With the death of actor Harold Ramis (the co-writer of Ghostbusters and its sequel along with the character Dr. Egon Spengler), Bill Murray’s reticence to sign onto the hypothetical “Ghostbusters 3”, and Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters 2 director Ivan Reitman bowing out of respect for Ramis to ever do another related to the 1984 team, it was decided to reboot the established successful film “franchise” by using a money-making formula seen in Paul Feig’s Bridesmaids (2011) and The Heat (2013). I’ve typed a lot about Ghostbusters on here, if y’all are curious about my thoughts you can check out the previous Tumblr posts. The marketing for this movie was extremely atrocious: that first trailer, oh my gosh. With all that typed, here’s my review of Ghostbusters (2016).
http://thechurchillreview.tumblr.com/post/140438017743/the-legacy-of-ghostbusters-1984-and-harold
http://thechurchillreview.tumblr.com/post/109398822583/who-you-gonna-call-new-blood-for-the-iconic
http://thechurchillreview.tumblr.com/post/142165600178/world-premiere-ghostbusters-trailer
http://thechurchillreview.tumblr.com/post/144589242758/ghostbusters-official-trailer-2-2016-kristen
http://thechurchillreview.tumblr.com/post/147362151083/i-have-previously-written-extensively-about
Narrative-wise, this Ghostbusters borrows from the original, similarly to how last year’s Star Wars: The Force Awakens did so with A New Hope. That’s not to say it is a replica of the 1984 one. Like The Force Awakens, the pieces are arranged differently with new ideas in between them. For instance, the first ghost in found inside a library room, the university won’t fund their research, they meet with the mayor, they’re labeled as frauds, one ghost is caught before the finale, characters get possessed, and the villain transforms which are all from the original Ghostbusters. That’s without listing the callbacks to Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters 2. Essentially, if you’re familiar with the 1984 Ghostbusters or its 1989 inferior copy and paste sequel, this Ghostbusters is a tad frustrating sometimes. We’re talking about a 32 year old flick, yet, this Ghostbusters is lazily fine with sticking to the same story beats.
Perhaps labeling it as lazy is being tremendously unfair. My guess is the controversies lead to Sony Pictures, Paul Feig, and Kate Dippold fearing generating something that deviated too far from the 1984 version. As in, the 2016 Ghostbusters has to play it safe. They should’ve said, “I ain’t afraid of no criticism” and stuck with the classic premise whilst forging an even more distinct identity in the process.
For instance, the cameo appearances of actors Annie Potts, Dan Akyroyd, Sigourney Weaver, Bill Murray, and Ernie Hudson are a bit jarring, initially. It makes me wonder if at one point during the development Ghostbusters was indeed going to be connected to the 1984 universe by pulling from the animated series Extreme Ghostbusters connected to The Real Ghostbusters cartoon show before ultimately opting for a wiping the slate clean? “The course of this motion picture has drastically shifted, but we have this actors still here. Might as well use them. It won’t appear forced at all!” That’s what it comes off as, to me. The Sigourney Weaver and Annie Potts cameo felt closer to organic and were the strongest I thought.
It is kind of a shame since the fresh stuff is unique, clever, or cool. Like the gadgetry that allows its user to punch ghosts. Or how our heroes take out ghosts in the final sequence versus stand there and point their weapons. Or the fact that their base of operations being above a Chinese restaurant that is somehow an hour late delivering food to them. Heh, merely typing and thinking about that makes me laugh out loud for several minutes. The abandoning of a “romantic” subplot seen in the 1984 Ghostbusters, my least favorite thing from it, truth be told. Oh! And the especially relevant antagonist. That’s talk about Rowan.
In the 1984 Ghostbusters, the Sumerian god Gozer villain doesn’t materialize until the last act. Comparatively, the 2016 bad guy Rowan (Neil Casey) is introduced early on and entire scenes are dedicated to him. The Mercado Hotel janitor claims he was bullied, but has decided to get revenge by becoming a bully himself. This isn’t ever elaborated nor brought up again. Maybe Rowan’s bullied due to his personality? I'm really not entirely sure. Maybe the point is he's not being truthfully bullied and he's just a jerk and that's how others have viewed him throughout the years which he perceives as bullying. Your guess as a good as mine.
He ridicules the gender of the Ghostbusters several times, reminding the viewer of an earlier “bitches can’t hunt ghosts” Youtube comment made about them. To further mock the Ghostbusters, Rowan eventually becomes a terrifying variant of their adorable iconic Ghostbusters logo, echoing when Gozer allowed the 1984 Ghostbusters to “chose the form of the destructor” through the titanic Stay Puft Marshmallow. I think Rowan is a real life caricature for those that comment “Not all men” when the post isn’t about guys in the slightest. This conversation has nada to do with dudes, why would you…? My second theory is Rowan symbolizes director/co-writer Paul Feig, co-writer Kate Dippold, and Sony Pictures taking a direct stab towards those that spewed pure hate and persisted with it at the very notion of a reboot Ghostbusters which in turn absolutely turned the page on “Ghostbusters 3” with the remaining 1984 cast ever becoming a reality.
Because Terminator 3: Rise of Machines, Rocky Balboa, Indiana Jones: The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and Ghostbusters 2 were sooooo amazing yes?
