Don't breathe -a review

Three young burglars (the alpha-male, his girlfriend, and the well-to-do boy hopelessly in love with her) decide to break into the house of an elderly blind man. Little do they know that this old man is former military and very capable of dealing with his problems, sight or not!

Don't breathe is being heralded as the best new horror/thriller on the market today. And, to be absolutely honest: it is a solid thrill ride. But I can't shake the feeling that; if this is the best on the market today, the market has taken a step back in its expectations.

In the final moments of Wait until dark –the inspirational predecessor- the screen went completely dark for (almost) a full minute. Don’t breathe fails to pull off that trick. To put the viewer in the ‘eyes’ of the blind man. I think that is one heck of a missed opportunity to crank up the tension.

Script

Again this is a movie that would have benefitted from a more streamlined script. Basically all the three criminals are cut-out characters that don't really have a moment to shine together- a moment for us to invest in them. And due to that the scares and jumps don't really work on a danger-level (or a “please-God-not-him/her”-level, if you will). Now, with such a small cast this is a harder achievement to pull off, I’ll give you. But this movie is very close.
 

Another scriptural nitpick is the smartness of the characters. True, they are humans who are scared out of their wits. But there were a lot of possible fight-back options available early on in the movie. In short I've seen movies in the past that handled this concept more effectively.

But nonetheless Don't breathe is still a solid thriller. If I had to give it a number (I never rate my reviews) it would be a well-earned eight. This has to do with the three solid pillars of this movie: the acting, directing and not-overstaying it's welcome.
 

There's also an awesome gross scene halfway through that has every theater in the world gasping in an OMG-giggle. You'll know it when you see it.

The acting

The acting is fantastic. Dylan Minnette is the heartthrob shy-boy he plays so well. Daniel Zovatto nails his part as a dumber than excrement white trash cannon fodder (it's really fun to hate him). And  Jane Levy is the more complex character of the bunch; shifting between naive and smart and greedy and compassionate.

But the real showstopper is definitely Stephen Lang: this brute of a man with intelligence who doesn't let his handicap bring him down. He is all muscle, he is all male, and he knows it. So what does he do? He shows vulnerability. Suddenly this ‘terminator’ becomes human; and therefore even more scary. I can deal with a murderous cyborg from the future, but how to deal with a smart human with a plan…no idea.

An additional bit of cleverness of this movie is how it handles sound. Without spoiling the movie to much the blind man (actually called the blind man in the credits) lives in a suburban house, in a street with no neighbors. No wonder he can hear every sound the burglars make. There's no interference. It's one of those additional little strokes of brilliance that elevate the movie and, at the same time, explains certain plotholes/unbelievabilities.

Plus, as a big plus, this movie doesn't shy away from throwing some of the more obnoxious sounds our way in all of its raw brutality.

Cinematography

There is something of a trend going on in thriller movies. In the Conjuring 1 and 2 the camera uses a long take to show every room that plays a part in the next hour and a half. Giving the viewer a layout of the place as it were. Don't breathe does the same thing but also incorporates various 'Chechov's guns';

Each little item the camera focuses on during this long-take is used later on and this is a very reassuring technique. It's a bit like Hitchcock's explanation of suspense (or informing the viewer): Now this character is in the room with 'that item' - and then you see that character use said item.

Other shots are intensely framed. A simple pan that shows the blind man appearing behind a character. Close-ups during fights and suspense. With one scene, lifted directly from a Jurassic Park-film, that actually managed to outdo Spielberg.

One thing I didn't like was the opening shot. It basically gives away the ending and, more so, even tells you rather bluntly what is going to happen to various characters. I would have preferred to be left in the dark about that (pun intended) - make it a surprise.

Overstaying

Don't breathe doesn't overstay its welcome, which is a good thing. How many variations of a hunting blind man's game can you put forth believably anyway (lots now that I think about it)? And even though -as I said before- some of the character choices are a bit too naive or passive to begin with; because the movie isn't stretched out it is a solid ride.

As a nitpick I do have to mention one or two horror movie tropes that this movies uses; which it shouldn't have. In no real order, without spoiling too much: If you defeat the villain - make sure he's dead. If a villain has a weakness - abuse the heck out of it. In movies: fighting is always better than fleeing!

