GHOSTBUSTERS.
The internet resounds with tweets and essays, thinkpieces and listicles, glorious .gifs and the yelling of grown men who claim to have had their childhoods ruined because women are now playing with ectoplasm and proton streams. In the midst of all this, how could I decline to put my own tuppence ha’penny-worth of opinion into the mix? Because you know I have one.
Ghostbusters is the best film I’ve seen since Mad Max: Fury Road, and one of the most enjoyable films I’ve seen from the last ten years. I don’t fall in love easily at the cinema, and I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of films I have walked out of with the immediate desire to go back in and DO IT ALL ALL OVER AGAIN. (Pacific Rim, Mad Max: Fury Road, and Ghostbusters. I saw Fury Road three times in cinemas. Ghostbusters, I walked out of on a Saturday and went right back in the next day—dragging my mother with me.) And I’m generally not all that fond of comedy: what I expected from Ghostbusters was a moderate proportion of entertainment mixed in with a moderate proportion of cringe, and the opportunity to watch Melissa McCarthy yelling at ghosts with her usual verve and fervour.
But what I got was a leopard of another stripe altogether. If you want a subtitle for Ghostbusters 2016, it would be this: FRIENDSHIP IS MAGIC AND SCIENCE IS AWESOME AND BLOWING SHIT UP IS THE BEST. Kirsten Wiig is amazing as Erin, a professor who discovers her former best friend Abby (Melissa McCarthy) has published the book on the paranormal that they wrote together when they were younger. Erin’s scientific credibility is at stake, so she tracks Abby down to the basement of the Kenneth P. Higgins Institute of Science to demand that Abby take the book off the internet. Up to this early stage, Ghostbusters has been an entertaining, if somewhat predictable—almost staid—ride. But in Abby’s basement lab, Kate McKinnon makes her first scene-stealing appearance as engineer and scientist Dr. Jillian Holtzmann, with complete self-possession and charmingly goofy weird-ass abandon: “Come here often?” she says to a startled Erin. And shortly afterwards, grinning broadly: “I’ve heard terrible things about you.”
Her facial expressions and deadpan delivery are some of the best things about a film that is full of high-octane awesome—not to mention her dancing, and Holtzmann’s delightful enthusiasm for playing with dangerous equipment and making weapons that make ghosts go boom.
What few scenes McKinnon doesn’t steal, Leslie Jones does. Her Patty joins the trio of scientific white girls after they’ve been kicked out by their respective scientific institutions for being so unscientific as to appear in YouTube videos claiming ghosts are real. Patty, an MTA employee with a local historian’s encyclopaedic knowledge of New York—and access to a car in the shape of her uncle’s hearse—brings a solid presence, even a comic gravitas, to the cast. It helps that of our four heroes at least one is not completely thrilled to be finding spectral apparitions walking around all over NYC.
“I don’t know if it was a race thing or a lady thing, but I’m mad as hell.”
Ghostbuster’s weakest link is its villain, who is a sinkhole of anti-charisma, the basement-dwelling angry white male nerd who feels his genius is unappreciated by the world. But the villain merely provides a convenient excuse for our four heroes to get together and kick spectral ass—there is one truly great set-piece at a metal concert that is hilariously well-put-together—while wise-cracking, watching Erin drool over Chris Hemsworth’s Kevin (their pretty but intellectually challenged secretary—he was the only one who answered the ad), and encouraging Holtzmann to come up with ever-better gadgets. Despite the disbelief and disapprobation of scientific authorities, and the interference of the Mayor’s office and Homeland Security, our heroes are not going to be kept out of the running. Nope. They’re going to DO SCIENCE and save New York. Even if no one believes them—or believes in them—but themselves.
It is amazingly rare to have an action film—and Ghostbusters is an action film, as well as a comedy with a strong heart—that stars more than one woman. Here we have four (plus the woman who runs the Mayor’s office and a cameo from Sigourney Weaver). They support each other, they hold each other up, they get each other sandwiches—and when they argue, it’s not to break each other down. The main cast is predominantly white, and—subtext aside (and man there is a LOT of subtext)—could be read as straight in the absence of narrative confirmation to the contrary. But on the other hand, four women, not all of whom are conventionally beautiful in the traditional Hollywood sense (but heavens they are gorgeous)—this is a startling thing, a thing of wonder, a thing of beauty.
