[spacer height=”20″]
Plot: A madman creates a device that brings ghosts into our world to torment us, and the “Ghostbusters” are the only ones who can stop him.
Spoiler-level: 3 of 5
Review: Ghostbusters is a harmless piece of family-friendly summer entertainment. There’s a gentle positivity that radiates from it, but the film has no teeth, no risk-taking, no grit. It’s a nice homage to the original. It doesn’t offend. It doesn’t tarnish the brand. But it’s also not the stuff epic franchises are made out of.
Director Paul Feig doesn’t bring a bold, visionary take on the subject matter, but he delivers a scale and brand of humor right in line with what he is known for. Comedy is often inserted for comedy’s sake. Nothing feels particularly focused, thought out or planned, save for the opening. The entire movie is basically an assembly of skits, bits, and shtick.
The talents of Kristin Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones are all on display. They deliver good performances, although McCarthy is more subdued than we’d expect, and McKinnon is forcing it just a tad. Jones is the true break-out, living and breathing her character, effortlessly stealing scenes without realizing it, and is just a delight on screen. Her career is about to explode.
If anything, the actors are forced into resting on the laurels of the comedy they’re known for, rather than working off a smart and tight script that gives them a narrow focus and specific vision.
Too often, there’s the feeling these talented actors are ready to shoot a scene, and the direction is, “There’s a ghost in the room and you have to trap it. Do whatever you think is hilarious, we’ll get like 20 takes, and assemble the funniest bits in the editing room.”
The ghost sequences, alas, feel so much like this as well. During the climactic Times Square battle, the actors are so obviously on a soundstage in front of a green screen, told to stand in a line, fire their proton packs in different directions, punch and kick thin air, and shout out funny lines. Then in post production, the ghosts will be animated around them to make it seem like there is an interactivity.
This is probably great for keeping a production on schedule, but a consequence of this “we’ll figure it out later” mentality is that the spontaneous gems found in the moment on a location, or even the cohesiveness of an action scene, are lost.
In the original, when the Ghostbusters fire their proton packs that explode chunks of rooftop off, there’s a shot of those chunks of debris raining down on the citizens of New York that have gathered outside the building. It shows pre-production planning, a storyboard logic, which went into the shoot of the original, where this new incarnation has more of a piecemeal “worry about it later in post production” vibe.
That’s why during the climax, the feeling of a city in jeopardy is forgotten about because CGI ghosts have conveniently surrounded our characters, masking the fact that there probably wasn’t enough footage of citizens running through the streets. Or instead of a hundred extras on the street, down to the last Rabbi and Jehovah’s Witness, cheering, “Ghostbusters! Ghostbusters!” we instead get a nighttime wide shot with the city in the distance, and CGI “Thanks, GB” signs lit up on buildings to show the city’s appreciation.
It all feels spliced together as an after-thought and messes with the logic of the whole thing.
There’s no mentioning of why the ghost at the rock concert is a green demon that keeps showing up. Or why the ghost in the subway is a prisoner who escaped a jail. I know, I know, Penny indicates that above the subway, there once was a prison, so there’s a convenient screenplay line to justify this. But what exactly is going on here? Are these ghosts truly thought out in relationship to plot and theme? Or did the effects team already have a prisoner ghost rendered, and so they just inserted it in the subway scene and explained it away with a line?
The opening “haunting” sequence is a notable exception. This was a well-thought out ghost story, and the ghost we see is a true character. We understand who she is and why she is there. This completely works. If only this effort and attention to detail remained consistent through the rest of the film.
I did enjoy the ghost special effects. The explosion of light and color on screen combined with crisp sound effects made the whole thing visually dazzling. There’s just so much fabricated chaos and repetition being animated around actors standing around that we can’t help but feel that this is yet another after-thought, another patch on the tire to hopefully distract us from the larger flaws at work.
Chris Hemsworth is a breath of fresh air and a bright spot in the film. He’s having a great time, his performance is delightful. But whether or not this was written in the first draft of the script, the feeling when watching is that the studio said, “Oh wow, Chris Hemsworth just signed on. Can’t believe he agreed to do it. Okay, quick, we need to rewrite this thing to give him more to do. Oh I know! Let’s transfer the bad guy into his body for a while!”
As I’m writing this review, I feel as though I’m delving into a speculative behind-the-scenes filmmaking aspect of the movie more than the content itself, and this bothers me. Why am I constantly thinking about the process behind the making of the movie, and not the movie itself? It goes back to the inconsistent logic problems this film has, which keeps taking me out of the immersion. It’s like riding Space Mountain with all the lights turned on.
And there’s no greater example of this than the cameos.
Ill-conceived, out of place, lacking purpose, the cameos are a missed opportunity.
The Internet is abound with theories about this. I’ve read everything from this being an alternate timeline to these being the actual characters from the original with changed identities as a part of a larger government coverup.
In reality, though, and in looking at how this film was assembled, the cameos feel like a forced gimmicky marketing attempt.
I remember hearing the production had wrapped, then a couple of weeks later, we learned that Sigourney Weaver went in the studio to shoot a scene for the film. As we know, reshoots are a common practice in Hollywood. But this was something entirely different. Perhaps this was planned all along? The fact of the matter is that while I was overjoyed to see Weaver on screen, her presence was merely gratuitous. She wasn’t Dana Barrett. This wasn’t a warm and fuzzy nostalgic nod.
The same goes for all of the actors. Great seeing Ernie Hudson, albeit at the end of the movie, like Weaver, when we’re already checked out.
Annie Potts at least played a character that had a reason for being there.
Dan Aykroyd‘s moment is the most fun.
And Bill Murray‘s is the least, despite being given the most screen time.
So while our principal actors are all trying their best to laugh and smile through the whole thing, the cameo actors aren’t treated nearly the same way.
The ambivalence of their presence, therefore, is simply off-putting.
There are still enough refreshing bits and moments to keep the film positive and fun, in spite of the flaws.
I love it when Andy Garcia‘s Mayor is compared to an asshole Mayor from another film, and he is offended by the comment in such a way that it seems he has heard those remarks before.
It was hilarious when, over a news broadcast, we hear someone in the background yelling, “Baba Booey!”
There are some genuinely good lines and gags.
The clever use of 3D is a true highlight. By intentionally placing black bars on the top and bottom of the screen, then throwing colorful CGI and particle effects over the bars, essentially breaking the fourth wall, we’re drawn into the experience, and some moments are truly exciting.
But where does the franchise go from here?
They say this is the start of a larger “Ghostbusters Universe” like a “Marvel Universe” with promises of more movies to come. And yet, my 10:30 p.m. 3D IMAX screening in Orange County on a Friday night had 10 people in the theatre, counting us. If the weekend box office returns are underwhelming, just how incentivized is the studio really going to be to greenlight further big budget adventures?
Mad Max: Fury Road was the most exciting film from last summer, was critically acclaimed, won an impressive number of Academy Awards, but it’s box office didn’t exactly knock the socks off of the studio execs. One year later, and there doesn’t seem to be any traction towards a sequel.
And here, we have a Ghostbusters franchise fans were ready to embrace, yet due to its unabashed mediocrity, seems destined to head back into limbo alongside other friends of the ’80’s that briefly said hello to us, like Robocop and TRON. Such untapped potential!
Are these concepts outdated? Or are the studios not giving them the love and attention they deserve? Only time will tell.
For now, I can appreciate the harmless fun in this incarnation of Ghostbusters. It just could have been so much more.
Grade: C