So to summarize: Don't breathe is a solid thriller that could have been even better (which is a tad frustrating). The small story is elevated by the cast and some intense camerawork. And it doesn't last any longer than it should have and that is perfectly okay. Sit down in the dark seats of the movie theater and enjoy the blind man hunting you.

Miss Peregrine’s home for peculiar children – A review

Miss Peregrine’s home for peculiar children is about an American teenage boy whose storytelling grandfather just died under mysterious circumstances. To solve his trauma and find out the truth he goes to a small island off the coast of great ol’ England. There he finds more than he has bargained for…

Again a movie of which I read the book in advance. And I liked it (I still need to read the other two parts –though). Now, the book is basically a story build around some peculiar turn-of-the-century photographs.

Like any medium photography was quickly used for more illusion-creating purposes (George Mêlées in film, or the existence of tromp l'oeil in painting).

So the writer (Randsom Riggs) found several strange pictures from the past and created an interesting story behind it. One big problem in his book, however, is the third act that doesn't really work. The movie-version noticed this as well and created a vastly different version. But whether it did so for the good or the bad is quite the matter of opinion.

Story

One big plus of this adaptation is that it pretty much fast-forwards through the first four chapters of the book. Within five minutes the movie is already comfortably setting sail towards chapter five. And, even though it glances over some character development. It starts quickly and confidently.

(I would have preferred Asa Butterfield's character to be a bit more rebellious. But, then again, I did like the fact that the movie doesn't mention that his character's family is loaded with money - something that was totally unnecessary in the book.

It's when the cast arrives at the magical island that Burton gets to have some fun with his personal toolbox of insanity. And, as a big (very big) plus this movies doesn't rely on CGI overkill like Alice in Wonderland (or Johnny Depp playing a make-up-mad-man). In Burton's repertoire Miss Peregrine’s home for peculiar children sits comfortably between Sweeney Todd and Alice. Or, Edward Scissorhands's divide between the gothic laboratory and the colorful urban world.

Characters/actors

Asa Butterfield tries his hand at another possible franchise. And, again, as always, he's a solid actor to rely upon (this boy hasn’t made a wrong step yet). There aren't a lot of faults to blame on his portrayal. Rather his character in the script.

Chris O’Dowd, then, is great as his father. And even though it is strange to hear him talk in an American accent there's no denying that he rocks in short-pants. He truly is the loving but strict father this story needs.

Of all the children, who each play their part to perfection -regardless of screen time (some children take a bit of a backseat), it is actually Cameron King who left most of an impression on me as the invisible boy. Which is, of course, weird because you don't see him. It has everything to do with his voice. I would say that here there is a great voice actor in the making.

But the two biggest players are also the ones who deserve the most credit. Eva Green as Miss Peregrine is perfectly cast as the Mary-Poppins-with-a-crossbow character. I would (based on the books) preferred an older actress. But after seeing Green's performance she truly won me over.

Samuel L. Jackson, however, is chewing all kinds of scenery as the villain and you either like it or you hate it (he does start to get a bit annoying towards the end). He's threatening and you'll remember him when the movie is done. But such a theatrical villain, is a bit too much for this movie. It feels like Burton was afraid to ask the big Jackson to tone it down a bit. But then again Jackson has a surplus of charm so it's fun to watch.

I would have preferred a small interaction - for lack of a better word- between Bronwyn and her brother. Now this character is shoe-horned in and forgotten in a space of three minutes. It works to explain the evilness of the Hollows but it could also have been used for more character development.

The third act.

If the first two acts are solid introduction. The third act goes completely bonkers. For example: Ray Harryhousen's skeletons are brought up (again. Same as in Spy Kids 2). I loved it, no doubt. But it does feel like it suddenly shifts into a completely different direction, dislodging it from the two hours previous.

Truth be told I had the same feeling reading the novel. All those problems could’ve been solved
in an instant (in the movie using the twins, for instance).

 

The best way I can describe it is by adressing the problem between dark and light this movie suffers from. I've watched my share of horror movies so I'm probably a bit numbed when it comes to bloodshed. But at one point various characters are seen eating eyeballs. While at the same time the corpses who 'delivered' said eyes are shown completely intact with some black lenses. I actually had to double-back when I saw the eyeballs-scene because I realized that all those bodies I've seen before were actually eyeless. I mean, there are heart-transplants and crossbow-headshots the over in this movie yet not a single drop of blood is seen.

