Movie Review: “Ghostbusters” (PG-13)
Like a lot of “Ghostbusters” purists, I was dead set against a new “Ghostbusters” movie for quite a long time. The original film is a comic masterwork that fires on all cylinders. It was the very personification of lightning in a bottle. The idea of a new film — sequel or reboot — has always felt like a terrible idea to me, one that would become even more disheartening after the passing of Harold Ramis.
I mean, don’t get me wrong. I get it. It’s not like this new “Ghostbusters” movie is the first reboot ever made. There were countless reboots produced before it, and there will be countless reboots produced after it. Still, we as a fan collective have specific films that mean the world to us — sacred text, as it were. For a lot of folks, 1984’s “Ghostbusters” is one of these elite titles.
Admittedly, when it was announced that Paul Feig was going to take on this project, my outlook on this whole endeavor began to soften. Given Feig’s three-for-three track record (“Bridesmaids,” “The Heat,” “Spy”), I was more than willing to give this filmmaker the benefit of the doubt. Clearly, Feig has comic chops, but from the moment he signed on and announced that this would be a reboot rather than a sequel, a rather large contingent of the fanbase cried foul. Once Feig announced the casting of Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones, he was met with even more opposition from legions of “Ghostbusters” fans. Still, Feig soldiered on. He put a crew together and set out to make the movie he wanted to make.
When the first “Ghostbusters” teaser trailer was released a few months back, things only got worse. The teaser quickly became one of the most hated movie trailers in the history of YouTube. Indeed, it was obvious that Feig was being burned at the stake before anyone even had an opportunity to actually see the movie he and his team put together.
Perhaps the strangest aspect of all of this is that “Ghostbusters” had suffered long before Feig even entered into the equation. I mean, let’s face it. “Ghostbusters II” is a wildly uneven affair, and it definitely polarized fans upon release in 1989. It certainly isn’t a bad movie, but for this fan, lightning did not strike twice. Having said that, whatever scrutiny hovered over that sequel was minor compared to the beating Feig has taken in recent months, and it all seems a tad unfair. But then, that’s the world we live in. Welcome to the wild west that is social media.
No passionate movie fan wants to see one of their favorites remade, but sometimes we all need reminding that even the shittiest of sequels and reboots can’t take away from the magic of a truly remarkable original. In other words, no matter what some fans might think of this reboot, they’ll always have Ivan Reitman’s classic to keep them company on a rainy night.
Regardless of how anyone might feel about the existence of this new film, props are in order to a fearless Feig for daring to throw caution to the wind and attempt what most hardcore “Ghostbusters” fans perceived to be a near impossible task: making a solid “Ghostbusters” movie for a new generation.
Did Feig pull it off? Did he make a movie that stands on its own two feet? Certainly, this “Ghostbusters” isn’t the unmitigated disaster a lot of naysayers were willing and predicting it to be, but that doesn’t automatically make it a great movie, either. No, Paul Feig’s “Ghostbusters” is simply average.
So why open up this review by talking about the brilliance that is the original “Ghostbusters” and how this reboot might or might not compare when Feig and crew have said from the very beginning that their film is not a continuation but rather a new incarnation of a popular brand name? Because too often, this update is insistent on reminding us that the original movie does in fact exist: Slimer and the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, a lame updated version of the theme song, a handful of distracting cameos, etc. This “Ghostbusters” might have been stronger had it simply done its own thing.
This take on “Ghostbusters” follows professor Erin Gilbert (Wiig), an ex-paranormal expert on the verge of tenure at a reputable Manhattan university, who suddenly finds herself out of a job. With nowhere else to turn, she reunites with estranged pal Abby Yates (McCarthy) and nutty inventor Jillian Holtzman (McKinnon). Together, this trio set out to start a ghostbusting business after an unexplainable encounter opens their eyes to a world of opportunity. Eventually, Erin, Abby, and Jillian bring city worker Patty Tolan (Jones) into the mix, and before long, business is booming. Of course, there’s a reason behind the thriving business, and ultimately these paranormal ass-kickers aim to put a stop to it.
There’s been a lot of talk about the gender swap in this picture, and quite frankly, I could care less about that, particularly when we’re talking about performers as comically gifted as Wiig, McCarthy, McKinnon, and Jones. Going in, all I really cared about is whether or not the movie would be funny. Is it? It certainly has funny moments, but the hit-to-miss ratio is more on the miss side, and given the talent involved, that’s disappointing.