Why do so many men seem to hate it? I suspect it’s because they’re so used to being the centre of everything, the assumed audience, the default around whose lowest-common-denominator tastes all action films must orbit. But this is an action film—an action comedy—which puts women as the centre of its narrative and at the centre of its audience. Instead of being the butt of the jokes, women are the ones making them. Instead of being the sidekicks, the damsels in distress, the Obligatory Love Interest, women are the action-heroes.
And that? Makes a hell of a difference.
Liz Bourke is a cranky person who reads books. She holds a Ph.D in Classics at Trinity College, Dublin. Find her at her blog. Or her Twitter.
Have to disagree here. I thought this was a dull overlong unfunny movie. Leslie Jones was never funny on SNL and hasn’t improved here. All she does is yell a lot. Melissa McCarthy tries hard but can’t overcome the bad dialogue.
I get the need to love Ghostbusters, I really do. Internet trolls have pumped the misogynistic nonsense up to the Nth degree as usual, and so now of course a massive defense must be mounted. I was a kid when the original Ghostbusters came out in theaters, and I’ve seen it a bunch of times since then. My only reaction when I heard that a reboot would be featuring females in the lead roles was “cool”. Then the casting came out. Oh great, Melissa f-ing McCarthy again. Because god forbid 3 months go by without seeing her in something. Kristen Wiig…again. Meh. Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones brought the smile back to my face, though. And so this weekend, I checked out a few spoiler-free reviews and off I went. I have to say I don’t get the praise that is being heaped on it by either of the reviewers on this site. This is, at best, a mediocre action comedy. Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig are Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig, so nothing new there. Kate McKinnon *is* a scene stealer and quite funny, but then we come to Leslie Jones who for the most part gets stuck playing the stereotypical head-bobbing, loud-talking, “oh no she didn’t” black woman. Sorry, that just doesn’t pass muster for me anymore. If I want to see that kind of nonsense, I’ll find a Tyler Perry movie to watch. And the rest is just…meh. Chris Hemsworth tries, but you can only get so much out of the one-note joke character he plays, the villain seemed like he was written as revenge against the internet trolls, the cameos are a waste of everyone’s time and add nothing, and the special effects are barely a step above SyFy Original Movie quality.
“I get the need to love Ghostbusters, I really do.”
Holy shit, this is condescending. Because we can’t possibly love this movie because it’s fun and enjoyable and good? Because liking something for its own sake is just immpossible in the face of your honest dislike? I am so tired of being told I shouldn’t like something I enjoyed, or that I’m liking it for the wrong reasons. I took my wife and a friend to see this, in a sold-out theater, and all three of us had a blast, and clapped along with the rest of the crisis at the end. You are not the arbiter of my experience, Random Internet Person.
Haven’t seen it yet, but I’ve heard a lot of good things from people I respect.
Great review.
I went to see this movie with my boyfriend this weekend. He didn’t particularly want to see it, having a very deep love for the original, but gamely accompanied me anyway. And he laughed. We both laughed. We saw it in 3D and the action and special effects (although a bit busy at the end) were amazing.
It was a great movie about 4 women kicking ass and covering each others’ backs and I loved it. If you didn’t find it funny that’s totally fine, people’s tastes are very different particularly where comedy is concerned, but dismissing others’ love for the film as somehow inauthentic or defensive does a disservice to the people and to the film.
It is irrelevant how one feels about Ghostbusters 2016. It is irrelevant what people say about its female cast. Even my opinion, which is that this badly written movie with this cast should have been a sequel, not a reboot, is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it’s not a hit. Quite even possibly a flop, given the context of its expectations and the enormity of its budget That means that another reboot failed and that maybe, just maybe, Hollywood will begin to pay attention and start thinking about new ideas.
Just maybe.
I loved this movie with the same purity I loved the first Ghostbusters movie, except this one had characters I recognized, people I loved, women over 30 (three of them over 40!!!!) and a villain who was a Men’s Rights Red Pill Redditor, plus and also Kate McKinnon licking those guns, or dancing with propane torches was a thing of BEAUTY.
This is a movie that was made to make me happy. I was being pandered to. It was glorious. It worked spectacularly well. I am guessing the comments here will break along gender lines pro and con, and I look forward (in a kind of perverse way) to keeping a tally.
