|
Want a surefire way to piss someone off? Tell them that Hollywood is remaking
their favorite film. That seemed to do the trick for the millions of
“Ghostbusters” fans when it was announced that Sony was not only rebooting Ivan
Reitman’s 1984 comedy classic but that director Paul Feig would be gender
swapping all the roles. Though the news had the unfortunate effect of spawning a
small but vocal group of misogynistic internet trolls, even the most
level-headed moviegoers had reason to be concerned due to the uninspired cast
and disappointing early trailers. Thankfully, the 2016 reboot isn’t as bad as
many predicted, but it’s not very good either. The film is merely okay, and
while that may be enough to silence its detractors, for a franchise with as much
potential as “Ghostbusters,” it should have been better.
Dr. Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) used to be a firm believer in the paranormal,
even writing a book on the subject with childhood friend/fellow scientist Abby
Yates (Melissa McCarthy) before leaving it all behind to focus on a legitimate
career teaching at Columbia University. But when Erin and Abby experience an
actual paranormal sighting after a chance encounter reunites them, they team up
with oddball nuclear engineer Jillian Holtzman (Kate McKinnon) and street-smart
MTA worker Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones) to capture a ghost as proof that they
exist. Meanwhile, a bullied hotel janitor named Rowan (Neil Casey) has begun
planting devices around the city that attract and amplify paranormal activity
with the intention of opening a portal to a ghostly dimension and wreaking havoc
on the world as payback. The only ones capable of stopping Rowan and his army of
undead are the newly formed Ghostbusters, but first, they need to convince
people that it isn’t a hoax.
One of the main reasons that the original “Ghostbusters” was such a huge success
(and its inferior sequel wasn’t a total disaster) was the camaraderie among its
four leads. Though the new-look Ghostbusters have their individual moments to
shine, the team chemistry isn’t as strong. Wiig and McCarthy resort to doing
their usual shtick (although the latter is more reserved and better for it),
while Jones is stuck playing the same one-note character that has defined her
career. She’s loud and feisty and borderline annoying. Fortunately, Feig has an
ace up his sleeve in the form of “Saturday Night Live” star McKinnon, whose
mad-scientist inventor feels like the only fully developed character of the
quartet. Chris Hemsworth is also funny as a male twist on the stereotypical dumb
blonde secretary, but it’s a recurring gag that quickly wears thin.
A movie like “Ghostbusters” is only as good as its lead villain, however, and
Rowan is about as disappointing as they come. He’s basically a lamer version of
Peter MacNicol’s demented museum curator from “Ghostbusters II,” except with a
more contrived motive and marred by a terrible, amateurish performance from
Casey. But the lack of a menacing villain is just part of a bigger issue within
Feig and co-writer Katie Dippold’s lazy script, which features some fun set
pieces but never really adds up to an engaging or coherent story. It feels very
loose and thrown together, with many of the jokes either falling flat or failing
to elicit more than a chuckle.
The film isn’t without its charms. The action sequences deliver the thrills that
you’d expect from a modern “Ghostbusters” movie, particularly the final showdown
in Times Square, and Feig does a solid job of weaving horror and sci-fi elements
throughout, but it’s never allowed to completely be its own thing. Any time the
film tries to pay homage to the 1984 version (including some pointless cameos
from the original cast), it loses whatever momentum it’s built up. That
ultimately proves to be the movie’s undoing, because while “Ghostbusters” is an
occasionally entertaining and mostly harmless reboot, it lacks the nuance and
comic energy that made its predecessor a success.
One last note… I agree that the new cover of the “Ghostbusters” theme song is an
atrocity. However, its use in the movie is limited. The original “Ghostbusters”
song has at least as much screen time, being utilized for both the opening and
end credits. The movie has endeavored to placate both those who love Ray Parker
Jr.’s ‘80s version as well as those who prefer a “modernization.”
I wish I could say the resultant product was a home run that will make all the
concerns invalid. It isn’t. But it’s not terrible and shouldn’t be avoided just
because it isn’t a continuation of an old franchise. Reboots happen all the time
and, compared to some, this one is relatively successful. The movie is too long
and not funny enough but that puts it in the same category as many recent
comedies.
My advice is that if you hate the idea of a Ghostbusters remake, don’t see this.
There’s no reason to endure a movie you’re predestined to dislike. If, however,
you have no investment in the original, Ghostbusters will provide what most of
this year’s other summer movies have delivered: sporadic entertainment followed
by a vaguely hollow feeling that it could have and should have been better.
|
