Ghostbusters review
It’s fine.
I’d honestly just leave it like that if I thought I could get away with it. I’ve been dreading having to review this movie ever since the first trailers came out, and that had little to do with the actual quality of the trailer or anything like that. I can’t think of a single movie in recent memory that’s stirred up this much pointless and idiotic controversy before it’s been released than Ghostbusters 2016. Here’s the thing folks, and keep in mind I’m speaking as a man here; I don’t think the original Ghostbusters has aged all that well, I don’t care that they’ve rebooted it, I don’t mind that they’ve recast it with female characters, and I ESPECIALLY don’t care if you’ve already decided you’re going to hate it strictly on those principles. You wanna know what I do mind? — sexist fanboys who can’t stand the idea of having their beloved childhoods “besmirched by the feminists!!!” And if you’re one of the people who is actually, legitimately offended by the idea of a Ghostbusters reboot simply because it stars woman, please do us all a favor and shut up.
Look people, I get why a lot of people really love Ghostbusters. Kinda. It was a ground-breaking comedy for the time that managed to capture the talents of some of the best comedic actors and writers who were working during that time and brought them together to execute a concept for a movie the likes of which hadn’t even been really considered. It was a legitimate blast of creativity and originality the likes of which we don’t see nearly enough… Which doesn’t mean it hasn’t aged badly or that certain ideas couldn’t have been executed better or that standards in film just haven’t changed. What I’m trying to say is, I can understand why a lot of people loved it at its time, but putting this on some sort of untouchable pedestal that can’t ever be touched or rebooted is just embarrassing. Reboots and decades late sequels are by nature annoying, true. It annoys us that certain things from our childhood are being blatantly re-injected into the populous by greedy studios who just can’t leave well alone when they see a full wallet; ESPECIALLY when we get a reboot or sequel that’s just straight up lazy and insulting as a good number of them have been. BUT, it’s becoming increasingly more apparent to studios that in order to make the big money, it helps to have talented people on board who actually have a deep affection for the original property. For example, Force Awakens wouldn’t have made nearly as much money if J.J. Abrahams hadn’t been such a huge geek, Jurassic World wouldn’t have as big a success if Colin Trevorrow hadn’t been determined to deliver a fun movie no-matter what, and Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice wouldn’t have been such a god-awful disgrace if Zach Snyder understood Superman. It’s also becoming apparent that sometimes certain ideas need a shot in the arm in order to let them be relevant and marketable in modern day. (Again, see Jurassic World) There are a lot of untapped, potential markets out there that Hollywood has neglected for… basically forever. So I hope you understand a little better why this exists at all. There’s a large majority of woman and girls out there that have grown-up with the original Ghostbusters and think that it’s really awesome that someone decided to make a movie for them. So if nothing else I can say that A) Paul Fiege and everyone involved with this clearly have an affection for the source material and B) there will probably be a large majority of women, from middle-aged females who remember the first one, to little girls meeting the premise for the first time, who will like this movie a lot. I hope.
So how’s the actual movie? Ehhhhhhh I found it okay; kinda a step down from last year’s Spy. I’ve clearly made out that it’s not for me, so a lot of it was mostly subjective, but I think its audience will enjoy it a lot. The new characters were fairly interesting. Some worked better then others, but they all seem like genuinely fleshed out characters that step far outside the archetypes of the original characters. The cast all worked well off of each other and all gave pretty good performances. The highlight for me was Chris Hemsworth as the secretary Kevin. Hemsworth is a comedic revelation here; he’s playing quite possible one of the most hilariously innocent dumb bricks ever put to film and it is a joy to watch him just wander around. The story was also appropriately subversive. It follows the basic structure of the original, but the actual set-pieces and jokes are all original creations. Similarly, a good portion of the original cast shows up, and while I thought some of their scenes went on too long, they were implemented in fairly clever ways. The weak-link here is the villain. He’s honestly just not written very well and he wastes a potentially interesting character idea because he’s not given the development he deserves. I’m honestly just not big on Paul Fiege as a director either anymore. His editing and shot-composition feel too much like every other 21st century comedy movie, his comedy relies too much on the improvisation of his actors, and I honestly just don’t feel he’s a very creative comedic writer. He does have a surprising strong suite for action though, and that does shine through here in third act and makes a welcome change of pace. The special effects were pretty good. All the ghost catching tech is appropriately flashy and tangible, and the design and look of the ghosts are all pretty cool and creative.
Overall I feel this is the best possible outcome we could’ve hoped for in this situation. I’ve had to sit through Sony ruin Spider-man and James Bond and this isn’t nearly as bad as The Amazing Spider-man 2 or Spectre. This isn’t the best movie I’ve seen this year, nor is it the worst. It’s a fun little movie that I hope will find its audience and make some people happy. And it definitely doesn’t deserve anywhere near the hate it has gotten.
The Media Fire gives this movie a 7/10
