Ghostbusters (2016)

COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY PREFACE (Feel free to skip down for the review itself):

It's hard to even begin to talk about Ghostbusters without mentioning all of the nonsense involved in the build up. From legitimately sexist dudes annoyed that women would be predominantly involved in a property they love, to fanboys honestly just upset that their favorite paranormal eliminators would not be involved (yet still angrily making public announcements that they refuse to see it), to people arguing that the problem is less with an all-women cast and more with "reboot culture," it was next to impossible to get away from all of the outrage and negativity. Was any of that pessimism and pissed off attitude justified? Perhaps a better question: did anyone of those people actually see it, and actually give it a truly fair shot?

Before getting into it, I should set up how I approached the film. I mean, I shouldn't have to, or even feel like I have to, but the internet is just the worst and all the bologna surrounding the film suddenly has everyone having to explain their Ghostbusters background in order to have their opinion seem valid. So, here is mine:

I went into the movie reservedly optimistic. The trailer looked horrible, but I am one of those weird movie-goers who doesn't put much value in trailers or posters. I am a fan of Paul Feig and that entire cast. While Sony has given me plenty of reasons to be skeptical, there was just too much creative talent involved here for me to think it was going to be awful. (Spoiler: it isn't - not even close to being the worst movie of the year, never mind the last five.) I was concerned about how cartoon-like everything seemed, and how generic of a Hollywood summer blockbuster it appeared.

I'm also a die-hard fan of the original. I grew up drinking Ecto Cooler, watching "The Real Ghostbusters," and ran around the house with a plastic, blue proton pack on my back, busting ghosts around my room. I'm even a huge fan of Ghostbusters II, and a few of those (legitimately terrible) video games. The 1984 Ghostbusters is one of my all-time favorite films, and I could talk at length about why it's a genuinely incredible piece of film making that will always stand the test of time, despite some of its dated references and visuals.

However, I also never cared about the canon. The idea of rebooting the "franchise" never bothered me in the slightest. The draw to the original film, for me, is that it is an incredibly amazing piece of cinema. Given the nature of Hollywood, it never bothered me that they might continue with Ghostbusters as a franchise. It was, after all, a profitable franchise. They made another movie, three cartoon shows, a bunch of video games (including a quasi-sequel to the film), many comics, and tons of toys. It's almost more unreasonable to think that they would just leave the series alone. Even more, it doesn't bother me that they called this new film Ghostbusters. That has been a common complaint for some reason, but to me, it literally doesn't matter. Partly, it is because it takes half a second to clarify which one you mean when you talk about one of them. Partly, it's because I am primarily a Godzilla nerd above all else, so I've already lived a life with three separate films (of various quality) just called Godzilla, and it has really not been inconvenient at all.

Basically, I went in as a huge fan of Ghostbusters, it being a big part of my childhood, not caring much about any of this reboot stuff, turned off by several things from the trailer, but optimistic about the creative talent behind it. I watched figuring it would be fine, and hoping to enjoy it - although admittedly concerned I would hate it.

SO HERE IS THE REVEW OF THIS FILM, FREE FROM OUTSIDE NOISE (Relatively):

If it's hard to talk about it at all without mentioning the online outrage preceding it, it's also hard to talk about it without the inevitable comparing and contrasting to the original. In many ways, it's unfair since the new Ghostbusters is fundamentally different in almost every way imaginable. At the same time, it is another installment in the franchise, so some comparisons are justified - and indeed required to address some of the problems.

As a fan, I'm admittedly not sure what exactly I wanted in another live action film. The previews made it seem particularly cartoon-ish, which was a bit concerning. However, the application of that style was surprisingly effective and well done. They succeeded at creating a singular, cohesive look and tone to the film that contributed greatly to why it works as a piece of entertainment. Indeed, the characters are very cartoon-ish. So are most of the sets and environments. So are the bright, neon ghosts. So is the story, really. From the very start, you are meant to stop taking anything seriously.  Had just one or two of those elements been like a cartoon, it wouldn't have worked. Yet they do a great job keeping it all consistent.

The cast is great, with two stand outs in particular. Chris Hemsworth as the hunky, stupid receptionist makes the most of his opportunity to break his type-casting. Though the "he's so stupid!" joke gets hammered a bit too hard at times and lasts a tad too long, Hemsworth himself is a delight to watch at work. He's genuinely hilarious, and hopefully has more comedies in his future. The other stand out is Kate McKinnon. Her character is an all-over-the-place type of crazy, which some people certainly may find a bit too much, but McKinnon simply nails it. Watching her reminded me a lot of watching Rick Moranis in the original -  so good that I was looking at every subtle gesture, or tonal inflection, or facial expression.

