Based upon "Ghostbusters" (1984)
Written by Dan Aykroyd & Harold Ramis Directed by Ivan Reitman
Screenplay Written by Katie Dippold & Paul Feig
Directed by Paul Feig
** (two stars)
RATED PG 13
And now, I am finally able to weigh in and frankly, it is a shame that so much controversy and so much horrific, vile, sexist and racist vitriol has even launched over something so innocuously mediocre.
Dear readers, as I have been wont to express upon this site (as well as in person if you happen to know me in the real world), my fatigue with all manner of sequels, prequels, remakes, reboots, re-imaginings and the like is more than well known. With the case of "Ghostbusters," as co-written and directed by Paul Feig, the creator of the extraordinary television series "Freaks And Geeks" as well as the director of the wonderful "Bridesmaids" (2011), and starring the comedic dream team of Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones, my fatigue has indeed increased as well as a healthy sense of skepticism.
You see, I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of the ghost catching quarter being portrayed by women, in and of itself. What I do have a problem with is precisely the fact that with all of this creative talent in front of and behind the scenes, why could they not decide to craft something wholly original? You see, I am old enough to remember a time when thee was no such thing as "Ghostbusters"...and when it was unleashed upon the world in 1984, it...was...SPECTACULAR!!!!
Just think about it for a moment. To go to the movies and to be completely surprised by a viewpoint that you quite had not yet seen before. With the original film, Director Ivan Reitman working in brilliant collaboration with Writers/Actors Dan Aykroyd and the late Harold Ramis and astoundingly anchored by the great Bill Murray, we were given a summer movie treat that was downright magical. A supernatural comedy that blended strong storytelling, a gently anarchistic spirit, consistently funny improvisational comedy and sharp satire, big budget special visual effects, some honest to goodness scares and even an infectiously catchy theme song had just not been accomplished in quite this way just yet, making this very unlikely motion picture a full experience that has withstood the test of time heroically.
We really do not have those kinds of movie going experiences anymore, or at least ones that involve creative risks and remember, "Ghostbusters" was not a sure thing before its release in 1984. But now in 2016, the film's legend and longevity has been complete for generations, therefore, making it a sure thing and then some. But that specialized lightning in a bottle that occurred in 1984? Truthfully, even the originators couldn't successfully bottle it again with the undercooked, underwhelming and sadly watered down "Ghostbusters II" (1989). With Paul Feig's entry, we have ended up with something that is more akin to that undercooked, underwhelming, watered down second film. It's not bad or even awful by any means. It does have its moments. But, ultimately, "Ghostbusters" 2016 doesn't really add up to very much as it seems to be too intimidated by its own pedigree to really break free and become something truly memorable.
Paul Feig's "Ghostbusters" stars Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy as Dr. Erin Gilbert and Dr. Abby Yates, respectively, two former friends who once co-authored a book about paranormal activity and phenomenon but have since drifted apart. While Erin, now teaching for Columbia University and seeking tenure, has distance herself from her co-authored book, Abby has continued her research at a technical college alongside Dr. Jillian Holtzman (Kate McKinnon), an oddball engineer.
When Erin and Abby's book re-enters publication, thus threatening Erin's bid for tenure, she reunites with Abby and accompanies her upon an paranormal investigation in exchange for Abby's agreement to take the book out of publication once and for all. When the two plus Holtzman actually encounter a nasty, slime spewing spirit, therefore proving their theories about ghosts, they are ecstatic. Yet, a video of their findings posted on the internet unfortunately causes all three women to lose their faculty positions, inspiring them to go into business for themselves as paranormal investigators and developers of ghost containment technology while housed inside of an office space located above a Chinese restaurant.
Hiring attractive but painfully dim witted Kevin Beckman (Chris Hemsworth) as their receptionist, and further joined by former MTA subway worker Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones), who has also spotted ghosts and has supplied a hearse for their travels, the "Department Of The Metaphysical Examination," soon to be renamed the far catchier "Ghostbusters" is born.
Elsewhere in New York City, we meet the embittered occultist Rowan North (Neil Casey), who has long been formulating plans to manifest and organize the malevolent spirits of the metaphysical world in order to bring about the apocalypse, unless the Ghostbusters are able to stop him.
Paul Feig's "Ghostbusters" is a very odd, intermittently entertaining yet deeply uninvolving film that greatly suffers from quite the identity crisis. Yes, I did laugh out loud here and there and there are some good scenes from time to time and it is well made. But, I did think that Feig's vision was simultaneously sloppy and lazy while also being too busy and cluttered and never fully discovering its own point of view as it is terribly reverential to the original 1984 to the point of distraction.