I think this movie would have benefited from just the tiniest amount of blood here and there. I mean, even the Neverending Story (one of the best children's-films ever) had the main character Arturo walking around with a big bloody gash on his chest.

Conclusion

But overall Tim Burton has crafted a solid movie. The third act overdid it a bit. Noticable in the strange balance between gothic and colorful or bloodless and bloodshed. But if you look at it as it is: a thrilling tale filled with fantasy you've got a great ride ahead of you.

However, I do wish Burton started crafting his own tales again. Big Eyes and Big Fish (a coincidence?) are two of his most personal and best movies in his career.

The Conjuring 2 - a review

After a terrifying event in Amityville the Warren’s decide to take a break from their paranormal investigations. However a haunting in Enfield, England demands their attention as they try to save an eleven-year-old girl from a possessive ghost.

Let's get the big issue out of the way first: Whether or not you believe in the Warrens doesn't matter. In the fictional world of the Conjuring ghosts and demons are very real.

I think that should put a stopper on any moustache twirling know-it-all who takes one look at the 'based on true events'-line and starts debating. Whether you want to or not.

I don't care; I'm here to watch a movie!

Though the movie does address the issue (like the first one ). There are various storylines throughout the movie that debate that validity of the Warrens or even the Enfield haunting. But it is never stressed to the point that the audience starts questioning themselves.

I would have liked to see a bit more ambiguity on the subject. A bit of the tried and tested ‘unreliable narrator’. But then it would have become an entirely different movie all together. So different, in fact, that it would have no relation whatsoever to the first chapter.

So, as a two-parter making the Warren’s possible frauds would have been a bold move. For a possible franchise, however, director James Wann has made the wise choice to staying close to the original formula. However, that choice does –automatically- gives us more of the same.

A sequel: more of the same?

For years, Wann and his partner in crime Whanel have been written off as the guys from Saw. In the sense that they are 'torture porn'-enthusiasts. I keep on repeating that the first two Saw movies (the ones they are directly responsible for) aren't that vile but rather highly intelligent thrillers. Thankfully after the Conjuring and Insidious movies their public image is pleasantly placed in the slow-burn horror-drama category.

And I think they are quite happy in that category. For starters it gives you a lot more elbow-space than, let’s say, Eli Roth. But that does mean that you have to keep on making the same kind of movie over and over.

And that is without a doubt the biggest critique I can give The Conjuring 2. In the broad strokes it is exactly the same as the first outing. Take for instance the long take shot near the beginning of the movie.

This marvelous shot takes the camera through a window (a direct reference to Hitchcock’s Psycho) and through all the rooms of the house past all the characters. This is a great technique to let the audience remember the basic layout of the location where most events will take place. But Wann has already done the very same thing –though less complex- in the first Conjuring. So it’s a bit of a remake of the original shot.

There is, by the way, another Hitchcock’s Psycho reference I noticed near the end. Think: shower curtain.

The same goes with the ‘ghostly events’. In the first movie it was a music box that was at the center of ghostly appearances. In part two it is a zoetrope. In part one a dresser plays a big part, in part two a chair. In part one there’s a musical montage, and so there is in part two; and so on, and so on

This, of course, is emphasized by the return of various characters (the priest, the assistant, and the Warren’s daughter, even Annabel) who are solely there to tie this film to its predecessor.

But that’s the problem with sequels. There’s a balance to strike between rehashing elements and injecting new ones. And it is my opinion that the scale of the Conjuring 2 is leaning towards rehashing a bit more.

But, then again, the movie is filled to the brim with fresh ideas and spooks and scares.

Wann even gets away with a ghost actually scaring somebody by saying: “BOOOO” - which is actually rather rare in horror-fiction. The only movie I can come up with just now that scares people by saying this word is Casper.

To give one example of a great new shot Wann uses to entice the tension: it’s a simple top-down shot overlooking the small alley next to the house leading to the back yard. It’s a simple effective shot that moves characters from A to B. But due to the rain and the element of a supernatural being it receives a form of gravitas.

This is one of the benefits of shooting on a sound stage. Apart from getting a set-dressing just right it also allows freedom like these kinds of shots.

Where, in the first Conjuring, small spaces were key. This shot breaks the mold a bit and increases the space. It’s a small trick to move the movie a bit away from the first outing whilst staying closely connected to it.

Scaring the cast.

