Ghostbusters (2016) Review
Calm down, your childhood is not ruined.
Man, reviewing this movie without addressing the controversey surrounding it might be impossible. I'll try to keep it to a minimum.
The Internet, always the gold standard for displaying the best that humanity has to offer, would have you believe that this new Ghostbusters movie is an abomination, that Harold Ramis is spinning in his grave, and that this movie will "RUIN YOUR CHILDHOOD." Nevermind that Ramis might have been the first to suggest a movie featuring lady Ghostbusters, or that the reputation of the franchise was first sullied 27 years ago with the release of Ghostbusters 2. But they're not sexist! Oh no, how dare you suggest that. They'll tell you it was the trailers that let them know that this film would certainly be a failure, but they would probably appreciate it if you ignored their instant hatred and outright mysoginist comments as soon as they heard the words "female Ghostbusters," a decision that was made before a single word was written for the script.
Well, I hate to be the one to say it, but the Internet was wrong.
I kid, I kid, actually I LOVE IT.
This is a reboot. Not sequel (which I admit, would have smoothed things over considerably), but not the remake many had feared. The new Ghostbusters are not the original boys in beige made female, and while a few beats might mirror the 1984 classic, the plot is by and large something new. There's a stumble here and there, but it works 75% of the time.
A major concern I had was casting four women known for comedy. Where the original had Ernie Hudson to play straight man, Winston Zeddemore, I felt having four funny ladies could be too much of good thing. Fortunately, it works. Much like the original film, the cast is truly what drives it and is what you'll take away from it, not the plot. All four have their moments, those moments are well balanced, and they really do have a great chemistry. As it turns out, Chris Hemsworth is a secret treasure trove of comedy, and his role is on par with Rick Moranis's contributions to the original. I can't quite label any one cast member as a scene stealer though, I think everyone will come out of the movie with their own favorite (mine is Holtzman...I think).
Just as the movie shares the same greatest strength with the original, it also shares the same biggest weakness: The third act. Like so many comedies throughout the history of cinema, it seems that the third act is where everyone says, "Oh crap, we're running out of time here, I guess we should tell some semblance of a story." In the 1984 Ghostbusters, the third act is where the film becomes more about the special effects, iconic they may be, and less about its talented cast, and the same is true in 2016. While I liked the villain's scheme and was surprised it was something nobody had ever thought to do with the franchise before (I count the cartoons, comics, and video games...I am a Ghostbusters fantatic after all), the villain himself was cartoony. Like, almost too cartoony. There is an equivalent to Stay Puft, which I knew about ahead of time but liked more than I thought I would, but the resolution is rather phoned in. No less phoned in, however, than how Venkman and company dealt with the marshmallow man.
For all the stumbles the third act makes, I still came away really enjoying this new Ghostbusters. For all the hate thrown its way, actually watching the movie will reveal that it was made with nothing but the best intentions and with pure fun in mind. It's a different sense of humor for sure, but it has to be. Nobody could duplicate what Dan Akroyd, Bill Murray, and Harold Ramis brought to the table together. Hell, they couldn't even do it again when they tried in 1989. But I am happy to report that the spirit of Ghostbusters is alive and well and in good hands, and this lifelong fan hopes we get to see more.
Anyway, fuck:
1) the Internet
2) anonymous manchildren with an axe to grind about women
3) the dogpile, hate everything mentality made possible by 1) and 2).
Josh Look 1, Internet 0.
Presumably, there will be a sequel, and I'm more encouraged about that being just good and funny. This one felt like there might have been a little too much oversight and pressure, and in some senses it felt a bit stilted. Fun enough, though.
I enjoyed the movie but it didn't blow me away. I was 16 when the original one first came out and I loved it but I was also 16. I haven't spent a large portion of time thinking about it since then, just regarded it as a movie I like.
I'd definitely go see a sequel. I wouldn't necessarily be a midnight showing opening night thing, but nothing really is for me these days. It felt like a perfectly suitable summer movie, just like plenty of others that get allowed to come in and not change the world without having to deal with a bunch of dumb haters.
Wetworks wrote: This video review cracked me up,
I have no desire to see the current Ghostbusters at the theater, mainly because I usually don't like Paul Feig's slapstick style of humor
Since he clearly is NOT funny, I fail to see the appeal of Angry Joe. This useless, gibbering, fat-faced sack of shit meatbag seems to encapsulate so much I detest about Internet culture.
I remember him having a hard-on for the last Batman v Superman trailer, so his opinion is DOA and validates what I said above.
Josh Look wrote:
Wetworks wrote: This video review cracked me up,
I have no desire to see the current Ghostbusters at the theater, mainly because I usually don't like Paul Feig's slapstick style of humor
Since he clearly is NOT funny, I fail to see the appeal of Angry Joe. This useless, gibbering, fat-faced sack of shit meatbag seems to encapsulate so much I detest about Internet culture.
I remember him having a hard-on for the last Batman v Superman trailer, so his opinion is DOA and validates what I said above.
I can literally watch about 30 seconds of that dumbass.
Wetworks wrote:
Josh Look wrote: I remember him having a hard-on for the last Batman v Superman trailer, so his opinion is DOA and validates what I said above.
Angry Joe's review for Batman v Superman was pretty mixed,
I meant his reaction to one of the trailers. I'm not going to watch his final review of it, or anything he posts for that matter.
Some of the humor was pretty good though. Hemsworth's interview scene was great, just got sick of him after they kept bringing him back.
The reason I give it a pass despite this is because the cast is just so damned fun to watch, even after the battle at the end is over. And let's be fair, that's what made Ghostbusters so endearing to begin with, that Peter, Ray, Egon, Winston, Janine, Dana, and Louis were really great, funny characters that you wanted to watch, not for its take on Lovecraftian mumbo jumbo which is kind of hastily thrown together in the last 20 minutes or so.
Me: [playing dumb] Yeah, I saw it in 1984.
Friend: [gives lengthy explanation that this is a new Ghostbusters featuring an all-female cast.]
Me: Is there any nudity?
Friend: No.
Me: Then what is the point?
This pisses me off. Either you are joining in with the gamergate style attack that decries any female intrusion into male space, or you are just mucking around not really being sexist but aware of the controversy and poking it a bit. The danger with the latter approach is it encourages the haters and allows them to make their irrational attacks.Shellhead wrote: Friend: Have you seen Ghostbusters yet?
Me: [playing dumb] Yeah, I saw it in 1984.
Friend: [gives lengthy explanation that this is a new Ghostbusters featuring an all-female cast.]
Me: Is there any nudity?
Friend: No.
Me: Then what is the point?
Shellhead wrote: Friend: Have you seen Ghostbusters yet?
Me: [playing dumb] Yeah, I saw it in 1984.
Friend: [gives lengthy explanation that this is a new Ghostbusters featuring an all-female cast.]
Me: Is there any nudity?
Friend: No.
Me: Then what is the point?
hurr hurr boobs
Both my daughters gave the diplomatic answer when I asked them who their favourite Ghostbuster was of "Holtzmann is the coolest but I liked Patty the most".