Film Review: Ghostbusters

ghostbusters_ver8

Here it is, folks: the most controversial film of 2016! Usually a label such as that is bestowed upon a film dealing with taboo issues, such as race relations, political allegories, incest, or rape. Such is not the case with this year’s controversy, though many will claim it “rapes their childhood.” Said film is the remake/reboot/retelling/reimagining/re-whatever-the-hell-you-wanna-call-it of “Ghostbusters.” And with any retelling of a classic film, it is met with disdain before even being screened. Now that it’s officially released, the question is if it’s deserving of that disdain.

The real question is if it even matters. The answer is it doesn’t. No matter the quality of the new “Ghostbusters” it won’t affect that of the 1984 classic. If it’s good, it should be so on its own merits, only relating to the original through plot relation and goodwill. If it’s bad, it only validates the quality of the original. The original will always exist, as will the memories and childhoods it shaped. No remake, sequel, or anything of the sort can tarnish that.

ghostbusters-2016-screenshot

The new “Ghostbusters” isn’t bad, but quite good. The story itself is familiar, what with ghosts stalking Manhattan in the shadows and the Ghostbusters trying to save the day. Nobody believes in them even when video evidence is presented. Digital trickery is always put into question when said video evidence is presented, a clever way of poking fun at the (admittedly well-done) special effects. Adding to the familiarity is a slew of cameos. Some work better than others, but all are not without a smirk.

What is fresh about the new “Ghostbusters,” and what carries the film throughout, are the new Ghostbusters themselves. All four have their own distinct personality and are not carbon copies of the original group as feared. Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) is the leader, a scientist hell bent on proving to herself that ghosts exist. She’s sweet, but has a sardonic edge to her. Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) is her former best friend, who previously wrote a book on the paranormal but is trying to live that down now in favor of being a respected college professor. She’s levelheaded, but awkward when her shyness kicks in. Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) is the wacked-out inventor; a kinetic soul whose outlandish sense of humor plays perfectly off of the paranormal activity. And there’s Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones), the outsider who joins the crew after encountering a ghost in the subway. She provides them with transportation in the form of a remodeled hearse and a vast knowledge of the city. The trailers made her seem obnoxious, but all of those moments are taken out of context. She’s actually down-to-earth and relatable, providing a contrast to the other three’s sheltered personas. Those obnoxious moments of hers from the trailers are actually amusing and justifiable reactions in the context of the film.

ghostbusters-2016-cast-proton-packs-images

Even the supporting characters are of their own flavor. There’s no attempt to replicate Rick Moranis’ nerdy Louis Tully. The closest form of comic relief we get is Kevin (Chris Hemsworth), the Ghostbusters’ doltish but kindhearted assistant. He only gets the gig because he was the only applicant (and because Erin is smitten with him), despite being awful at it! He’s too caught up in his own airheadedness that he’s constantly ignoring phone calls and patrons in the waiting room. He gets the biggest laughs in the film, some out of simplistic gags such as him not being able to say the scientific jargon (never before did I think the word “Metamucil” would get such a big laugh out of me). This is the perfect opportunity for Hemsworth to show his comedic side, with the actor running with the goofiness and nailing it out of the park.

Other supporting characters, such as Dana Barrett, aren’t even attempted to have replacements. The story doesn’t need a love interest, as it’s rightfully more focused on the Ghostbusters’ origin. The government interference is still at play, but handled in a different manner. The mayor (Andy Garcia) knows of the existence of the paranormal and even appreciates the Ghostbusters’ efforts, but fears mass hysteria. Therefore, he forces them to pretend that they are con artists and work in the shadows. This is a limp subplot that doesn’t provide much in the way of humor, just another obstacle for our heroes to overcome. The “Ghostbusters” franchise has always had a problem with adhering to public disproval in order for character motivation, even after the ghostly activity is blatant. Remember the preposterously annoying story in “Ghostbusters II” in which, five years after New York City had been ravaged with ghosts, everyone simply forgot and/or thought it was a big hoax? It’s no different here, though it’s not as blatant. The excuse is used in which to hang jokes and plot devices on, though it is a bit flimsy. Now that this world has been set up and Paul Feig and company are comfortable with it, there’s hopefully more room for exploration of this material in the sequels.

ghostbusters-2016-reboot-movie-review-chris-hemsworth

As for the ghosts themselves, they’re campy and droll, giving our heroes something to play off of. Some of them are familiar, such as the returning Slimer (who steals the Ghostbusters hearse at one point), a clever nod to the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man, and a demonic version of the famous ghost in the logo. Others are clever in their ingenuity, such as the ghosts that take form of parade balloon floats or the one that projectile vomits all over Erin (a running gag that never fails to generate a laugh). Others are a little bit more frightening to add a much-needed threat to the proceedings.

The ghosts are being unearthed by Rowan North (Neil Casey), a nebbish geek who’s looking for revenge against the world that has bullied him. His plan is to open up a portal to another dimension in which to suck ours into. In the process, tormented souls from that dimension take residence in ours. Rowan himself is a one-note villain, but that’s all he needs to be. Much like Ronan in the “Guardians of the Galaxy,” he exists to give the heroes something to work off of. The story is more about their origin and bonding than the impending of a big bad. I wonder if the villain’s name being so similar, only being one letter off, is intentional or coincidental. Nevertheless, Rowan serves his purpose and, once he himself becomes a ghost and starts hopping from body to body possessing humans, he too becomes a fun inclusion to the mix.

ghostbusters-2016-slimer-550x351

Paul Feig was the right to choice to write and direct the film (he co-wrote the screenplay alongside Katie Dippold). His love of giving his actors free-reign to adlib in preposterous situations is the perfect match for the lunacy of “Ghostbusters.” Much like Ivan Reitman, he has a grasp on the wackiness and special effects, having the story gel well with the comedy. The special effects service the comedy as opposed to overcoming it. The final showdown is reminiscent of those seen in blockbusters, but with its own humorous take on it all.

I was afraid we’d get the Paul Feig who directed “The Heat,” the man more concerned with making his characters caricatures in the face of absurdity. Thankfully, we get the Paul Feig of “Bridesmaids,” who put loveable and relatable characters in the face of absurdity. Yes, they can be over the top (that’s Holtzmann’s MO), but they’re also grounded individuals. They bond over the pratfalls they encounter, learning from their mistakes and growing as characters.

ghostbusters-2016-marshmallow-man

The big question, behind if this “ruins” the original film, is if it’s appropriate for children. I’d say it’s just as appropriate as the 1984 film was. It’s rated PG-13 for a reason, playing host to an abundance of sophomoric humor. However, it’s more lighthearted than the original, which was more blue in tone than people remember. Lest we forget Dan Aykroyd getting a blowjob from a ghost? There’s less of that and more broad but not too inappropriate humor for younger viewers. Some of the ghosts may be a bit too frightening for them, but if they survived the original film, they’ll be able to handle this. Most importantly, the message of teamwork and believing in oneself in the face of public scrutiny is a good one for children.

“Ghostbusters” doesn’t ruin the original film. It stands on its own two feet, as a remake should. It has its own unique flavor to a familiar story, a story only familiar to satisfy the masses. It’s no different than “The Force Awakens” being similar to “A New Hope” in favor of making the audience comfortable. Even when it struggles with its story, which is does from time to time, it does so in energetic fashion. It’s a light and breezy watch that left a big grin on my face throughout! Seeing heartwarming photos such as Kristen Wiig shaking hands with young girls dressed in a Ghostbusters costume leads me to believe this will do the same for them.

Final Rating: B