The audience has gotten to know the Warrens quite well during the first movie. So this time ‘round the focus on them is slightly muted. Yes it is a movie about the ghost busting couple the ‘Warrens’. But since the audience already knows them the movie wisely decides to put a lot of focus on the Enfield house family.

That family is great, no doubt.  The main girl is fantastic in shifting between a frightened little mouse and the charming sister of the Exorcist (thank god no puking and other stuff). The mother is a lovely lass that’ll do anything for her cubs. If there’s one nitpick it has to be a bit on the balance side of things.

The original story needed two boys and two girls. And each gets their moment to shine. The older girl shares a bedroom with her (gradually getting) possessed sister. And the youngest boy has an encounter with a fire truck. But, unfortunately, the oldest boy doesn't get to do a whole lot. In the first movie (with a family of seven) each and every child has a moment in the ‘frightening’ spotlight. But in this one it feels like a lot of the older boy’s-scenes were left on the cutting room floor. It would have balanced out more if his character was left out of the script- let the youngest walk into the kitchen.

One kid does accidentally look directly into the camera at one point.

Then there’s Patrick Wilson who is at his most charming. He really is an utter sweetheart. That's needed because Vera Farmiga's character has some demons of her own to fight. There's not much of a character arch with the two main characters. They've already finished that arch ages ago. Which makes them a bit uninteresting in their own movie. I would even say that they aren't the main players in this movie -it's Janet.

But then again none of the characters have much of an arch to go towards. ‘Ghost ?  get rid of ghost’ that's the story on the character level. And that's fine. Ghosts were the reason why I bought that ticket in the first place.

But, to return to my previous statement about the ‘unreliable narrator’ it slightly rubs me the wrong way that the Warrens as glorified as heroes. Thankfully Patrick Wilson’s character makes one massive mistake towards the end; so they don’t end the movie as superheroes.

To end this part on the acting/cast I want to give a shout-out to my I-would-love-it-if-you-were-my-girlfriend Franka Potente who rocks with a seventies hairdo as the (rather smug) non-believer. Unfortunately her part is too small to leave a lasting impression on the movie.

Scare me twice.

Which brings me to the scares. There are lots of them and they check all the boxes. Of course the light goes out at certain moments, of course a radio starts playing at high volume. Of course there is a dripping water faucet half-way through. And so on, and so on. But then again - that's what we want. Wann gives use more than enough original scares and ideas. Some of his very own tried and tested (a direct reference to Insidious (face behind head), Dead silence and enough repeats of some fan-favorite original Conjuring scares.).

But the new scares are brilliant in their own right. Shadows, paintings, nursery rhymes and even a toy fire truck. Wann proves that he can make anything scary. Even a bloody washing machine.

This has to do with the audience not knowing what will happen. Where will the scare come from?

For instance, one scene involved Janet watching the telly. She's on the couch, watching. But the angle of the camera gives enough speculation that, perhaps something could rise from behind the couch, behind her. Whether it was intentional or not, I don't know. But I loved its unsettling framing.

I loved the crooked man.

Tell me a scary story.

Being based on true events –or based on a true story at least- the movie takes its time to get to know the characters in Enfield and get reacquainted with the Warrens. But the minute the characters arrive the movie goes into top gear. Now there are some illogical/convenient plot elements in the final solution – but that’s forgivable. The thrill ride is of such top notch quality that it effectively hides the weakness of the story.

Is part two as good as part one? No. But it is darn close. This isn’t Jaws 1 and 2. Rather the Godfather 1 and 2 reversed. 

If the moviemakers keep this up. Perhaps weaken the Warrens a bit more in the next movie and give all the characters something to do – I’d happily sit through another power-outage or dripping faucet just because I love being scared by crooked ghosts.

Mixed tape movies - Medieval movies

In the eighties it was the-thing-to-do to make a mixed tape (like an mp3 but touchable, always in need of a pencil and definitely cooler). On it you would make a little playlist of all the cool songs. Now the trick was to make each song correspond with the rest of the tape. In this post I will try to do the same with movies.

Every once in a while I will select a general topic and select movies to accompany it. As you can see the more child-friendly movies are at the start of the day, but  when night falls: ‘here be monsters’. Please feel free to give suggestions of other unknown movies.

One rule though: Auteur themes like ‘Shakespeare’ or ‘James Bond’ are not allowed. ‘Spy-movies’, naturally, are.