Feig has done a good job with the casting. Wiig plays the proceedings straight, bringing a quiet, introspective sense of humor to the proceedings. Likewise, save for a zany, over-the-top possession sequence, McCarthy is surprisingly low key. Likable Jones is the loudmouth of the group, and while I enjoyed her energy to a certain degree, it’s an endlessly quirky McKinnon who emerges as the real standout in this picture. Even though she probably gets the least amount of front-and-center screen time here, McKinnon makes the most of it by the way of funny faces and appropriately strange behavior. As a collective, Wiig, McCarthy, Jones, and McKinnon have genuine rapport, but again, many of the jokes in this picture land with a bit of a thud, and the laughs simply are not as consistent as one would hope.
“Ghostbusters” gets plenty of mileage out of scene-stealer Chris Hemsworth as Ghostbusters’ secretary, Kevin. The “Thor” star plays up the clumsy dumb blonde shtick to the hilt, and while said shtick does wear a bit thin, Hemsworth proves to be much more than a pretty face, even if Erin’s not-so-subtle advances towards the handsome secretary suggest otherwise. A conversation involving one of Kevin’s housepets has an old school “Abbott and Costello” ring to it, and it’s one of the film’s funniest scenes.
As noted earlier in this review, there are a handful of original “Ghostbusters” cameos in this picture, and most of them are disappointingly uninspired. I won’t spoil them all but will only say that Bill Murray pops up in what seems like a quick day’s work. As a man out to suggest that the Ghostbusters are frauds, Murray is essentially doing a riff on William Atherton’s Walter Peck, but it’s so slight that it feels like nothing more than an afterthought. Beyond that, one high-profile cameo doesn’t even make it into the movie. It’s saved for the end credits which, if you ask me, is a bit of a slap in the face. In the end, these cameos are a distraction. They generally stop this “Ghostbusters” dead in its tracks and are not only a reminder that the original movie exists but that it’s a considerably stronger film.
This brings us to the biggest issue with this film: lazy writing. Given that this is a reboot, Feig and crew already had an uphill climb. To their credit, the first act of the film is pretty good. The introduction to the leads is different enough that this “Ghostbusters” does feel like it’s own thing. This film also spends a bit of welcome time giving us a look at all the numerous ghostbusting gadgets our fearless heroes use to put away pesky ghosts. Once the movie moves past that second act, however, it starts to lose steam. A set piece in a concert venue is a complete bust. There’s a villain here, too, and while his motivation is interesting, the character himself is a bit on the dull side. There isn’t anything entirely interesting about him. Part of that is certainly in the performance, but the majority of it is the character as written.
The final act of “Ghostbusters” is far too busy, offering very little in the way of a sufficient payoff. What’s more, a moment in which Abby attempts to commit a selfless act leads to a sequence that’s all too reminiscent of the silly climax in “Poltergeist II: The Other Side.”
Having said all of that, “Ghostbusters” is slick and handsomely photographed. The visual effects are solid, too. While the 3D craze has certainly run its course as of late, the various colorful apparitions that take over Manhattan in this picture look pretty great in the third dimension. They literally pop out of the frame.
A bit of pre-release hype has suggested that this new take on “Ghostbusters” is twice as scary and every bit as funny as Reitman’s original. Umm … no. There’s not one scene in this picture that’s as scary as the moment Dana Barrett is attacked in her recliner, and very few of the jokes here are particularly quotable. Still, it’s clear that Feig had the very best of intentions. This may be his least funny film to date, but “Ghostbusters” is light enough on its feet, and at the very least there are a handful of gags that do tickle the funny bone.
In his attempt to create a “Ghostbusters” for a new generation, Feig has crafted a movie with a spirit more akin to a “Scooby-Doo” cartoon and those “Real Ghostbusters” animated shorts from the ’80s. Unlike the original, this film does not fire on all cylinders, but you could certainly do worse in a year full of disappointing comedies (I’m looking at you, “Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates”). It’s not likely that fans who’ve been talking smack about this reboot for months are going to warm up to what Feig and crew have done, but at the very least those fans can all take comfort in knowing that they can always party like it’s 1984.
RELATED ARTICLES
Movie Review: “The BFG” might not be Spielberg’s best but it’s a far cry…
Movie Review: “The Shallows” is intense summer entertainment on the open water!
![Pinterest](https://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https://suindependent.com/movie-review-ghostbusters/&media=https://suindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/maxresdefault-2.jpg&description=Movie Review: "Ghostbusters" might have been stronger had it simply done its own thing.){kind=link}