Skip to main content

There's Something Strange in the Neighbourhood


          I don't think any movie envies this one. Not only does Ghostbusters have to overcome its extremely poor marketing but it’s a reboot of one of the most beloved comedies of all time. Which is a lot going against it. We were even wondering for a while whether this was going to be remake or a sequel.
          Make no mistake, it’s a remake.
          The story is about three scientists with an interest in the paranormal who after being fired from their research jobs start a business called Ghostbusters. They hire a fourth person to assist them as well as a receptionist and are soon tasked with stopping an apocalyptic event in New York while facing opposition and criticism.
          This, some of you may remember, is the exact same plot as the original Ghostbusters and in fact this film especially in the first half, replicates the original scene for scene. From the plot points, to where they come into play, to a haunting victim screaming just as the title comes up. It’s pretty shameless, and this is a movie that has plenty of product placement for that. But maybe that’s par for the course as a reboot. If the movie robs us of any surprise, does it make up for it in jokes? Sometimes it does. While some of the comedy crashes and burns, there are some jokes and funny situations that work alright. There’s a particularly good gag involving the original firehouse and some of the character bits are pretty hysterical. 
          But that doesn’t take away from the fact the characters are uninspired. Kristen Wiig’s initially uninvested, Melissa McCarthy’s overly enthusiastic, Kate McKinnon’s technologically savy and socially unusual, and Leslie Jones is the African-American blue collar employee. You can easily connect which original Ghostbuster each is channelling. The best of the four, and near-saving grace of the movie is McKinnon, whose erratic behaviour and devil-may-care attitude is pretty enjoyable. McCarthy and Jones have been typecast a lot as one character, and while Jones is doing that here, McCarthy’s not as irritating as she’s been in previous outings. Which is very resfreshing, but she doesn’t make much of an impression either. I feel like her and Wiig especially could have been switched out with any other funny actors. As a group though, the ensemble operates pretty well with believable chemistry. Chris Hemsworth is a bit surprising as a dimwit parody of millennial culture. Which is pretty funny in some scenes, but in others it's like an episode of SNL that he's hosting. There are some noticeably strange casting choices too like Charles Dance, Andy Garcia, and Ed Begley Jr. 
          And of course the original films’ cast appear in cameos that are very awkward. The weakest element of the movie is all the references made to the original film, to the point this one’s not allowed to develop its own identity. Director Paul Feig clearly feels they need the life preserver of the original Ghostbusters, but it doesn’t keep them afloat as much as sink them under the frequent reminders of that previous classic movie. And some of the references become pretty obnoxious, including the franchise logo, theme song, and the fact the climax is mostly a giant in-joke. They’re really unsubtle, easily alienating those unfamiliar with the original. 
          Though some of the comedy does work, the writing in general isn’t very good. One of the things that made the original so brilliant was that Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Harold Ramis were experienced improvisers, and ad-libbed a lot of their dialogue, including many of the most famous jokes. There was a spontaneity to it that this film couldn’t recapture despite how hard it tried.  Wiig, McCarthy, and others to their credit are clearly improvising in some scenes, but it's not very sharp and actually just prolongs some dull sequences. 
          However I will say the visual effects were pretty good. These were unique looking ghosts, their designs impactful if a little too silly, and the mists surrounding them were a clever touch. I also loved some of the technology McKinnon’s character developed as such devices felt naturally evolved from the original movie. 
          But at the end of the day, it’s pretty depressing that we’ve had three Ghostbusters movies all with essentially the same story. Primarily this reboot suffered from the same problem Ghostbusters 2 did: it tried to live up too much to the first film, and in so doing over-relied on it. There are some legitimately funny scenes, McKinnon does make it entertaining every so often, even the ghostbusters’ rapport can be enjoyable, and the visuals are good; but if the Ghostbusters series is to continue, they’re really going to have to take the life jacket off; prove they can swim on their own.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

A Stylish and Charmingly Reinvented David Copperfield

The Personal History, Adventures, Experience and Observation of David Copperfield the Younger of Blunderstone Rookery (Which He Never Meant to Publish on Any Account)  is the most important book Charles Dickens ever wrote. It is not the most famous or influential by any means (that would of course be A Christmas Carol ), but it is the book that is the purest expression of the authors’ style, identity, and worldview. It is his most personal work, semi-autobiographical in its story of the chronology from infancy to adulthood of a character who overcomes great loss and hardships to find a fulfilling life as a writer. To read David Copperfield  is to understand Dickens himself. Armando Iannucci knew this when he decided to make a new adaptation of the novel for a twenty-first century audience. He also knew that Dickens adaptations are ubiquitous at this point. Films are a bit rarer, but every few years a new television adaptation rears its head to keep the authors’ unique world an...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
8 comments
Read more