Ghostbusters (2016)

Starring: Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, Leslie Jones, Charles Dance, Chris Hemsworth, Bill Murray, Andy Garcia, Dan Aykroyd (cameo), Sigourney Weaver (cameo), Ernie Hudson (cameo), Annie Potts (cameo), Ed Begley Jr., Karan Soni, Neil Casey, Nate Cordrry, Michael Kenneth Williams, Matt Walsh, Elizabeth Perkins
Directed by: Paul Feig
Rating: PG-13
Genre: Action, Comedy
2016

Times Seen:
Tim: 1

Summary: Four women (Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, Leslie Jones) join forces to combat ghosts, which have invaded New York City.

Review:

Tim: It's so sad that you can't think about this movie without immediately going to the sexist, racist rants and attacks made by "fans" about this movie. I don't understand how things got so out of control. I understand it was a small minority of bigots and racists, who don't reflect the majority of Ghostbusters fans. Still, it's sad. It's also sad because while it doesn't matter to me that the leads here are women (it's an extremely positive thing any time women play more prominent roles in big films like this), I still had a ton of purely movie-focused complaints. You can't really claim that Ghostbusters is a terrible movie, but it's still a disappointment.

I don't know of anyone who wanted to reboot this franchise. If you grew up in the 80s, the characters and the films meant so much to you. There's been so many starts and stops on getting a true sequel. While that time probably passed (truly, since the death of Harold Ramis), you still could have made this film a sequel. Especially since they brought back most of the original cast for moronic, pointless cameos. I understand the direction they went in, but I would have loved to see those original characters one more time, passing the mantel to the next generation. That would have immediately created more of a sense of continuity and appreciation for the past. Instead, the original movies never happened, we're learning about ghosts for the first time, and we're given underdeveloped, over-the-top characters that no one really identifies with or likes. Great job, Paul Feig.

I tried to give these new characters a chance, but for whatever combination of poor writing, bad directing, or bad acting, I just couldn't get into them. I don't love Kristen Wiig, but she was the right person for the lead role. I wish she had been more believable. Her character just never connected and I couldn't tell you one legitimate reason why I should have cared about her. Melissa McCarthy showed up and did her thing. She wasn't the craziest one, but again, her character's story wasn't very interesting. There wasn't depth there. Kate McKinnon might have a big career ahead of her, but I didn't get what she was trying to do here. I didn't find her especially funny, and again (let me know if this sounds familiar), I didn't have anything to hook into her character. She's crazy is about all I came away from this film with. I feel genuinely sorrowful for what Leslie Jones had to put up with before this film came out. There's no excuse for that, at all. So, while I feel bad for her, I have to separate what I saw on screen from everything else. I don't know her as an actress, so I'm just basing this on one performance, but I didn't really get her. Outside of a few funny moments where she brought a fun attitude to her character, I didn't get what she was trying to do or why she mattered in the context of this film. She's the add on, her character doesn't really make much sense. The others are almost like, "Okay, I guess you can hang out with us!" That's bad writing, but Jones didn't do herself any favors.

The supporting cast is okay. Chris Hemsworth's role was a brilliant idea, but he's too over-the-top to be very believable. I like Charles Dance, but he has nothing to do. Same can be said for Andy Garcia- why bring him in for no real reason? And then, we come to the original cast. Did part of me love seeing Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, Sigourney Weaver, and Annie Potts in a Ghostbusters movie again? Yes, that is undeniably cool. However, they weren't playing the same characters. Besides Murray, their presence here was totally wasted. Hudson elicits a laugh at the end of the film, but besides the "Oh my gosh, look who it is!" there was no point in having them in this film. You can't plug in pointless, unnecessary cameos and think that's going to make your movie great. It served as a constant reminder of, "Don't you wish you were watching a Ghostbusters movie about these characters instead?" I can only shake my head.

The story was fine. I can't say I loved it, but I didn't have any issues with it, either. The appearance of ghosts was explained in a decent enough way. There's fun moments throughout the film. I really enjoyed the ghost battle at the end of the movie. While it was a bit too comedic, it was still enjoyable and fun to see humans waging war against ghosts like that. That was a unique aspect of this film and one of the big differentiators. If this franchise continues (and honestly, I hope it doesn't, at least in this configuration), I pray scenes like this become more common. It was super cool.

So, when you add up the good and the many flaws, Ghostbusters might be a decent film, but it's clearly the worst of the trilogy. When it's been 25+ years since the last film, you desperately need to come out of the gates stronger. This movie relied too much on the comedy, forgot to give us characters we care about, and all in all, whimpered into existence. Instead of this being one of the major films of the year, I wasn't very interested in seeing it and it lived down to my expectations. That's a real shame.

Rating 1-10
Tim's Rating- 6.5



If You Enjoyed This Movie, We Recommend: Ghostbusters, Ghostbusters II