Saturday, July 16, 2016

Ghostbusters (2016) Review


Abandon all hope of not having the movie spoiled, ye who enter here.

Hollywood is bringing on the zombie apocalypse by reviving every dead franchise it can get its hands on. We’re talking biblical proportions here, people. Everything from Nightmare on Elm Street to Total Recall to The Rocky Horror Picture Show (why?!). What makes it worse is that many of these remakes range from bad to okay. Sure, the revivals of Jurassic Park and Mad Max surpassed expectations (the formal financially, the later critically), but those are exceptions. Some will point out Star Wars, but that franchise never really went away. And now with Disney remaking all of their previous movies, it’s hard not to see this as the end times.

So of course Ghostbusters got remade. It’s one of the most beloved nostalgic properties from the 80s that was popular enough to spawn a sequel, TV shows, and video games. Hell, there were plans for a third movie, which I assume was passed on due to the death of Harold Ramis. It’s also understandable that people were not happy with the idea of remaking Ghostbusters. With the vast majority of reboots and sequels being disappointing, it’s no wonder that there was uproar over this reboot.

What did take me aback was how this movie somehow became the battleground for gender politics. The decision to put women in the main roles was viewed by a small, but vocal, group of people as some kind of declaration of war against men. Really. As a result, feminists began championing the film as a beacon of progress for women (sure, casting women in roles popularized by men is a good step forward, but the movie itself could still be terrible). This put many people, myself included, in an awkward position: remaking Ghostbusters is a terrible idea and the trailers was terrible, but hating it because the cast is all women is ridiculous. This resulted in a flame war with both sides yelling past one another. Needless to say, the experience was not fun.
As for my personal relationship with Ghostbusters? I really don’t have one. I watched the first movie only a few days before seeing the reboot. I was familiar with the premise, actors, dialogue, and amazing theme song, but I had never seen it in its entirety. Overall, I liked it a lot. It was funny, quotable, and well acted. And I love Janine! There are things about the movie that I didn’t care for (the relationship between Venkman and Dana didn’t work for me at all, Winston gets so little screen time, not nearly enough of Janine, etc), but I enjoyed the movie and would gladly see it again. And, in case you’re wondering, my favorite Ghostbuster is Egon Spengler (“I collect spores, molds, and fungus”). I think I would have liked it more if I saw it when I was younger. So, going into this movie, I had no emotional attachment to this franchise and, despite my tendencies towards feminism, I didn’t see this as a hill worth dying on.

So after all those months of fighting over this movie, the threats and tears that resulted, the sheer chaos that ensued and engulfed the entire internet, how was the actual movie? Hold onto your butts, people! IT’S…


…okay. It’s just a serviceable summer comedy. Not as good as the first movie and there are lots of problems that weight it down, but it was an enjoyable experience nonetheless.

So all that buildup was for nothing. Can’t say I’m surprised.

So let’s talk about the good stuff!

Ladybusters!
It’s funny that the big stink over this movie (aside from the very idea of remaking Ghostbusters) was about the leads being female when they were actually the best part. Each of the actresses are funny and memorable with the stand outs being Leslie Jones as an MTA worker with vast knowledge the history of New York and Kate McKinnon as the eccentric engineer who builds all the Ghostbusters’ contraptions. Meanwhile, while Kristin Wiig and Melissa McCarthy get lots of funny lines, their bits are considerably toned down. What’s great is that the new characters is that they don’t feel like stand-ins for the original roles. Sure, they occupy similar roles to the original (Erin and Venkman, Abby and Ray, Holtzmann and Egon, Patty and Winston), but each one is unique in their own way. Plus, the fact that they’re women is almost never remarked upon. They aren’t praised or demeaned because of their gender. There’s a throwaway line here and there, but nothing major.
Laugh Out Loud

This movie had me in stitches several times. There were some bits that were clearly improvised and went on for a bit too long, but there were a lot of laughs to be had. Each actress has a different comedic style that matched their personality and they worked well off of each other. McKinnon was the most consistently funny, but Jones had the best bits. The biggest laugh for me was after Abby gets possessed and Patty bitchslaps the spirit out of her. I also loved Patty’s encounter with the mannequins. Lamentably, Ghostbusters (2016) is not as quotable as the original. I can’t recall very many lines that work on their own except for a few (“The power of Patty compels you!”, “Who’s the flying beefcake?”, etc). I’m sure I can find more if I watch it again.