Theme: Medieval movies.

A king on a throne. Dragons and fair maidens. A duel between the dark knight and the knight in shining armor. So many stories to tell about those dark fairytale times when chivalry was still (somewhat) of a thing. So here's my little selection of medieval movies:

08:00-10:00         

Disney’s the sword in the stone: “Transport me to Bermuda.”

This wonderful (slightly tacky animated -due to the Xerox technique) humor filled movie is a must see for everybody with a heart. It’s the Arthurian legend with some common sense thrown into the mix. Keep watching for madam Mim. I quote her regularly when I’m ill “I HATE sunshine!”

There is actually are rather big fan community who wishes to couple Arthur and the squirrel girl. I’m not joking. Fan fiction/art and all.

10:00-12:00        

Ronja Rövardotter: Imagine a castle on a mountain peak that has been torn apart by a chasm. On one side lives one clan of people constantly fighting with the clan on the other side. Ronja is from the left side and she befriends a boy from the right side. It’s the simplest of stories but add some trolls, goblins, witches and Astrid Lindgren’s fantastic storytelling to the mix and you’ve got a great children’s movie.

12:00-14:00        

Dragonheart: Sean –James Bond- Connery as a Dragon! ‘Till this day the CGI still holds up. And with it the movie tells a thrilling tale of a dragon who shares his heart with a wicked king. The music is great. The acting is great. And Pete Postlethwaite plays a cheeky priest. Christmas. 

          

14:00-16:00 

Ladyhawk: A darker medieval fairytale. Two lovers: by witchcraft one is a bird by day, the other a wolf by night – never to be together. The movie is a bit too cold to care for the characters (and the bloodshed doesn’t help) but the basic conundrum makes you want to watch it to the end.

16:00-17:00         

Tristian and Isolde: I’m biased. I saw this movie at a sneak preview with a hilarious couple of girls beside me – laughing all the way through this sad tale. Basically it’s Romeo and Juliet before Shakespeare; it doesn’t end happily. But it’s a fun watch with some great chemistry and acting.    

17:00-19:00         

Monty Python and the Holy Grail: Ahh the legend. So many jokes. So tremendously insane. Soooo quotable. Just watch it. This is Monty Python at its best: “I’m being oppressed!”

19:00-21:00

The Last legion: Like Tristian and Isolde a new take on an old legend. This time it is the Arthurian legend (again) with the backdrop of the fall of the Roman Empire. It might be a bit bland, or seen-this-before-done-better, for some. But overall it is an interesting movie to watch.

21:00-23:00

Kingdom of heaven: Watch the director’s cut –it’s far better than the original! This movie was ‘sold’ as Scott’s return to Gladiator. Don’t look at it that way. Watch it as a highly intriguing history lesson about the crusades. The madness we did then (in name of God), we still do today on a daily basis.

           

23:00-01:00         

Braveheart: Time hasn’t been kind to Braveheart. Numerous movies have taken bits from this classic and repeated them over and over again until the effect was lost. Nonetheless this movie still stands tall as one of the greatest medieval pictures in the world today. Helped by the fantastic soundtrack (the ‘love theme’) it tells the story of people who want to be free from oppression. A righteous goal that comes with a heavy price. 

01:00-03:00

Ironclad: A true insight in the cruelty of medieval warfare. A castle is besieged – how to defend it? This movie doesn’t hold any punches. If the best way to defeat an enemy is to slash your sword half-way through him – so be it! Ironclad is a testosterone-filled bloodshed of a movie. But also one of the few that shows the audience what wartime was like in the middle-ages. If you like your horrors to be ‘ghosts’ and ‘supernatural serial killers’, think again. True horror will always be found in the sword of the other man!

Honorable mentions:

Any Shakespeare play: Obviously. 
Disney's Robin Hood: A great telling of the classic tale. Just the opening theme song alone.
The seventh seal: A fantastic movie - but better placed in another theme.
The name of the rose: The book is quite the read (if you can get through it). The movie is strong in its own right. I hated to leave it out, so I'll probably return to this theme for a second installment in due time.

Now you see me 2 - a (short) review

The four horsemen are called back together to steal an important MacGuffin. In the end they manage to make all the villains look like fools.
 

Yes, sorry, that’s about it.
This movie was written in crayons.