The titular Ghostbusters consist of Dr. Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig), Dr. Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy), Dr. Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon), Kevin (Chris Hemsworth), and Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones). I want to address the recurring elephant of the 2016 Ghostbusters...The utilization and treatment of Patty Tolan’s character.
There’s a scene where one of the Ghostbusters announces, “We’re scientists plus Patty.” Talk about adding insult to injury, sheesh. Yeah, thanks for the reminder about how faintly progressive Ghostbusters (2016) is! How the black character doesn’t get to be a scientist AGAIN. Like the “everyman” position of Ernie Hudson’s Winston Zeddmore in the 1984 Ghostbusters, Leslie’s screentime and what Patty does isn’t comparable to the rest of the white female cast. The character described by Paul Feig as a “ghost tracker, municipal historian, metaphysical commando.” Wowzers, how rad sounding! Except there’s rare displays of her ghostbusting and I don’t recall Patty tracking any ghosts either. Don’t worry, that camera follows Yates, Gilbert, and Holtzmann around whenever they ghostbust.
Sure, Ghostbusters did do a lot for women in cinema. *Coughs* White women, I mean.
Where’s Tolan’s moment to shine as a Ghostbuster in the motion picture? The others get them, where’s hers? She has oodles of knowledge about New York, so why weren’t there more opportunities to showcase this? Was this intentional or unintentional? I don’t know. Anyways, that really bothered me when watching Ghostbusters today.
The standout character I’m psyched about for future installments from Ghostbusters is Kate McKinnon’s Dr. Jillian Holtzmann. Even when she’s not the focus, she becomes the focus through her Harold Ramis/Dr. Egon Spengler inspired performance. Easily my favorite character, by far. Kate specializes in deadpan line delivery whilst conveying humor through her subtle actions, body language, and facial expressions. That’s extremely difficult to do let alone perform excellently. On top of that, she gets to kick lots of ghost butt towards the conclusion with panache, neat equipment, and smiling. She’s a genius that precisely captures the “busting makes me feel good” line from the well-known Ray Parker Jr. Ghostbusters theme song.
Another is Hemsworth’s part as Kevin a subversion of the dumb blonde stereotype typically associated with women in films. There is no dumb male blonde trope hence why this is a reversal. As well, he’s the substitute for being the controlled by Zuul Dana Barrett in the 1984 Ghostbusters. Unlike poor Dana Kevin’s character isn’t solely defined by being possessed. On a few occasions, he’s a bit too dim-witted and said joke fails to hits its mark. For example, he covers his eyes when voicing the music's too loud. What the?! There’s some comedy with him that’s better executed. Chris Hemsworth needs to star in a comedy movie or the fish-out-of-water Asgardian Thor deserves opportunities that flow with his character to be droll some more. I'm sure Kevin will cause some controversy. Yet, when women are depicted in such a manner "it is just a joke" and people "shouldn't take it personally". Funny how that works when the roles are reversed.
Speaking of funny, Ghostbusters manages to equally delight and repulse. The gags that attempt to gross out, be controversial, or shock the audience such as someone crapping his pants in fear, projectile ghost vomit, Gilbert explaining where the vomit went, queefing, and the sexualized Ghostbusters prototype logo, pissed me off. In the 1984 Ghostbusters, the ghost sex and everything related to the pervy Peter Venkman as he tries to commence a relationship with the uninterested Dana Barrett is an equivalent in my loathed eyes. Why does Venkman have a syringe of Thorazine with him on a “date”?! That's creepier than any of the ghosts. What the heck?! Has he done this before? If that’s true, I hate his character significantly more than I already did. It was bad enough he pestered her until he got a date despite her clear disinterest from the get-go. Yep, I’m quite happy the 2016 Ghostbusters doesn’t feature a character like him in it.
Sequences of an ad-libbed nature that seem to be there since they result in a laugh, yet don’t honestly fit in can be a tad vexing too. ‘Kay, there’s a sequence where this cop references the Patrick Swayze 1990 movie Ghost that devolves into Erin and Abby speaking lines about other films he’s been in. Thanks for pausing everything to tell the audience those extremely specific facts. Seriously? Uggggh.
Admittedly, I laughed aloud at certain intended jokes. For example, Slimer warranted a good amount of guffaws. For others I wrinkled my nose at them, hoping they’d end sooner than later a.k.a. the female Slimer ghost that’s gender is indicated through two of the most cliched identifiers of make-up and lipstick (something Ghostbusters had thankfully avoided up until that point). The remainder received snickers from me.
All in all, Ghostbusters isn’t the “shitstorm” some people cruelly yearned for it to be. I was surprised and caught off guard by how emotionally invested I became in it. More so than my experience with the original Ghostbusters, to be honest. I liked it. Would of been great to see more variation to the Ghostbusters motion picture franchise story alongside additional new whatnot. Still, I want to spend more time with these characters sooner than later.
Or could Dr. Jillian Holtzmann get her own spin-off movie? *Crosses fingers*
P.S. Lovely tributes to the late and splendid Harold Ramis are in it. <3 Stay through the credits! Ah, I didn’t forget about Dr. Erin Gilbert or Dr. Abby Yates that actors Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy portrayed. They’re just not particularly memorable, in my opinion. Dull compared to everyone else.
