Ghostbusters of 2016. Also known by other civilized folks as The Female Ghostbusters. Why Is This Movie Being Made Movie. Look At Those Ugly Cunts Ruining My Childhood WAH FEMINISM DIE.
Is this film truly worth the ire and irrational hatred some had displayed based solely on what was admittedly a poor trailer?
I assume you are reading this article because you are genuinely curious about what I thought. I pledge to be brief but completely honest. If you’re one of those disgruntled sorts who are just looking for an opportunity to raise your blood, happy to disappoint you, but this is not a sensational piece, merely an individual review.
Let’s get this out of the way right now; it’s not the first movie, but then again, why would it be? In say this, the greatest blow to the film is due to its innate anxiety toward the original, not borne of malicious intent or disrespect, but look at it this way- Ghostbusters is a beloved franchise and there is a particular standard most fans tend to expect. The best way to approach this reboot is to accept it as the the standalone it is intended to be. Did I find it hateful, horrid and worthy of the ire it has received? Not at all. Could it have been better? Absolutely. Is it a Summer Movie? Undoubtedly. In the end, it truly does depend on how open-minded you are when you experience the film.
- The cast is great, my favourite being Leslie Jones as Patty. This may surprise you, but while in the trailer (which really doesn’t give a lot away with context) she appeared to be a stereotype Sassy Black Lady, but in reality, she was more than that thanks to Jones’s performance. Kate McKinnon, who is darling to me, also delivers something akin to a harmless version of the Joker- a snappily dressed, clever wildcard. All four leads have a great, charming chemistry together and it brought a smile to my face.
- The tone for the most part remains consistent. There is a sense of cartwheels and jubilance through the film, it has a welcome up-beat energy to it which I could not find it in myself to deny. Ghostbusters doesn’t take itself too seriously and that’s a good thing.
- The ghosts. While the CGI is prevalent, I like the idea behind them, their sense of lore. Did any of you lovely people see Th13teen Ghosts? It’s similar to that concept, with the featured specters having a distinctive look which makes you wonder a little more about them.
- The empowerment. Yes, yes, that word is tossed around like a frisbee and in some areas has become vilified, but I ask you a simple question- if your child, son or daughter were inspired by the more positive aspects of the leads, wouldn’t you be happy they want to be a part of that as opposed to idolizing Charlie Sheen? If a youngster wants to dress up as these characters, let them- they are expressing their love for something positive.
Now, these points did somewhat limit my enjoyment of the film but I will not vehemently protest that their existence ‘ruined my childhood’ (on THAT delightfully controversial note, I will address further below).
- Chris Hemsworth and the other male characters. Don’t get me wrong, Hemsworth has a head for comedy and has nothing but good humor for his role, but I was deeply curious as to why the character was portrayed as dim-witted. I didn’t find him OFFENSIVELY horrible, but I don’t know, it struck me as a little mean to the male audience. That being expressed, a buddy of mine posited that perhaps Hemsworth’s performance (and by extension many of the male characters) was a piss-take on how quite a few female characters in those narrative positions (dumb and good-looking) are STILL portrayed even now in this day and age. Same can be said for the men who don’t take the Ghostbusters seriously, labeling them ‘hysterical’ and ‘insane’. Some of you may scoff at this, but believe it for not, this antiquated attitude still runs thick in the blood of humanity that in a way, Ghostbusters addresses, albeit in a greatly exaggerated tone. Still, would have been nice if Hemsworth was allowed the opportunity to offer insight because his character truly was delightful.
- The main villain. He ain’t Zuul and there’s no payoff to what was actually an interesting lead-up to his great master plan. Simply put he’s just some loony bastard who wants to dominate the world, blah, blah, blah. I wasn’t put off by the lack of originality per se, but the personification of the execution.
- The cameos of most of the original cast are… rather ill-advised. When I heard Akroyd, Murray, Hudson, Weaver and Annie Potts were going to be in the film, a part of me was hopeful that they were somehow reprising their original roles, but no. I wonder why that is because when you see those actors in a Ghostbusters film, it’s common to associate them with their avatars, but here they play completely different roles. Why? Why didn’t production just employ a bunch of different actors? It was confusing to the say the least, not cruel or made in the name of bad taste by any means, but completely befuddling. However there is a sweet tribute to the dearly departed Harold Ramis though, so that was rather touching. All in all, the thought was sincere, but it wasn’t necessary.
The re-tooled theme. Some people hate it, others say it’s good, for me, it’s 50/50.
The humor is all over the place, sometimes it’s sophisticated and genuinely hilarious, other times it resorts to juvenile laughs. I love my potty/I’m-going-to-Hell humor, but some of the silly cracks fell flat, at least for me.
I’ll get to the point- this comment makes no sense. Your childhood has happened, its been and gone. What you have now is nostalgia and that is quite different to actually being a child and seeing the world through a child’s be-wondered eyes. The original Ghostbusters and previous media to this point are going NOWHERE. They will always be here for you to watch, enjoy and think about when your life was less complicated. By the way, I didn’t hear anybody split hairs about the Ghostbusters porn parody ‘ruining their childhoods’ and let’s not argue how that’s ‘different’ because according to the favored rationale that anything that isn’t 1984’s Ghostbusters is guilty of ‘ruining childhoods’ then the porn parody has clearly bent it over your parents’ bed and sodomized it seven hundred ways from Sunday while dressed in a Barney suit. Rather than ruining childhoods, this movie is helping to nurture a new generation of them.
Ghostbusters was fine. Solidly, entertainingly fine. Flawed material, naturally, because taking on a reboot to such a well-loved series is a gargantuan task and there is no doubt the makers felt like the Sword of Damocles was hanging over their heads every moment. Ghostbusters does not logically work as a sequel, but that was not it’s aim. A reboot is a reboot and reboots aren’t inherently bad. They were not trying to take a dump on the memory you have of the originals, they are taking the same route but making a different journey and wouldn’t you prefer that over a shot-by-shot rehash?
What this movie is to some well-reasoned, completely logical, irrefutably intellectual people.
What it is truly about.