Skip to main content

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters
(2016)

(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.


Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.


So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from Katie McKinnon, who manages to be weird, goofy, and occasionally mocking in the Murray sense (but never in an actual “winking at the audience” sense, which may be where this gets the mixture slightly off), there’s nothing hugely right about it either.


Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy are fine, but dialled-down versions of themselves, particularly the latter, who doesn’t seem quite in her element when she can’t go off into some expletive- or obscenity-fuelled meltdown (a McCarthy possessed sequence should have been a comedy goldmine, but it’s disappointingly uncreative).


Leslie Jones might have been given some good lines, but all I can remember is that her character is a glorified NY tour guide. As such, it’s difficult to banish the thought that she signifies the series repeating itself, the patronisingly-included African-American cast member who joins the team late and doesn’t quite fit.


At least she does get some funny moments, though. Ernie Hudson is more memorable in 30 seconds here than in the entirety of the original, and fares best – such as these things are – out of the cast members’ entirely redundant cameos, which are generally flat (Murray, Aykroyd) or embarrassing (Weaver).


The opening sequence, and the then trio’s first encounter with a ghost, suggests there may be some attempt at making a spooky comedy that’s actually comedic and spooky, but Feig quickly forgets about the latter (oddly, as ensuring an alternating current of frights and chuckles seems to be an entirely obvious, essential even, mechanism that shouldn’t need saying, but there you go; McKinnon freaking everyone out by eating Pringles is exactly what this needed more of, rather than running gags about takeaway). He’s also much less interested in keeping a grip on the storyline than seeing how randomly any given piece of improv can go off at a tangent – which occasionally yields great results (the “Mike Hat” routine is gloriously absurd), but adds to the feeling no one here is really invested in the subject matter.


That’s only added to by the derivate villain (Neil Casey), who seems to be borrowed wholesale from The Incredibles, and a finale that is lethargically, noisily effects-driven, one that even has the cheek to attempt to inject an inert emotional arc when Wiig plunges into an Avengers void to rescue McCarthy (and as the final act in general shows, if there’s one thing that doesn’t mesh well with this kind of movie, it’s trying to mesh together “hero” moments; the only upside is McKinnon's put-down on their return, "It's 2040. OurPresident is a plant!").


There’s a brief burst of the proper Ghostbusters theme early on – very welcome – but it only underlines how horrendous the cover version is, and when Feig repeatedly assembles shots of the quartet in their hearse, about to go bustin’, as an uber-cool moment, one can only conclude that it isn’t, because it’s trying to overtly to recapture a cool moment, rather than conjuring its own cool (that the picture is absent any such moment emphasises how zeitgeist-unfriendly it is; the entire conversation has occurred outside its content, aside from the moment or two that has invaded that content).


You also see this kind of playing to expectations elsewhere, in terms of Feig’s own filmography. Chris Hemsworth has been cited as this movie’s the Stat, a hitherto undiscovered, deadpan-genius essayer of idiots, but he isn’t nearly as successful, as Feig is too self-conscious about how he has found “the next Stat”. So Kevin’s role is beefed up into being possessed, and because Hemsworth can “do funny” we keep cutting to him doing some business with his glasses, or answering the phone like a dumbass, when that one thing he did the first time was more than enough. Besides which, the funniest exchange by far comes from Andy Garcia, who isn’t trying to be funny at all, accused of being like the mayor in Jaws.


The effects are reasonable, particularly the redone Slimer and a couple of early spooks. Once we get to the full-on spectacular finale, it has devolved into a splurge of redundant CGI, of course, complete with the incredibly unwise idea of the Ghostbusters logo made demonic spectral force (if you really must give life to the advertising materials of the ’84 hit, the subway graffiti is at least inoffensive); Sony could have cut the conclusion and saved about $50m, considerable audience fatigue, and probably guaranteed profitability. An earlier sequence at a heavy metal concert is much more effective, at least for eliciting some germane gags (alas, Ozzy Osbourne just has to show up to, which says as much about the quality bar here as you need to know).


