Spoilers Ghostbusters (2016): Grading and Review

I'm a huge fan of the original movies, I've even read some of the comics and played the game, and I never saw it. The trailers never really appealed to me that much, and I just haven't gotten around to renting or borrowing it from anywhere. It's one of those movies where I have thought about checking it out a few time, but then I always found something else that I wanted to see more.

 

The jokes are largely not as intellectual or as natural in feel as the original, which is the magic behind that one's success (as well as the f/x - which were amazing given the lack of CGI). Natural comedy never gets 100% of the audience, but forced comedy might get 10% at best.

The 1989 sequel also didn't continue the spark so I can see why a reboot would have been considered instead of GB3. But reboots are so ingrained that it means "take original plot and characters, make a nominal amount of tweaks and not retool it in any grand way to make it lift on its own..."

Especially as the 1984 movie has a history of that 1975 show of the same name. GB84 was in effect a reboot and how it can be done extremely well. I suppose, given the nine year gap, few if anybody knew of the 1975 Krofft original (and fewer therein complaining that the movie is more serious than a silly kiddie romp with jokes kids wouldn't begin to relate to and/or understand). Never mind the 1954 movie...

 

They weren't even sure until midway through shooting if they'd be allowed to use the name. Multiple takes of the commercial scene were done with alternate titles ('Ghost Stoppers,' 'Ghost Blasters'). The original crude sign over the firehouse door was also done in those alternate titles.

 

Not me. I have no intention of ever watching it. Looks like a load of rubbish.

The Ghostbusters: Afterlife trailer looked far more promising.

 

I liked the movie myself. That said the original Ghostbusters, in my opinion, was the only really great GB film. It was not meant as a family movie but back then kids watched it on VHS even though we didn't really get all the jokes. The problem with the 2016 movie was that it was too sanitized--a modern GB should really have been on the level of Bridesmaids or The Hangover level humour. If it had been more edgy it would have had more of a chance I think.

 

I rewatched it and it clicked more with me the second time. A lot of it rests on McCarthy and Wiig and their interactions and reactions which I think is easier to appreciate on the small screen at home. It's not an easy chemistry to create and doing awkward humor is a fickle thing but I liked it. The other cast do pretty well to boot but I do have a problem with Kate McKinnon and I like Kate and maybe I've watched too much SNL but her performance here never rings true for me. I always feel like I'm watching her do a bit instead of inhabiting the character. She's always been fun to watch and mugging for the camera works well in short broad five-minute sketches but she stands out from the rest of the squad and not in a good way (IMO).

Chris Hemsworth as the dumb blonde is odd. I guess in one sense he's no more broad than Louis in the original but they really go all in on the dumb. I wonder too if it wouldn't have been criticized had the gender been flipped. GB and MIB feel like they don't milk the best out of him, they get the charm but not that twinkle when he's at his best and engaged with the material.

I think part of the problem is that it hits so many beats of the original and it's hard to get that first time feeling back. The first suit up, the reveal of Ecto 1, turning on the proton packs, using the packs, the trap, crossing the streams and so on. Maybe for someone who had never seen GB they'd have a different feeling. There was a bit of a different vibe in older movies too it seems. Like the proton packs really feel dangerous and unwieldy in a way they don't seem to do as much these days but that's not specific to GB itself.

It may have benefited from doing more of its own thing plotwise. There's a lot of modern remakes that seem to fizzle from memory after release like Total Recall, RoboCop or The Fog. It seems when movies like that are shown now it tends to be back to showing the originals. In one sense, I understand trying to reproduce the magic for another generation but I think it may have had more long-term appeal if it were more unique and had more to benefit repeat viewings.

 

QFT.

He's beating that same, worn drum that was not real when he directed that reboot. The only excuse to be believed is that he made a terrible film no one wanted to find themselves watching--oh, that and attacking fans for not liking the trailer, all for his own sociopolitical beliefs, etc. His idiocy could not be contained.

 

And no sooner did I mention those alternate commercial takes above than the Ghostbusters YT channel summons this up:

 

Damnit, you beat me to it.

I love Annie Potts' eye rolls.

 

Please. His movie failed because it was garbage. As you pointed out, other movies had plenty of success starring female leads including Wonder Woman, which people of all types loved. Few people had a problem with Uma Thurman kicking ass in Kill Bill, few had a problem with Angelina Jolie kicking ass in Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, few had a problem with Sigorney Weaver kicking ass in Alien or Jamie Lee Curtis being the lead in Halloween. If it's a good movie, word gets around and people will pay to see it. If it isn't a good movie, word gets around and it bombs,. It has nothing to do a with a small, loud minority of manbabies griping on the internet. That's just a cop out.

 

It's not the audience's job to go see your movie. It's the FILMMAKER'S job (along with the marketing department) to produce a movie people want to see.

