Review of Ghostbusters (2016) by Jack F — 19 Mar 2017

Boy, the Internet sure had a field day with this one prior to its release, didn't they? Whether it was die-hard fans of the original 1984 movie, viewers of the film's first trailer, or the ugly misogynists of the world, the online world was set ablaze by word that Paul Feig was going to helm a female-driven reboot of Ivan Reitman's comedy classic.

At the time, I marveled at this giant overreaction and now, after seeing the film myself, it looks even more overblown in hindsight. "Ghostbusters" is nothing to get worked up over on either end of the spectrum. It's not very good, but it's not awful either. It's just a light-weight, middle-of-the-road mediocre comedy. It deserves neither adulation nor vitriol.

Just to clarify, I didn't really have a strong opinion about a "Ghostbusters" reboot. I'm a fan of the original movie, but I don't revere it as so many others in my age group do. This was not seen as a sacrilege in my eyes.

Now it's true that, generally speaking, I feel like the movie market has been oversaturated with remakes and reboots over the past few years, and I'll usually approach them with some degree of trepidation. But the truth is that it doesn't appear that the remake/reboot trend is going to end any time soon. And sometimes you may even end up pleasantly surprised. (I actually liked the "Total Recall" remake, something I definitely didn't anticipate.).

Plus, despite what terrible Internet people might claim, creating a female team of spook-hunters was inherently a good thing. Growing up in the '80's and '90's, most young boys I knew had a favorite Ghostbuster. Is it really so terrible that now young girls of this generation can look at this squad and feel like they can "play" too? (This isn't to suggest that the girls of the '80's didn't like "Ghostbusters" or have a favorite character, but at least now their gender is better represented beyond "love interest" or "damsel in distress.").

So it would've been a pleasant surprise had "Ghostbusters 2016" won me over. The four leads (Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Leslie Jones, and Kate McKinnon) have all been good in other projects and have great comedic chemistry. And there are some funny moments in the movie; Jones, in particular, is a hoot, and I also enjoyed Chris Hemsworth's turn as the team's "mimbo" secretary.

But much of the film is just flat. The humor is too scatter-shot, and the story isn't interesting enough to carry the proceedings when the comedy lags. The plot is more-or-less the same as the original film--a team of paranormal experts unite to save New York City from a sudden, mysterious plague of angry spirits--but the concept is no longer as fresh, and the special effects packed more of a visceral wallop back then.

To be clear, the effects are "better" in the current movie as technology has obviously improved. But there was a certain creepiness to the '84 film's ghouls that this one lacks. With all the bright, swirling colors, they just don't seem all that scary. I know that it's not meant to be a horror movie, but the ghosts still need to have an element of danger to them (they need to be "busted," after all). In the original movie, the Stay Puft Marshallow Man, while not outright scary, at least came off as something of a threat. I never got that sense with any of the phantasms in this remake.

That extends to the villain too, who's just a little weeny-pants mad scientist intent on unleashing as many ghosts on the city as he can. Gozer the Gozerian, this guy ain't.

The original Ghostbusters turn up in cameo roles (save for the late Harold Ramis, obviously), but Bill Murray's appearance is the only one that's actually noteworthy as he's essentially playing the asshole character he squared off against in the '84 film. Ernie Hudson's walk-on is cute but unnecessary, and Dan Aykroyd's is just plain bad.

I wanted to like this movie. I like the cast, and it would've just been so poetic had Feig made a dynamic "Ghostbusters" reboot to silence the Internet's frothing rage that had mostly surfaced before the damn thing had even come out. And as I said, there's nothing terrible about the film, and it's never unwatchable. But it doesn't leave much of a positive impact either. At the end of the day, "Ghostbusters" is going to be remembered more for the uproar it became embroiled in rather than the content of the film itself. And that's too bad, for a number of reasons.