Sequels are tricky. Should you do more of the same? Or do you create something different? Now, Now you see me 1 was a fun movie with a few faults. Now you see me 2 is a fun film with even more faults.

Too many characters

I guess that the main problem with this film is the tremendous amount of characters. Way, way, way  too many. Even though I love Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman to bits, they are actually rather useless in this one. The same goes for the FBI subplot. And the movie even managed to put in a double-role for one of main characters which is actually rather annoying to watch (almost on the same level as Kevin Kline's duo role in Fierce Creatures). Throw all those characters out and you would have a far stronger film (and I still believe the horsemen are one man/woman/horse too many).

Daniel Radcliff is the baddie in this one and he's great at it. When he has his moment to shine that is. Unfortunately so many actors have to take center stage at one point that he slides back to the background a bit too often to let the others do their thing. Why didn't this movie just go with one villain instead of three, four? I lost count. Just one baddie -Radcliff- that would have been enough.

I did love the trick though that Radcliff's bad guy is a technology junkie with a disdain for magic. It's brought rather subtle. Every review writer picks up on it, no problem. But it's not like the movie is making a big show it.

CGI magic

The biggest fault of the first movie was that the magic tricks pulled were all CGI. In this movie they slightly explain it a bit more and seep in some reality of actually pulling it off. Yes, handcuffs still go off in a yippy but that's fine. At least the movie puts in some effort to make the magic look real.

However, some of the tricks near the end are so unbelievably complex and grandiose that it is actually quite hard to believe that a capable magician could pull it off in a crowd. Isn’t there a way to keep the tricks more grounded? To make me believe that, at least, I’m dealing with illusionists instead of actors pretending to be magicians.

And that’s all even before all that hypnostuff happens. It didn't work in the first one and it sure doesn't work here. Moving on.

Directing

The directing isn't very good. Every action sequence -including a brilliant one for Mark Ruffalo- is shot terribly. You can actually see the ideas concocted for this fight but somehow the camera doesn't manage to capture it. It really is a shame because; well, just imagine the concept of an illusionist fighting some baddies. There are tons of tricks he could pull. Yet the camera mucks them up every single time.

The story – oh dear.

That whole MacGuffin I mentioned above is a chip. They should have lost that plot point ages ago. Like somebody had an abandoned script somewhere and used that plot-element to fill a hole in this one. Then the story suddenly becomes about revenge. But, ‘ha-ha’ the horsemen knew about it.

The movie feels like several scripts put in a blender and tossed around the room. Coherency is far gone on this one. And that’s the problem. Like the fight scene or Radcliffe’s baddie or even those ‘larger than life’-magic tricks you can see the potential behind it. You can see the ideas. It makes it a very frustrating movie to watch.

Then there's the final twist. Well, anybody with half a brain could see how it was done. I'll give you credit if you didn't incorporate the hypnostuff because I tend to ignore that. But then again if the movie is good that shouldn't bother anyone

Unfortunately the movie isn't very good. It steals blatantly from Christopher Nolan and Spike Lee. Then there are the various errors. Suddenly a beard after a car drive. Appearing and disappearing coloring on the nose. I mean, if I spot the mistakes they have to be pretty obvious (and I checked, I'm not the only one who noticed).

Conclusion – please reboot.

Now you see me 2 is a lazy attempt at a good movie that is still fun, no worries there. But the movie could have been so much better. If you wish to reboot the franchise in a few years time this is what I think you should do:

• The horsemen help de weak - not the entire world, just the weak (keep it tangible).
• Lose one horseman, lose various characters. If the franchise goes on characters will be added anyway (look at the fast and the furious-franchise; how many big players does it have now?)
• Lose the hypno-mumbojumbo. If hypnotism is that fast and easy everybody would be doing it.
• Keep the tricks possible. You may enhance them a bit with CGI but don't overdo it.
• Keep the plot simple. Basically the movie is a detective novel. In the end we'll hear how they did it.
• And for crying out loud: lose the hypno-stuff. Did I mention that already?

Ghostbusters – a review

I don’t think I’ve ever written a review in which the bulk of the text involved me explaining myself in advance. Anyway, here it goes.

As –I assume- we all know the new Ghostbusters film was on the receiving end of quite the sh*tstorm of negative online ranting before it was even released. Mainly by people complaining that they didn’t like the direction this new one was going – by making the main cast all female. The extremes in this storm were both the people who cherished the original and the ‘women haters’ (and often a combination of the two).

