Ghostbusters Review
Haunted by its Past.
Review by George Terran @thefriedbrain
Image from www.lipstickalley.com
The original Ghostbusters (1984) was, is and will always remain one of the very best comedies of all time.
Starring some of the funniest fellows working at the time with Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis and Rick Moranis; plus the constantly rising star of Sigourney Weaver and a then relatively unknown Ernie Hudson it all added up to something that is so fondly remembered that the idea of a remake/reboot is tantamount to treason.
It followed some highly intelligent (but also incredibly relatable) down-on-their-luck scientists who, whilst researching the existence of ghosts, learn that the supernatural is absolutely a ‘thing’ and Peter Venkman schemes up a way to make some money off it.
Though the money-grabbing, corporate zeitgeist of the ’80’s is firmly imprinted on the original movie, it was still held together with deft direction from Ivan Reitman, top quality pacing and editing and a cast of characters that were genuinely relatable, likeable and funny.
Image from en.wikipedia.org
Five years later and we got Ghostbusters 2.
It completely suffered from sequel-itis and is not a great movie by any stretch of the imagination.
I think that part of the reason why it failed is that it tried to pander to the kids who had fallen in love with the original. That, and it has a very split message.
The ooze is being charged by all the negativity in New York and causing serious problems. There is a huge vibe of “New York isn’t what it used to be”. The judge is spouting about having the Ghostbusters burned at the stake, nobody cares for each other (to the point where the Ghostbusters have disbanded in the beginning).
Then the movie shifts into a slightly preachy tone where ‘hope can set you free’.
Simply put, it didn’t fit, it didn’t work and it missed the target by a long shot. Great villain name though.
Image from www.impawards.com
Fast forward to 2016 and we are now able to see new Ghostbusters movie.
Is it a reboot? Is it a remake?
It doesn’t give a clear answer to that.
One theory that sounded like complete fan fiction at first but makes so much more sense since watching the movie comes from aintitcool.com where it’s either possibly a parallel universe (hence the cameos - more on those later) or the original Ghostbusters have been entered into a form of witness protection and their stories will be fleshed out in Ghost Corp spin-off movies.
I watched the movie last night and I have been constantly thinking about it, weighing every part of the movie up in an effort to deliver a review that is not biased by my love of the original and not hampered by all the press surrounding this movie. It is really hard and the new Ghostbusters movie really doesn’t do itself any favours on either of these points.
Directed by Paul Feig (Bridesmaids, Spy) this Ghostbusters stars some of SNL’s best female alumni and a funnier-than-you-thought Chris Hemsworth. Plus an overload of unnecessary celebrity-cameo casting. And the surviving original cast of Ghostbusters (minus Rick Moranis).
Therein lies one of the hardest parts for this movie. For years since Ghostbusters 2 Dan Aykroyd has been talking about a sequel for ages and the biggest issue was Bill Murray not wanting to do it. Then when production began on this movie, they made a huge deal about getting the original cast involved. So you’re left watching the movie waiting for these cameos which, largely, are uninspired.
Terri Schwarts at IGN.com commented that it would have made more sense to have them play the Mayor and the Principles of the two universities instead.
The movie opens with a tour-guide (a brilliant Zach Woods) taking a small group of people through the Aldrich Mansion and regaling thereabout how the daughter of Mr Aldrich was put into the basement and left to die. We then have the guide get trapped in the house and have an encounter with a ghost.
This sequence was possibly the best part of the film. The guide’s tour information about some of the events that happened in the house were genuinely funny. They were played deadpan but you have him mention the slavery of Elephants and other weird, quirky diatribes. Feig kept the camera close with the group and it served as a nice, subtle was of bringing the audience into the world as part of the tour group.
The haunting was very well-played except for the lighting which looked a little too day-glo for my tastes, but it generally fit the aesthetic. But from there on Ghostbusters loses sight of the key point for a movie… to tell an engaging story.
We’re introduced the Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones fairly quickly and it is very clear from the outset that they enjoy working together. They know how to play off each other.
But what’s missing from their team is a clear ‘every-person’.
Wiig’s Erin Gilbert initially appears to be cast in the role of skeptic (akin to Venkman), but after their first ghost encounter you see quite clearly that she was merely playing the part of laced up and ‘professional’. When she exclaims that “Ghost are real!” you can see true elation in her eyes and face. This connects well with her “Ghost girl” childhood story. But it is never really explained or given the right time to grow and develop.
Abby certainly seems to be the Stantz of this group in that she is unabashed for her belief and devotion to ghosts - but then when the team meet Murray’s character, she shies away from the fight/debate and it’s Erin who comes out ready to fight which didn’t seem to quite fit the characters that we had seen to this point.