Gadgets and Ghostbusting

 Ghostbusters (2016) takes the concept of people capturing ghosts and expands upon it. The main way it does this involves creating new inventions. They still have the proton packs, but Holtzmann creates even more devices for them to use. I couldn’t tell you the names of the new inventions if you asked me to, but the devices are definitely memorable. One device can shred ghosts into pieces, another lets them punch the ghosts, and there are laser whips.

 On top of that, we get to see a lot more ghostbusting this time around. Let’s face it. The original movie wasn’t very action packed. Aside from capturing Slimer and the climax with Gozer and the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, most of the actual ghostbusting is explained in a montage of newspaper headlines. In this movie, not only do they capture more ghosts on screen, but the scenes are bigger than ever. I also really like the ghost designs. No, they don’t look anything like the ghosts in the first movie, but they had interesting designs. I especially like the ones that look like giant parade float balloons.

Alas, despite all the good in the movie, there was also a lot of bad that’s hard to ignore.
Kevin is Too Stupid to Function

Of the main cast, the weak link is Chris Hemsworth. He plays Kevin, the Ghostbusters’ secretary. Even without comparing him to Janine (who is the best!), he’s not a compelling or interesting character. Here’s how Kevin is defined: he’s hot and stupid. Like, really stupid. Like, so stupid it’s a wonder how he managed to make it out the front door let alone apply for this job. Hemsworth has good comedic timing and he fully commits to the dumb hottie archetype, but his character was unbearably stupid. Also, these women are breaking so many rules regarding sexual harassment, especially Erin, and it’s not cute or funny. Maybe this is a deliberate attempt to switch the gender politics by having the male character be the object of affection, but that’s not the same as subversion. Also, pointing it out doesn’t count as subversion either (then again, the first movie had a similar problem).

Pointless Cameos

Ideally, it should be nice to see the original cast again, but it was distracting every time. The only two that don’t show up are Rick Moranis (retired) and Harold Ramis (dead), although there is a bust of Harold Ramis in the university Erin works at. Annie Potts’s cameo was the best because she was playing a similar character. The only one who gets a character is Bill Murray, who plays a James Randi-esque skeptic who doesn’t believe in the Ghostbusters’ antics. I expected him to occupy the same role as Walter Peck, serving as an auxiliary antagonist for the Ghostbusters, but he just gets killed off having affected nothing. You could argue that Walter Peck was more or less superfluous to the plot of the first movie, but (1) he’s the reason all the ghosts get released and (2), failing that, he’s a lot more memorable. For goodness sake, Slimer had a bigger impact on the plot. Yep, Slimer shows up and steels the Ecto-1 and it’s pretty funny. And there’s a female Slimer. Um, okay.

And Ozzy had a cameo, too. Was he in Ghostbusters and I just didn’t notice? Maybe the sequel? I’m confused.

Lame Villain

By far, the worst thing about this movie was the villain Rowan. Whereas the main antagonist of the first movie was a freaking god, this one was…a basement dwelling internet troll. No, seriously. He’s this jaded, nihilistic loser who wants to unleash ghosts because he was bullied. It’s as lame as it sounds. I get how this might have worked on paper. Erin gets bullied as a kid for seeing a ghost and tries to make a better life for herself while Rowan’s experience being bullied fuels his desire for revenge. He could have been a great foil for Erin, but we just get a bitter, angry jerk. He gets a bit more interesting after he possesses Kevin, but he’s still super boring.
Final Verdict

At the end of the day, Ghostbusters (2016) is just fine. The sum of its parts are greater than its whole. I wouldn’t mind seeing parts of it again. If they end up making a sequel, I’ll probably see it. There were things that worked and things that didn’t. It will not ruin your childhood. Your copy of Ghostbusters isn’t going anywhere and your memory of it will not be in any way tainted. Can we please move on?

Now how about that trailer for Trolls? Now THAT’S worth raging over.