The rest of the cast also shines, of course. Kristen Wiig doesn't do too much outside what we have seen from her in the past, but it's still funny. Melissa McCarthy got to enjoy some time outside the unfortunate trap of being cast frequently as the "female Chris Farley," which is nice to see. She plays one of the more grounded characters, which is refreshing. And Leslie Jones does a great job balancing an exaggerated "everyman" with the total history nerd. From the trailers, there was a lot made of the fact that the black character isn't a scientist. Additionally, they made it seem like her knowledge was of "the streets." All that feeding a perpetuated stereotyping of black characters and continuing to limit roles available to black actors. Yet in the end, that concern is - however justified from the trailers alone - without much ground. Her character, Patty, is a historian, spouting information and knowledge that one would usually describe as "book smart." While she doesn't quite fulfill the same important role that Ernie Hudson did in the original, Jones actually does balance "book" and "street" smarts really well.

The humor can be a bit all over the place. It isn't as slapstick-focused as the previews made it appear, but there are a lot of styles of comedy that come into play. There's the classic, bumbling awkwardness not uncommon for Wiig. There's referential humor popular today as well. As one might have expected, there's a lot of stupid humor too (some of it really good, including amazing lines like, "An aquarium is a submarine for fish.") The humor is not often the same kind of smart, subtle humor from the original, but there is some intelligence in there too. Not all of the jokes land or worked for me, but enough of them did that I laughed or chuckled plenty of times.

By the end, it kind of devolves into your typical action sequence, which was also one of my concerns going in. Yet the team, the new gadgets, and the ways that they had the "fight," was actually kind of visually interesting and fun. In fact, for me, a lot of it reminded me of how I used to play when I was a kid! I imagined doing some of those very same things! This new film certainly adds a number of moves for kids to pretend to do. All of the nerdy, "science" mumbo-jumbo was also entertaining and fun to my nostalgic brain. Dan Aykroyd endorsed the film, and one can see why. There's a lot of that made-up science talk that Aykroyd loved doing in the originals. It's super nerdy and the most effective "out of love" references to the source material.

So, yes, I found it really enjoyable, with a lot of elements working effectively and the cast very delightful.

However, it's hard to argue that it's a particularly great film. Unfortunately, this is where I have to refer to the original - just because it highlights what I mean.

Most of the problems with the new film lies within its structure. A big reason why the original still stands as an amazing classic is that it was highly unconventional. Think about it: when was the last time you saw a Hollywood summer blockbuster that didn't have character arcs, didn't have a traditional villain character scattered throughout, and didn't require the heroes to learn a lesson in order to overcome the obstacles? There wasn't anything like that coming from Hollywood before Ghostbusters, and there hasn't been anything like it since!

Which makes it a bit disappointing, then, that this Ghostbusters lacks anything structurally to stand apart from any of the other typical, "world threatened by armies of ghosts/robots/aliens descending from a portal in the sky" blockbusters. It's not completely different, of course. The character arcs are there, but only Wiig's is blatant and in your face about it. Similarly, there is no "lesson" they learn in order to defeat the villain and save the day. They go in - like Ray, Egon, Peter, and Winston - with confidence in their tools and talent, and they win. But there is still some meaningful life lesson about commitment and loyalty that plays into the conclusion.

There are also a few dangling plot points or threads that feel like they're supposed to go somewhere, but don't. For example, Patty is a historian of the city. At the end, the city is overrun by ghosts from different New York City eras. Kind of seemed like that would be a great time to have her historian characteristic pay off in a meaningful way, but they just don't bring it up at all. Similarly, the villain being the opposite side of the same Ghostbusters coin should have been explored, well, at all. They don't go into it, leaving a lackluster conflict further adding to the inadequate build up for the finale.  Even that gargoyle ghost seen in the trailers doesn't really get an actual conclusion.

About that villain... I would not be able to genuinely review Ghostbusters without bringing him up, given this is a constant complaint of mine towards Marvel movies (which I love, by the way). Corny, under-explored villains that exist simply to provide an obstacle don't typically make for a great film. It hasn't helped Marvel, and it hasn't helped Sony here either. A villain like Rowan adds little to the film, despite there being grounds for thematic connections to the heroes. The lack of substance here similarly hurt Ghostbusters just as it has practically every Marvel movie.

They also do that think that Jurassic World did in that it sometimes tries a little too hard to provide fan service and references to the original. Many will likely moan about how forced many cameos from original cast members seems, but I don't know that that's even the biggest problem. Actually, I mostly enjoyed those moments overall. However, there were a few moments of playing on dialogue from the original, or taking visual cues (like the ghost in the museum is meant to be a play on the librarian). Some of the references are clever, but a lot of them come off as clunky and contrived.

