Written by: Katie Dippold &Paul Feig (written by), Ivan Reitman (based on the 1984 film "Ghostbusters" directed by),Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis (based on the 1984 film "Ghostbusters" written by)
Directed by: Paul Feig
Starring: Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon, Leslie Jones, Chris Hemsworth
Rated: PG-13
My rating is simple, Watch It, It Depends, Skip it. Read my previous movie reviews!
Plot:
After a ghost sighting in Manhattan, paranormal enthusiasts Erin Gilbert and Abby Yates (Kristen Wiig & Melissa McCarthy), nuclear engineer Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon), and subway worker Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones) team up to bust ghosts.
Verdict:
This is everything we never asked for. The big budget and extensive effects can't hide the uninspired jokes of the typical Paul Feig comedy. While he reunites with actors from his best film, Bridesmaids (2011), this movie wallows between comedy and horror while taking so many queues from the 1984 film Ghostbusters, that it's less homage and more lack of creativity. This movie doesn't attempt to recreate the first film, develop a new take, or even tell a good story. The single goal was to make money, and at that it failed.
Skip it.
Review:
I love the original Ghostbusters (1984). I consider it one of the best comedies, and while this is less a reboot and more slapping a known name brand on the front, I will not compare this new version to the original. I will rank it on it's own merits, because I don't need to watch it to conclude it doesn't live up to the original. I'm not going to harp about what a Ghostbusters movie should be.
It's not that this movie is so bad, and it is pretty bad, it's that it is pointless. It's offense is that it blatantly resurrects a franchise just to cash in on the name. It lacks the passion and knowledge that Dan Aykroyd brought to the first film, and that same passion that Harold Ramis harnessed with his deft comedy writing. Aykroyd's first script was absolutely bonkers and had no chance at getting made. Ramis shrank the scale and scope considerably.
Dan Aykroyd pitched a concept for the third movie in the nineties, but it never materialized. He and Harold Ramis supervised a script in the 2000's, but that wasn't picked up either.
The first cut of this movie was over four hours long according to Paul Feig. I find that hard to believe as no one would accept a 200 page script for a comedy. Maybe that's his excuse for why this didn't succeed, but what that means is he lost a good movie somewhere on the proverbial editing room floor which doesn't exactly instill confidence.
My main issue with this movie is that I just don't like Feig's style of comedy. He makes a certain kind of movie that is flatulence jokes and over the top gags, neither of which appeal to me. All of the jokes are obvious and cliche. It's not that all jokes need to be clever, but it would be nice if just a few had depth.
One of the worst offenders is the walking human gag, Kevin (Chris Hemsworth). He's so dumb I wouldn't be surprised if he forgot to breathe. I bet Feig is mad he didn't come up with that one! He could have made it into a delightfully boring scene.
The movie goes to great lengths to show just how simple he is. His only purpose is to set up jokes about how dumb and good looking he is.
I thought the first scene was a great blend of comedy and mood setting, but that was quickly upended with slapstick comedy. In one of the early scenes Wiig gets slimed, but it's less slime and more projectile vomiting that's so over the top and prolonged it becomes silly. Something I had never seen before, ghosts, slime, and proton beams went into the blacked out letterbox area of physical television screen. It was a nice pseudo 3d effect.
It feels like this movie is afraid that if it slows done or goes too long without a joke that the audience will get bored. There's a quick scene with the classic firehouse and a quip about how rent is too high. The scene serves no purpose other than an on the nose gag. It suggests the writers just don't know how to write a good story. They certainly don't write good characters.
While I liked McKinnon's Holtzmann in this the most, I'd guess she improvised a lot of her lines, and that often propelled her to an even greater degree of lunacy while distancing herself from the other characters and actors. She seemed to be in a different movie with different instructions. Often it seemed like her job was to disrupt everyone else.
Leslie Jones did a nice job spouting one liners, but McCarthy and Wiig were a greater disappointment. This is largely due to the script. The movie tells me they are great friends, but I never feel that through any of their interactions. One good scene between them could have helped make their friendship believable.
I never believed the characters were scientists because everything in this movie is treated as a joke. The science is complicated by McKinnon frequently talking about technical details of the equipment and sounding like she's making it up on the spot. I don't understand why she or the script ever attempted to get so technical. This movie could be more believable if it didn't attempt to explain anything related to science.
In the debate between CGI and physical models, CGI loses decisively in this movie. The CGI made this more a cartoon that resembling a physical being. At one point the villain becomes the famous Ghostbusters logo. The only reason I can discern is that this movie had a quota for references to the original film.
This takes more than a few queues from the original, like the equipment, large sections of the story, and car, though most of those queues feel like a low budget facsimile inspired by the 1984 film. The villain in this, woefully lacking even a slight bit of character development, even manages to become a Stay Puft Marshmallow man parody despite the fact that this villain is, or was, a human. I was certain he was the lackey for the real villain.
Keep an eye out for cameos, though it's unlikely you'll miss them Harold Ramis's son Daniel plays a cameo part as a metal head. If you sit through the credits, and it's not like the movie gives you a good reason, you'll see Leslie Jones's character listening to a recording and then asking the other characters, "What's Zuul?" It's another not so subtle, unnecessary call back to the 1984 film.
No comments:
Post a Comment