McKinnon’s Holtzmann is borderline insane. It makes her entirely enjoyable to watch, but it doesn’t really fit with the tone of the rest of the movie. There are no real moments for her. Yes, she is brilliantly intelligent and brilliantly mad, but aside from a small scene right at the very end of the movie she isn’t given a chance to explain why her character is the way she is. From her toast it is quite clear that her persona has been manufactured and ‘upgraded’ over the course of her life to act as armour (after a fashion) and that she has some sort of abandonment issues.
As for Jones’ Patty, she is the most well-rounded character of the whole bunch. She is constantly talking about her passion for reading books, learning about New York’s history and her family (her uncle, at least). I was worried from the trailers that her character would be jarring and annoying, but I was happily proven wrong.
Lastly on the core Ghostbusters is Chris Hemsworth’s Kevin. He is genuinely funny here. I’ve heard people say that McKinnon’s character seems to be from a different movie… well I think that point can be drawn with Kevin as well. He is SO stupid. His goofs are funny, but they don’t seem to fit in the world of this Ghostbusters. If there had been a scene where the team use his handsome looks to gain access to a building or something then you could explain his life away as, “He doesn’t have to need a brain with looks like that!”. You don’t get that. You just have a really stupid young man.
The trailers for this movie - which have been the source of such online fervour - really didn’t sell this movie. Mixed messages about if it’s a reboot etc… the stupid notion that women couldn’t be Ghostbusters and the overall poor quality of the edits and CGI used in the trailers meant that there was a huge uphill struggle ahead of them as soon as they launched to the public.
And much like Deadpool before it, too many of the jokes were used in the trailer. This took the sting out of them when you were watching the movie. You already knew how the joke would end.
I’m gonna talk a little about the character of Rowan North (Neil Casey). The character was frankly terrible. Forgettable, uninspiring and poorly handled. There is a brief moment where you surmise that he is doing all this because he has been bullied his whole life, but there is no explanation about his (clear) brilliant mind.
By the end of the movie his physical state has changed and it leads to a god-awful CGI-fest and near-dance-routine (which is ultimately realised during the credits). Any notion of story or (more importantly) character is thrown out the window for an attempt at spectacle.
The biggest issue with this movie is that it consistently slaps you in the face with reminders that you’re not watching the original movie.
* The original music is the first piece of music in the movie.
* The logo is the classic logo
* They visit (and ultimately take over) the original Ghostbusters building
* All the original cast cameos
* The Ecto1 car
* Slimer
* The Uniforms
* The Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man
The list goes on and none of it fits organically into the movie and therefore sticks out like a sore thumb.
Finally there is the issue of the original cast cameos.
Let's go through in order.
SPOILER WARNING!
Obviously Harold Ramis sadly passed away, but (much like a certain Harrison Ford sequel) the movie honours the character with a bust that looks barely like the man.
Bill Murray plays a renowned debunker of the paranormal and it seems like he probably only agreed to be in the movie if they **whispers** killed (seemingly) his character. He's clearly phoning it in.
Annie Potts (Janine the secretary) is an obnoxious secretary at one of the hotels the girls visit.
Dan Ackroyd appears as a taxi driver and actually spouts the line, "I ain't afraid of no Ghost"
Ernie Hudson appears at the end as Patty's uncle and it's the most organic of the cameos.
Finally there is Sigourney Weaver who appears in the post credit roll as Holtszmann's mentor.
Why the had to use Charles Dance and Andy Garcia for their cameos and none of these guys, I don't know. They were wasted and not funny. It's a true shame.
I feel really bad that I didn’t enjoy this movie because the idea of some entrepreneurs/scientists starting up a ghost-catching business is a great opportunity. The core Ghostbusters are likeable (even if they’re not given enough time to grow as characters). I feel that it was poorly written and Paul Feig was not the right choice for this movie.
The mixed message of what this movie is becomes the most infuriating issue. Its been 27 years since the last Ghostbusters movie. That is far too much time to pass for a sequel and every fan of the original has their perfect fan-fiction version of what a Ghostbusters movie should have been.
The creative team on this movie should have embraced the idea of simply creating a totally new movie with only the name being the connective tissue.
VERDICT:
I can’t recommend this movie for anyone. There were no cheers of joy or screams of fear from the audience in the screening I attended. I don’t know who this movie is for.
It is a bad movie that had a great deal of potential that ended up being unfulfilled.
A successful sequel could be delivered, but it would have to be quite a turnaround at this stage. There has only been one great Ghostbusters movie and I fear that it was a situation of catching lightning in a bottle.