Sometimes people don't want the product you offer. It happens regardless of the quality of the movie. Don't blame the consumers. We don't get together and choose which movie we're going to fail this year. We just go see the things we want.

 

I tend to think the fundamental problem with the 2016's 'Ghostbusters' is the same problem a lot of remakes have: it's a remake of a GREAT movie. Remaking a merely "good" movie instantly makes the job an uphill battle, but a great one? Good luck with that!

Had it been it's own thing, judged on it's own terms it would've merely been and OK/mediocre action comedy adventure with a fantasy/sci-fi premise. You give it the title of one of the best comedies of all time and you just set the bar impossibly high.

That is the odd thing about remakes; all the good ones tend to be remakes of bad or really old and/or obscure movies. Since they're taking a concept that had untapped potential and running with it. However the reason most studios want to do remakes is to capitalise on name recognition, which of course means classic movies...anathema to the ideal dichotomy described above.

Personally I thought GB16 had a mostly great cast and I would have liked to have seen them have another go but with stronger material and less dependence on ad-libbing. If the new movie turns into a franchise I would be 100% down for them to come back as new characters (turnabout is fair play after all!) Hell, just drop Holtzmann in there with no explanation and I'd be happy!

 

My problem with 2016 is that it WAS NOT in any way a continuation or had some respect of the original. Contrast to Jumanji, which did its own thing, bad had clear respect for the original. Or to compare with TV shows... I think The Flash gained a LOT OF GOOD momentum by showing CLEAR respect of the 90s show..such that old fans were actually excited for the new show while it also drew in new fans.

If they could have introduced a Ghostbusters multiverse it could have gained some momentum from that

 

Exactly. It was a zero effort script hoping to coast by on the strength of the cast's comedic talent and the name recognition of the brand. It's only "bad" in comparison to the original, which you absolutely must compare it to because it's a remake. They don't get to have their cake and eat it.

Speaking of the script; part of the reason the original was so good was precisely because the heavy lifting was done on the page, through multiple drafts. Dan Aykroyd actually cared about the material, very literally believes in the subject matter, and that permeates the whole project.
The characters may say or do funny things and get into amusing situations, but the movie knows when to take itself seriously. If you remove the jokes, you still have a coherent story, with three dimensional characters you care about and stakes that matter. I recall Mel Brooks talking about this in regards to 'Spaceballs'; you can't just string a series of gags together for 90mins and call it a movie. It still needs to function within it's chosen genre, even if (or especially if) it's lampooning it.

I loved the movie as a kid and at the time, I didn't see it as a comedy; sure there were funny moments, but for the most part the adult humour just flew right over my head. To me, it was a story about ghosts and superheroes, with some legitimately scary moments (seriously, I still remember the nightmares about the terror dog coming up the stairs at night to get me!)
Indeed it's entirely possible (though probably not advisable) to take the original script for 'Ghostbusters' and make a "straight" action adventure movie out of it.

 

I was open to GB16 when we got the trailer. When it came out, it was very meh IMO. I know it is a love it or hate it kind of thing, but I feel that mr. plinket's review of GB16 pretty much sums up where Paul Feig failed and the original succeeded.

(Disclaimer NSFW language and not everyone can stand the way he talks in these reviews, but he brings up a lot of valid criticisms, and non-sequiturs FWIW)

There is even a clip he edits and I feel makes the scene funnier than what we got in the movie (starts @ 36:40)
I mean, if you look on the crewmember's faces behind the scenes in the review, it more or less sums it up.(@ 30:50)

That being said, I do own a 3D copy of the movie which I bought off ebay and plan to watch on a rainy day. While GB16 wasn't great, I can still enjoy it for what it is and for me personally, Leslie Jones' Patty shines throughout most of the movie and as plinkett points out her character is most reminiscent of the spirit of the original GB movie.

 

^ I tell you I'm wary of Youtube links to reviews like these because there's a lot of people with whack ideas and I'd rather not support some of them. I think it's more productive to say what you think, or like that the video says, and let us react and respond to that.

 

The Plinkett Review of GB16 does a great job of explaining the problems with it.

You can never go wrong with RLM.

 

Yeah, I have zero interest in watching a "Plinkett's Review" of anything.
I mean am I the only one that think it's weird that people extol the opinions of a fictional character, deliberately lampooning rambling, long-winded youtube diatribes on pop culture minutia? Just me? Ok...

 

It's not the opinions of a fictional character it's the opinions of a man expressing himself as a fictional character. I'm not a huge fan of the Plinkett character and the distractions and diversions that brings, but he does a good job when he's on topic of pointing out the problems in the movies he focuses on. There's a reason why his Prequel Reviews are so highly regarded, because he nails the problems with them.