Naturally this caused a reaction from (self-proclaimed) ’feminists‘–and it turned into an all out war between male and female; fighting fire with fire. Very nasty business.

Now, thankfully, I don’t hate women; and I don’t cherish the original enough to (de facto) hate a new installment. But I was worried!

A worried start – even before I entered the cinema

For starters, Paul Feig’s later movies are a mixed bag for me. I loathe Bridesmaids with a vengeance (I disliked the characters, the story and fell asleep during it -twice). But I did like Spy (Melissa McCarthy was actually pretty good in this one, the fights were well choreographed and I loved the Stratham making fun of himself). So, knowing this, the new Ghostbusters movie could go either way.

Then I came across this little picture to the right. Which left me a bit baffled. I mean, I’m all for equality but that doesn’t automatically make a movie good. In fact, it made me feel that ‘if I dislike the movie - I’m automatically part of the previously mentioned ‘storm of hatred’ between the sexes I didn’t want to be caught up in.

Then I saw the trailer; which was fascinatingly bad. Especially Leslie Jones got the short end of the stick in that one. How a two-minute preview managed for me to hate a character that much? Amazing.

So, yes, I was worried. But I still hadn’t seen the movie. So all these worries were like little grains of sand/doubt in the back of my mind. And then the early reviews started to pour in; a lot of them proclaiming: ‘It’s not as bad as we thought it would be!’. I don’t know what to make of that? Is it apologetic, respectful, or just plain wrong? Can I not just try to review the movie on its own merit without trying to hold on too much to those little grains of sand of doubt?

I’ll certainly try but, I must admit, that nasty period before the movie still clings on like a sticky bit of ectoplasm on the sole of a shoe.

The actual review

Three female scientists and a down-to-earth subway-employee realize that there is something supernatural going on in the fine city of New York, to battle these dangers they proclaim themselves the Ghostbusters. Fighting the beings from the neater-realm with high-tech gismos of their own making.

Ghostbusters isn’t the worst movie in the world as some haters proclaim it to be. It is actually a rather enjoyable ride. But, unfortunately, quite forgettable, and brought down by the first half!

The first hour of the movie is cringe worthy at times (the whole job interview with Chris Hemsworth). That’s where the most Bridesmaids-jokes are to be found that just don’t work for me.

But that all evaporates when the action kicks in. After that the movie is a great rollercoaster. But unfortunately that doesn’t make you forget the first part.

Characters

The interesting thing about this new female Ghostbusters is that it are pretty much the men who are the most interesting. Let me explain:

The Ghostbusters, when you meet them, are already somewhat of a team. There are no big issues these characters have to overcome (even Wiig’s reservations are marginal at best). And they play well off each other. Like the original Ghostbusters-movie Melissa McCarthy and Kate McKinnon fill the slots of Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis (the believers). Wiig is the ‘loose cannon’ of Murray. And Lesley Jones is the added non-science character of Ernie Hudson.

The biggest problem of this new Ghostbusters is that in the original Ghostbusters the main characters played it straight. They were nerds but weren’t bothered by it because they were trying to discover ghosts. Here the team are all pretty much, rather coo coo from the start. That throws the movie out of the realm of human connection/identification.

Moreover, like their original male counterparts, none of the female characters create much of a conflict. So you start looking for other characters to cause the dramatic conflict. In the original movie (apart from Murray’s philandering) it was that smug pen pusher who decided to pull the switch in name of environment.

Here the conflict comes from a baddie wanting to cause the apocalypse. And, because of that, his character becomes far more conflicted and interesting than the four women who don’t have any obstacles to overcome. The same goes with Hemsworth’s character who comes across as a very mentally challenged individual during the job interview (a very misplaced joke that falls rather flat) but then becomes interesting near the end.

Now I won’t say that all the male characters are more interesting than the women (Garcia’s character is terribly one dimensional). But, they are the ones who have the most character development.

Leslie Jones

To start with a big compliment: Leslie Jones’s character is far better integrated in the group than Ernie Hudson’s original (who’s only character motivation was a job with a steady paycheck).

Now, Jones truly had to win me over after the trailer. And (thankfully) she did. The trailer didn’t do her justice at all. Her character is a smart, down to earth, New York woman who actually has something to contribute to the team. Yes, she’s loud at times but then again every character in the movie is.

