film sucks, and the fan base sucks". I kid you not.
A review that only talks about the reaction to the previous film (by the way, one whose scriptwriter was someone who, by admission, didn't even like the original films; that's a great basis to revive an iconic franchise), and tries to pin it exclusively on "toxic male trolls", with one line reserved for the new film, spent on saying "they removed women; the film sucks" (isn't the lead character female?!) is frankly ridiculous, and I can't possibly take them seriously.
That's why websites like "rotten tomatoes" and "metacritic" don't mean a thing to me.
There's a critics section/rating. But, who exactly are these critics?