Feig's film exists as sort of a sequel but not. Or as kind of a remake but not quite. The framework of the film serves as an origin story like the original film and more or less follows the same story beats as the original but some elements are shifted in bits and pieces in order to differentiate itself from Ivan Reitman's film but not nearly enough as Feig spends copious amounts of time inserting one moment or image after another from the original to such a degree that I was unsure if Feig's version was designed to take place in some sort of alternate universe from the one created in '84.
Regardless, Feig's "Ghostbusters" essentially served as an exercise in nostalgia but one that kept reminding you just how special and how good (and again, original) the 1984 film actually is. Even the much reported cameo appearances from nearly the entire main cast of the original film, including the mercurial Bill Murray did nothing to really enhance anything within this new version as none of their moments were terribly clever, funny or even remotely interesting. Even though I had wished the filmmakers would've left enough alone and just created something original, if they absolutely had to make a new "Ghostbusters," maybe it should have just been a pure sequel, a "Ghostbusters III," where Feig and his cast could really throw off the conceptual shackles of the original and just let loose. As it stands, Feig's version is definitely affectionate but it is also just as uninspired.
I felt that Paul Feig, a gifted writer, also dropped the ball within the work on the screenplay which is underwritten and more than a little sloppy. While he and co-writer Katie Dippold certainly poured on the backstories of Erin and Abby, the creation of their technology and even the iconic logo, as characters, all four women were lacking considerably, which led to performances that (mostly) felt dialed down and suffered from the similar fate of many of the films that have starred members from "Saturday Night Live." It was as if Feig turned on the cameras and just trusted his cast to just "be funny." But without a strong base of story and characters, the comedy and thrills cannot possibly be more than long passages of dead air surrounded by a sound and light show
Yes, with the 1984 film, Murray, Aykroyd and Ramis were certainly just playing extensions of their comedic personas but everything worked within the services of a full story and screenplay. With Feig's version, both Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy come off muted and muffled, while Leslie Jones, one of the current "SNL" cast's most dangerous players (and who does have some of the film's best lines) has little more to do than yell and scream. Chris Hemsworth, will having a fine light comedic touch and is more than game, is unfortunately saddled with a character that really goes nowhere fast.
Much to my surprise, I was stunned at how much that I was actually turned off by Kate McKinnon, possibly my favorite current "SNL" cast member, as her unhinged line readings, facial expressions and mannerisms suggested that she was playing almost an Andy Kaufman version of a socially awkward Science whiz and nothing resembling anything natural or even human.To that end, even Cecily Strong's minor role as a member of the New York Mayor's staff is also more annoying caricature than character. And then, with underwritten characters and story, what else is there to do but provide the film with yet another extended, CGI drenched climax that never excites, transports or even provides real laughter, unlike the original film which delivered all three in spades.
I guess my feelings could be summed up in this fashion: it felt as if Paul Feig's "Ghostbsters" was a film that was wearing a "Ghostbusters" costume playing dress up in the backyard, which just may be the point as the film does indeed give young girls in the audience some big budget heroines to emulate in some way, especially as there are so drastically few. I certainly wouldn't complain or quibble about something like that other than the fact that those very same young girls deserve an actual movie experience rather than an extended sketch masquerading as a film...and not a very good one at that.
And then, there is the controversy to deal with and there were some moments during the film where I was almost wondering if it was somewhat manufactured or at least, a hair disingenuous.
While I do not think that Paul Feig had any sense of a mercenary intent to what was intended to existing as an honest homage, it did feel as if he and his cast were paying close attention to the comments within social media during the filming and weaved it into the narrative, thereby utilizing the building controversy to its advantage by juicing up increased interest...albeit, an interest that was already present. All of this crossed my mind as the film brought its weakest element, the pitifully lame villain Rowan into the mix as his motivations are simply not the stuff from which movies are made. A geek who was bullied? Really? That's it?!
Look, I do appreciate that Feig has also used his version of "Ghostbusters" to showcase the camaraderie, solidarity and friendship between four women working together to save the world but you know, when the film did decide during some moments to disparage the femininity of the film's heroines through internet trolls and especially during the overlong climactic battle sequence when all four utilize their proton packs to blast their adversary in his metaphysical gonads, the controversy almost began to feel a tad...invented, or at least, just unnecessary to address in this film that otherwise never tries to announce any overt calls for feminism.
Paul Feig's "Ghostbusters" is really nothing more than a diversion, a summer movie season place holder to possibly see on a hot day and then, completely forget once you begin to head home. Yes, Feig and his cast certainly tried but all of them were sadly toothless and overly hemmed in by a legacy that maybe should have only had one film to begin with.
I am certain that Feig will hit another film out of the park but how much do you want to bet that it will be with something that emerges with its creative strings untethered to anything that has arrived before rather than the inevitable sequel which is already beholden to the past.
No comments:
Post a Comment