I don’t consider her a natural actress though. Wiig and McCarthy deliver the most difficult of lines as if nothing, but Jones seems to be struggling at times. But that could also be contributed to directing or editing. 

In fact, a big plus is that the trailer doesn’t do this movie justice at all. In retrospect, I could say that the awful trailer made quite an effort to pick out each and every bit that was bad in this movie and mix it together. An easy review, therefore, would simply consist of me showing the trailer and telling you: “yep, every little bit in the trailer is the stuff I disliked about the movie!’.

McKinnon was, actually the opposite for me. I liked the idea of her quirky character when I saw her in the trailer but, in the first half-hour or so, I hated her. Thankfully she grew on me towards the end. And if I had to pick one she’d be my favorite. But, again, this only happened when the action kicked in.

A lack in plot development

But the character development could be ‘waved away’ if it wasn’t for some serious issues in the plot.

First the reveal of the villain’s plan. There wasn’t a real Sherlock Holmes detective moment going on. ‘Question’ – ‘Answer’ was pretty much the way it went. And I think it would have worked better if the movie took its time to build a bit more of mystery around the strange occurrences. Now the movie pretty much shoots straight towards the all-out finale without actually busting a lot of ghosts.

But, to be fair, the movie was pressing for time at that time.

But why was it?

It takes quite a lot of screen time to make those quirky jokes this movie makes. I think if I add it all up Ghostbusters consists of ten minutes worth of soup jokes (really!). Again, this is my big problem with those ‘going nowhere jokes’ that are bombarded at the viewer in the first hour. This movie could have used this time far better to get the ball rolling with some actual ghostbusting.

I even think that the final movie would have benefitted from the ‘villain’ dancing around with the crowd as is shown in the credits. In this cut it would make his character a bit bloated in evilness/ stealing away the spotlight. But in a more balanced, plot driven story, it would have worked as a nice heartfelt break from the action.

So, I think, in my preferred version the long jokes of the first hour would be left out in favor of an investigative step in solving the mystery. More narrative and cause and effect and less meandering and weird dialogue.

The effects then

The effects are brilliant; no question. The ghosts are creepy and yet comical. Though I would have preferred a bit more horror in the mix. Apart from the opening sequence you never feel like anybody is truly in danger in this movie. That was Sigourney Weaver’s character in the first Ghostbusters and her son in the second – the damsel in distress as it were. Here the danger was lacking.

Ever more so, there’s quite a lack of ‘fun ghosts’. In the first Ghostbusters movie Dan Ackroyed got intimately acquainted with a ghost. A guy gets into a taxi driven by the crypt-keeper. The Titanic arrives in part two; “Better late than never.”

This morbid, but fun, sense of humor is pretty much lacking in the movie. There are moments (ghost rats in the subway). But only that.

There are, of course, some nitpicks here as well. If you are a scientist you don’t hang a steel cable around your waist because it’ll cut you in half. And I’m not even mentioning glasses that stay on all the time as a character is hurled around. It’s nitpicking, but keep in mind that an audience is getting smarter each generation. A movie couldn’t get away with a John-McClain-in-Die-Hard-grabbing-hold-of-a-sharp-metal-shaft-by-his-fingers nowadays, keep up!

Forgettable first half – less forgettable second half.

So I think I let the cat out of the bag already. It’s the first part that doesn’t really work for me. It tells a lot of lame jokes while the movie could have filled it up with some interesting character development or plot. But, after that the action kicks in and the characters start to grow on you.

I guess my biggest final peeve –apart from the ‘job interview’ that I managed to mention in each segment- are the numerous references to the original which get rather annoying over time. The best example are the various cameos scattered around the movie. It would have been far better if the movie decided on one small cameo-moment and then move on to make it its own. Now the movie feels like a puppy constantly begging for reassurance. 

Which kind of caused me to write this very comparative review.

Overall I would say that the new Ghostbusters is quite a fun, leave your brain at the door, movie. Should they ever make a sequel I would like it if the movie toned down on the vulgar and cheap jokes and focus more on the morbid humor. Also a more frightening mystery would be more than welcome. The characters work, the effects work and the ghosts work.

But, alas, I think that the previously mentioned ‘storm of hatred’ has truly destroyed any chance of a bettered Ghostbusters movie.