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

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…

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

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…

I have discovered the great ray that first brought life into the world.

Frankenstein (1931)
(SPOILERS) To what extent do Universal’s horror classics deserved to be labelled classics? They’re from the classical Hollywood period, certainly, but they aren’t unassailable titans that can’t be bettered – well unless you were Alex Kurtzman and Chris Morgan trying to fashion a Dark Universe with zero ingenuity. And except maybe for the sequel to the second feature in their lexicon. Frankenstein is revered for several classic scenes, boasts two mesmerising performances, and looks terrific thanks to Arthur Edeson’s cinematography, but there’s also sizeable streak of stodginess within its seventy minutes.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

Stupid adult hands!

Shazam! (2019)
(SPOILERS) Shazam! is exactly the kind of movie I hoped it would be, funny, scary (for kids, at least), smart and delightfully dumb… until the final act. What takes place there isn’t a complete bummer, but right now, it does pretty much kill any interest I have in a sequel.

Only an idiot sees the simple beauty of life.

Forrest Gump (1994)
(SPOILERS) There was a time when I’d have made a case for, if not greatness, then Forrest Gump’s unjust dismissal from conversations regarding its merits. To an extent, I still would. Just not nearly so fervently. There’s simply too much going on in the picture to conclude that the manner in which it has generally been received is the end of the story. Tarantino, magnanimous in the face of Oscar defeat, wasn’t entirely wrong when he suggested to Robert Zemeckis that his was a, effectively, subversive movie. Its problem, however, is that it wants to have its cake and eat it.

Do not mention the Tiptoe Man ever again.

Glass (2019)
(SPOILERS) If nothing else, one has to admire M Night Shyamalan’s willingness to plough ahead regardless with his straight-faced storytelling, taking him into areas that encourage outright rejection or merciless ridicule, with all the concomitant charges of hubris. Reactions to Glass have been mixed at best, but mostly more characteristic of the period he plummeted from his must-see, twist-master pedestal (during the period of The Village and The Happening), which is to say quite scornful. And yet, this is very clearly the story he wanted to tell, so if he undercuts audience expectations and leaves them dissatisfied, it’s most definitely not a result of miscalculation on his part. For my part, while I’d been prepared for a disappointment on the basis of the critical response, I came away very much enjoying the movie, by and large.

Just make love to that wall, pervert!

Seinfeld 2.10: The Statue
The Premise
Jerry employs a cleaner, the boyfriend of an author whose book Elaine is editing. He leaves the apartment spotless, but Jerry is convinced he has made off with a statue.