'Ghostbusters' 2016 Reboot

Who You Gonna Not Call? 

Sometimes you meet people who have a longing for the past and some part of history they never lived, but when you talk to them, you find out that they have no idea what those times were like. That's what it's like talking to a millennial who claims to love 80s cinema and lists 'Ghostbusters' I &II as those moments  for which they wished they were there. Yes, I've met those and I scratch my head. And yes, it's hard to believe, but in the Big Now, all kinds of cultural flotsam can attain a critical mass of public support, and so you have this imaginary necessity to "bring it up to date." It even came upon 'Ghostbusters' as something to reboot.

That's all on one side. The other side of it is those who decry the reboot because it features 4 women instead of men. I mean really? In 2016?

In case you haven't watched this film for either of the above reasons, but might be persuaded to watch it by some reasoning, and yet do not wish to have it spoiled for you, here is your spoiler warning now.





What's Good About It

It's actually good that it's an all-woman team. It's about the most fresh thing about it; and while Kristen Wiig's character Erin spends her time pining for Chris Hemsworth's himbo Kevin, in most part it has nothing to do with romantic involvements - which is as it should be.It's wall-to-wall female characters talking about things in the plot and not some romantic interest. it ought to pass one of those dumb Hollywood 'rules' about screenwriting.

Just as Dan Ackroyd and Bill Murray were the peak comedic talent of their day, Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig are top comedic talent of this day and they flex their chops reasonably well. It's really on the par with the originals; not that the originals were on exactly a high plane. You're not getting short-changed. Aspects of this one might be better than the original.

Also, it's pretty cool watching a movie where the sisters are doing it for themselves saving the city. I mean, really, why the hell not? I fail to see how this would have been a better movie if it were four guys doing the action - we've seen what that looks like 30 years ago. Some of it is better because it's women slinging the ray guns, getting covered in buckets of ectoplasm and blowing up the evil ghosts.

What's Bad About It

the flip side of all that is that it really is the same old dross. The original movies weren't exactly the high points of 1980s cinema, more like a symptom of what was wrong with it, but with some redeeming features. It was more of a pig with very nice lipstick - if you're into lipstick, it might have even been great for you.

Also, the trailer pitches the film as a sequel but in fact this is a reboot. Bill Murray and Dan Ackroyd make cameo appearances, but their characters have nothing to do with their original characters. Some truth in advertising would have been appreciated.

The climax is a little weak. It's more focused on the central action, but it doesn't have the deranged quality of the original where the conversation in the Mayor's office descends into name-calling and dick jokes, just as the Titanic pulls into the harbour. The climax of this one is more camp than comedy, with Chris Hemsworth leading a dance routine from the top of an awning. It owes more to the Village People than 'Ghostbusters'.

What's Interesting About It

The fury projected at this film before it was even released was something rude. There' something histrionic about the public when it comes to gender politics in 2016; it's even more strident than race politics, and it seems totally out of kilter with the subject matter. Let's face it, it's comedy action movie about four people who go around capturing errant ghosts. The comedy is character comedy so does it really matter if the ghostbusters are men, women, or any subgroup of LGBQTI?

I asked my significant other if she felt empowered watching women play these roles and she said no. In her opinion, it felt far more empowering seeing Julia Gillard become Prime Minister (by hook or crook, she didn't care how it came about) and is feeling the empowerment from Hillary Clinton's campaign to become POTUS much more than fro this bit of confected puff. So kvetching about four women playing these roles instead of men seemed tremendously trivial to her.

I guess I'd normally say people need to grow up, but these are grownups screaming this stuff on the internet, losing their shit so to speak. While I'm no fan of the kind of social justice warrior brand of feminism, the casting of these actors is hardly that kind of feminism. I guess there are a lot of white male egos out there feeling they're losing their entitlement and need to fight over every bit of turf they can find. But it's asinine. It really is.

Diversity? Uh-huh

Way back when, the Ghostbusters were 3 white guys and a black guy and it felt like a solid step towards diversity. This time it's three white women and a black woman and it feels natural, but it also feels like it's not diverse enough. I guess times change and Hollywood is sometimes behind its own curve.

Also, the black woman played by Leslie Jones comes from blue collar Queens. As realistic as it might seem to some people (it's a kind of crappy realism that saps joy), I would've preferred it if she were the one who was the dedicated ghost researcher (Melissa McCarthy's role), and Erin's old friend. In turn if McCarthy played the engineer, it would have been funnier; and if Kate McKinnon played the girl from Queens working for the MTA, it might have been sharper. Of course the star-billing wouldn't have allowed for that construction, so it's a pipe dream. Instead we're stuck with the stereotyping of the Leslie Jones as coming from a blue collar background which kinda sucks and undercuts the argument it is in favour of the diversity it is implying.

Was This Worth Doing?

I'm torn about this one. Was the original so good it needed to be left alone? Probably not. Was it so bad it needed to be brought up to ate? Probably not. Both of the 80s instalments were middlingly okay films. Not that I believe in giving star ratings, but they were 3.5-out-of-5 sort of films. Hollywood is overflowing with 3.5 stars sort of films partly because they don't want to do much better lest it raise the bar too high, and go over people's heads.

To then make this film and it too hit about 3.5 stars, makes you wonder if the world really needed another 3.5 stars movie let alone another 3.5 Ghostbusters movie. One side of me says, "hell why not? More the merrier and what else were they going to do?" ...and yet another side says "Surely there's something better for this talent to be deployed."

I don't know. It's actually quite hard.

Charisma Is A Funny Thing

Stars are what movie execs pay big big big money for, exactly because they're the people with the charisma to keep the audience watching. Both Wiig and McCarthy are charismatic enough to carry the film, but the film gets eaten alive by Chris Hemsworth's Kevin anytime he's on screen interacting with the characters. Part of it is that Hemsworth's already saved New York City once in 'Avengers', so anytime the threat of the ghosts looms over New York City and Kevin is nonchalant and stupid, it's like an in-joke about Hemsworth actually being Thor. Yet the more significant part of it is that his star power is overpowering, so much so he takes over the end title sequence.

Equally, Bill Murray is on screen for all of three minutes, but you just keep wanting more of the guy. Andy Garcia plays the mayor and he too is on screen for 4 scenes. You want more of the guy, but he's gone. It's a pretty strange film that way.