In some respects, it's interesting to watch the original and then watch the new Ghostbusters, just to see how different Hollywood film making has become. The new film is quite enjoyable, funny, and entertaining, but it feels very paint-by-the-numbers in structure, and almost goes a bit too far to trap itself into the "comedy" genre. The original film was more complex and layered, with unconventional structure and more subtle humor. Both films are very much character-driven, though. It will likely come down to whether you're on board with them or not. I found the new characters to be great, even if slightly less endearing than the original characters (although McKinnon's brand of crazy was amazing to me). Certainly, some might not feel that way about them, and that will make it impossible to like the movie overall.

All that said, it's almost hard to figure out who they made the film for. It's Ghostbusters, so one would imagine they are hoping to get a lot of fans from the original, yet it's completely different in almost every way possible that it if you loved the original, you might very well hate the new one. In some ways, it seems like they tried to make it for everyone else, who has no strong connections to the source. And in some ways, that might actually be the smartest way to completely reboot a franchise. Make something completely different and try and build a new fan base! Contrary to what some nerds might say, the original Ghostbusters isn't going anywhere. We'll always have that. Maybe now, someone else will have a version that they love and obsess over too.

REDUCTIVE RATING:  It's Fine
(Scale: It's Terrible..., Pretty Bad, It's Fine, Pretty Good, Incredible!)





RE: THE FEMINIST TONES

Ok, so I wasn't sure whether to cover this aspect or not, but since word is making rounds on the internet (go figure), I will add thoughts on this. A number of dudes online have made plenty of comments about how Ghostbusters is sexist against men, because every single male character is depicted as being stupid, incompetent, or just a complete asshole. It's actually not a hard trend to notice while watching the film, but these comments are a bit hilarious. For starters, a lot of these are coming from the same people who complained about making the film with all female Ghostbusters.  It's also coming from a lot of people who complain whenever someone criticizes a film they like for the way it represents women.

That's sort of the point, though. While the new film doesn't have the layers and depth of the original, it does have some moments of meta-commentary. Apart from the obvious jokes wherein they read comments about a video they posted online (notably, "No bitches be busting ghosts" which got a good laugh in the theater I was in), there are many more moments that are from a distinctly female perspective. When Erin (Wiig) is trying to obtain tenure at Columbia University, her president (Charles Dance) makes a passing comment about her clothes, but decides to "forget it" before exiting. This confounds and confuses Erin. This is pretty clearly a moment coming from a female perspective. Women have to contend with comments upon their appearance for almost everything. It doesn't just pertain to women in the public spotlight, like actresses or athletes. People, especially men, will more often than not make some unnecessary comment about a woman's attractiveness, even in the work place.

Later at the mayor's office, the four women are being told that they appreciate their efforts in fighting the paranormal. They thank the women for their work, but then tell them to stop. "That's enough," basically. Given the other moments of feminist undertones or meta-commentary, mixed with the male representation in the film, this felt especially applicable to modern times. Most people - including men who complained about all women Ghostbusters - probably agree that "feminism had its place." Most would agree that feminism "made sense" back in the days when women were not really allowed to work or hold office or even vote. But there are many people who feel like the feminist movement should have ended by now; that there is no longer a need for them. Basically, "that's enough."

And, of course, Chris Hemsworth's Kevin ("he seems more like a Chet,") is a literal, walking embodiment of male privilege.

As for the way men are presented in the film: that's kind of the point. The film exists in this sort of meta-commentary about the status of the movie industry. That all of the men are presented poorly serves to draw attention to the way that any group - by gender, race, sexuality, age - are generally presented in cinema. Granted, this is just my interpretation build upon the other moments throughout the film, but I gathered we were supposed to notice how the men were presented as a means to draw attention to the conversation regarding how anyone is presented. It's a problem that so many people have called the film "sexist against men," but then willfully shoot down any criticism about male-oriented films for the way they present women. In fact, those of us who do wind up getting chastised for "making a big deal" about gender representation. I've been told repeatedly that I'm being unreasonable when I was criticizing studios for never giving women a chance to do much other than be a damsel in distress or a love interest for the male hero to be rewarded with.

That's, in my opinion, the entire point of that aspect of the film. And ya know what? It's fine either way. For every one Ghostbusters film that focuses on female characters only and depicts men as less than ideal, actual characters or people, you can find a dozen or more films that focus on primarily male characters in which female side characters are depicted as less than ideal, actual characters or people.

It's ok to not like the way men are presented in the film, but it's not ok to then turn a blind eye on how women are presented in most Hollywood films.