Ghostbusters

The 1984 Ghostbusters is not a seminal film for me.  I saw it after I saw Indiana Jones, Star Wars, The Goonies, and while I thought it was great, it wasn’t something that I was obsessed with as a kid.  I didn’t have every frame of it memorized; I didn’t know every line of dialogue or how each of those lines were said so that I could randomly say them. I was more enthralled with the cartoon series and the “Ghostbusters’ fire house set” that I had with the “slime” you could pour through the roof.  The film took a back seat to those things, along with many other stories I chose over it.  I’ve never much liked the sequel either.

But that’s me.  I know there are many people my age that grew up with nightmares of the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man; I know that some people spent entire afternoons pretending to catch ghosts that weren’t there so they could trap them in the plastic replica thingy they got from Toys R’ Us.  I had those afternoons because of other stories and I don’t regret them.  They’re lovely memories that I adore. They’re important to me.  Just as important as the Ghosbusters are to a large part of my entire generation.  I have the utmost respect for that kind of adoration.

I too, have respect for people that feel it’s important for women to be given a more prominent place in film.  It’s an admirable thing to care about in my opinion.  And those people care deeply.  Which is why I understand why there has been such animosity on both sides of the line involving the 2016 Ghostbusters film.  It’s important to very different kinds of people for very different reasons.  And when you care that much about something, you think with emotion (not always the best decision).

I cared deeply when The Force Awakens was approaching the multiplex, because I was excited that it would be something special, and beyond afraid that it was going to disappoint.  That film was essentially a remake of A New Hope, but it didn’t matter because it was made with a love and care for the characters and the people who loved and cared about them.  It felt like a film that genuinely cared.

And that…was important to me.

I guess that isn’t saying much because all films should feel like they care about the story they’re telling.  In fact, all drama should be that way.

Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters does not care.  And because of that, it isn’t very good.

Now I’m not going to compare the original to this film because I believe that it’s goals were to stand alone.  I don’t really think there’s a constructive point to be made in comparing the men to the girls,  or the visual effects of 1984 to those of 2016. I didn’t want to search for iconic moments in Feig’s film that could stand with those of Reitman’s.  I just wanted to see a fun, action/sci-fi yarn with an abundance of strong comedy.

Things start out well with a funny and tense opening scene, involving a tour guide (Zach Woods from Silicon Valley) showing people around a famously haunted building that doubles as a museum.  I thought all of the jokes landed and the spookier aspect to the action was handled well.  If the film had kept up this balance throughout it’s  run-time then I’d be singing a different tune (though not the hideous Missy Elliot cover of the theme song that thankfully doesn’t have much of a presence here).  But something happened when the film cut to the introduction of Kristen Wiig’s character.  She’s practicing a speech and someone engages her about the book she wrote with a former friend; her character is a little awkward to begin with and the news of her book being sold on Amazon without her permission sends her for a loop.  The problem is that the scene felt punch-less to me, which I thought was a concern as it was something that Wiig would normally  need little effort to make funny and charming.  Something was off and I wasn’t sure what it was.

Enter Melissa McCarthy’s character and it was more of the same.  Her and Wiig have shown to have great chemistry in the past, but here they both felt on auto-pilot.  Only Kate McKinnon’s character displayed a sense of energy that tried to infect the other two with no avail (I had major problems with McKinnon too, but I’ll get to that).  There was no spark to the scene and the film followed suit for the most part.  These are all talented actors that are very strong when it comes to improvisation and finding the right way through a moment, but it just seemed as though they were reading the lines from the script in a rehearsal before they could sink their teeth into it.  It made the jokes feel forced instead of lively, like when Saturday Night Live runs the taped dress rehearsal shows in syndication instead of the live ones.  It’s a completely different energy, and not in a good way.

McKinnon was the one I was hoping would steal the show, and that’s exactly what she tries to do, and exactly why it didn’t work for me.  What should be a brilliant turn, with various shades and ticks to her wild character, just feels like the ultimate “look at me” performance.  I actually got irritated a few times and mumbled “please stop” under my breath.  I will note that she is getting a lot of praise for doing what I’d hope she would, so maybe I’m in the minority here.

Leslie Jones is no where near as annoying as she was in the trailer.  She brought a different feel to the film once she entered it, but Feig just used her character’s occupation to obviously give her lines that will advance the story.  She knows the history of New York City, and then she occasionally puts it to use when the plot needs it.  I’m glad she didn’t spend the film screaming as the trailer would indicate, but then again..maybe Feig should’ve just turned her loose along with Wiig and McCarthy.  It’s Feig’s fault for not letting his actors be fearless while have the right sensibilities to reign them in.  They all made me laugh in the film, but three of the four performances felt too shackled, as though they were just trying to get to the next scene.  McKinnon was the difference in the sense that I don’t even know if she was given any direction.

I did find Chris Hemsworth to be pretty damn funny.  His character is a moron and the film rides that joke successfully.  I especially liked how Wiig’s character is absurdly obsessed with him to the point that she drinks the coffee he spits out.  It was my favorite running joke in the film. My only favorite running joke in the film.

Far less successful is Neil Casey as Rowan, the film’s very boring villain.  Boring…BORING…GOOD LORD HE’S BORING. His plan is boring, his motivation is barely there, his plan makes no sense, and he executes it because the plot demands him to.  McCarthy quips that “it’s always the sad pale ones.”  And that is the extent of his character.

There’s also the mayor, played by Andy Garcia who actually looks like he’s having fun;  his character is used as a government obstacle akin to Walter Peck of the original, though not as much of a prick.  The character is another boring “by the numbers” plot device that for some reason, couldn’t be improved somehow.  I will admit that Garcia’s reaction to being called the worst mayor since the one in Jaws made me laugh out loud.

The cameos were mostly terrible.  Bill Murray looked like he’d rather be held at gunpoint than in the film; Dan Aykroyd and Ernie Hudson say a few of the famous lines from the original in a very uninspired way; Sigourney Weaver gets her moment in the end credits and I can’t remember what she said, so there you go.  Only Annie Potts shined in her brief scene that didn’t feel shoehorned in, unlike the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man who appears as a possessed balloon because I was supposed to say “hey it’s you.”  Instead I said, ” I saw this part on a commercial.”

The CGI is fine if unmemorable.  The ghosts are uninspired like everything else, but I liked how they look like the ghosts from “The Haunted Mansion” ride.  They are usually surrounded by blue or green lighting which results in some pretty visuals.  Less attractive is the rehash of the 84 film’s climax, in which Ronan takes the form of the Ghostbusters logo because, like the rest of the film, the first idea seemed to be the one they went with.  While some of the action scenes are decent, they go on for too long as if Feig thinks that action-heavy CGI is supposed to be exciting these days.

I wished I loved this film.  I don’t know if it would’ve been better served as a sequel instead of a reboot, because if it was made with the same uninspired attitude that this one evokes, then it really wouldn’t of mattered.  It’s a shame that Feig’s talented cast are left out to dry in favor of advertising for Papa John’s. It’s not a shame this film was made with these talented women, but it is a shame that I sat through it.

Grade: C-