The increasingly tedious discussions about this being a female reboot, and the polarising opinions thereon (the “Ghostbros”) that have ensued, have been great for a perpetual motion machine of media headlines (the latest being Jones’ Twitter abuse). Which has meant that’s all the conversation has been about, and thus, that’s all the review conversation has been about (The Guardian, as a self-appointed Misogynist-buster, ladled out four different reviews, amongst their numerous think pieces); discussion of the movie becomes tangential to rallying behind the nominal progressiveness of the moviemakers.


As such, part of the issue is that nothing has convinced anyone (leaving aside the very vocal denouncers, who wouldn’t be swayed anyway) that this was something to see, even after critics started giving it “It’s okay, actually” reviews, since saying “It’s okay, actually” is damning with faint praise. It is okay, actually, because most of Feig’s movies are okay (and, on that score, it comes in below Bridesmaids and Spy, but above The Heat), actually, not because it’s a particularly good Ghostbusters movie.


What this reboot needed was more of the kind of leftfield, anarchic energy the glorious McKinnon brings to bear (interestingly, she seems to elicit Marmite responses, which on balance is probably a good thing for a comedian to be able to boast; if they ever decide to do a female Marx Bros movie – I don’t even know what I’m saying here – she’s a shoe-in for a horn-honking randy Harpo). What Ghostbusters ‘16 has got is being a geek property where the makers aren’t terribly interested in that geek property, and are more emboldened by responding to their critics from within the frames of the movie (which has been met with positive affirmations, but it’s less “clever satire” than rudimentary defensive posturing, feeding the monkey) than getting on with making a good one.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

  1. The original is a classic. I remember when it came out, everyone was in awe of the special effects. May want to revisit some of what you have written.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Everyone wants a happy ending and everyone wants closure but that's not the way life works out.

It Chapter Two (2019)
(SPOILERS) An exercise in stultifying repetitiveness, It Chapter Two does its very best to undo all the goodwill engendered by the previous instalment. It may simply be that adopting a linear approach to the novel’s interweaving timelines has scuppered the sequel’s chances of doing anything the first film hasn’t. Oh, except getting rid of Pennywise for good, which you’d be hard-pressed to discern as substantially different to the CGI-infused confrontation in the first part, Native American ritual aside.

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994)
(SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump. And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

That woman, deserves her revenge and… we deserve to die. But then again, so does she.

Kill Bill: Vol. 2  (2004)
(SPOILERS) I’m not sure I can really conclude whether one Kill Bill is better than the other, since I’m essentially with Quentin in his assertion that they’re one film, just cut into two for the purposes of a selling point. I do think Kill Bill: Vol. 2 has the movie’s one actually interesting character, though, and I’m not talking David Carradine’s title role.

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

Check it out. I wonder if BJ brought the Bear with him.

Death Proof (2007)
(SPOILERS) In a way, I’m slightly surprised Tarantino didn’t take the opportunity to disown Death Proof, to claim that, as part of Grindhouse, it was no more one of his ten-official-films-and-out than his Four Rooms segment. But that would be to spurn the exploitation genre affectation that has informed everything he’s put his name to since Kill Bill, to a greater or less extent, and also require him to admit that he was wrong, and you won’t find him doing that for anything bar My Best Friend’s Birthday.

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

When you grow up, if you still feel raw about it, I’ll be waiting.

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
(SPOILERS) It sometimes seems as if Quentin Tarantino – in terms of his actual movies, rather than nearly getting Uma killed in an auto stunt – is the last bastion of can-do-no-wrong on the Internet. Or at very least has the preponderance of its vocal weight behind him. Back when his first two movies proper were coming out, so before online was really a thing, I’d likely have agreed, but by about the time the Kill Bills arrived, I’d have admitted I was having serious pause about him being all he was cracked up to be. Because the Kill Bills aren’t very good, and they’ve rather characterised his hermetically sealed wallowing in obscure media trash and genre cul-de-sacs approach to his art ever since. Sometimes to entertaining effect, sometimes less so, but always ever more entrenching his furrow; as Neil Norman note in his Evening Standard review, “Tarantino has attempted (and largely succeeded) in making a movie whose only reality is that of celluloid”. Extend t…