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.