With a 73% “Fresh” rating on Rotten Tomatoes and additional regional expansions planned (plus future US monies) as well as merchandising cash coming in, this movie will not be rated a “flop” – it won’t break records but it won’t fail either. So pin your hopes on another movie.
Maybe the next Star Trek movie will tank and you’ll finally get Hollywood to give up on reboots as you so clearly think they need to do.
I’m reminded of Ann Leckie’s non-face-punching restaurant analogy.
I think the metacritic score on this one is pretty accurate. Last I saw it was at 60. This movie, for me, was very hit and miss; which made the whole experience kind of jarring. I’d get into it and then they would go overboard and the wonder would be lost. That was usually the fault of the side characters.
I have no idea if Sony had this planned all along or simply stumbled into it, but the controversy surrounding this movie is kind of brilliant in marketing terms. Here you have a blatant by-the-numbers remake ticking all the boxes for nostalgia and iconography, which would ordinarily be cause for outrage from shouty fans who hold their nostalgia too close to their hearts, but by presenting it within a progressive cause–and no doubt an important one–they can instantly dismiss most criticisms as knee-jerk or thinly veiled sexism and any other -ism can be created by the Mass Media Outrage Complex. What was once a standard argument over originality and corporate nostalgia mining can be lost in the murk of political arguments. It’s a fascinating, perhaps accidental, mutation of the remake monster.
Saw it this weekend. I am glad that it was not a remake of the first film. I am glad that they paid proper homage to the original film (lost count of the sly jokes on this topic), cameos from everyone but Rick Moranis (even Slimer and the Staypuff Man). I don’t care about the sexual politics of the film. It was just damn fun. Kristing Wigg has never been more adorable; Hemsworth was perfect as the beautiful but brainless secretary (there’s your upturning of the sexual stereotype). All of the main characters hit the right tone.
Two thumbs up.
Haven’t seen the film yet. I’m not at all bothered by the gender swaps or whatever. All I can say at this point is that I can’t see that leading photo in this article without thinking that the ghostbusters are all amputees with prosthetic shins and feet. How cool is that?
“Why do so many men seem to hate it? I suspect it’s because they’re so used to being the centre of everything, the assumed audience, the default around whose lowest-common-denominator tastes all action films must orbit.”
Really? Maybe it’s because the movie is mediocre at best, and because people are tired of Melissa McCarthy’s schtick. We bought tickets to support it, but neither I nor my husband enjoyed it and we left early because we didn’t want to waste any more of our time. It’s pretty sad when a movie can’t deliver to people who want it to succeed. A movie ain’t great simply because some people want it to be.
Honestly, aside from Captain America this summer has failed to deliver with any of its blockbusters. I hope Star Trek isn’t a fail.
Sorry, not interested. I am tired of reboots, prequels, and sequels. It’s a cash grab by the powers that be because it is so much easier than taking a risk on originality. As a huge SF fan I see so many great SF books coming out every day, as well as great literary works from yesteryear. Many of these would make great movies, or TV series but are ignored because the powers that be would rather bet on a sure thing. I get the profit motive, but that doesn’t mean I have to cooperate. I want something new and different. When it was announced that American Gods, and Altered Carbon were being made into TV series that excited me. When I heard that The Forever War was being made into a movie that also excited me. But a re-interpretation of Ghostbusters? Sorry, I’ll pass. And no, it’s not because it is starring women. Give these same funny people some original material and I will come and see that film, but not a remake of a movie that I have seen many times. And this current remake certainly isn’t hurting my childhood memories; that’s rather pathetic. I just see so much great literary SF out there that doesn’t get a chance at the big/small screen because the sure thing sequel / remake / reboot is always going to be preferred. And here’s a prediction. This new Ghostbusters is going to have its sequel because: why stop the gravy train when it is picking up steam? And to those who want that, glad you are getting what you want. I’ll stand in line eagerly anticipating The Forever War when it finally comes out.
I don’t think the through line of the plot of the new Ghostbusters is quite as coherent and clear as the original. The new movie feels much more like a clothesline. And although the idea of the antagonist is a good one, he’s not that compelling as a villain. You need a compelling villain. (Ghostbusters 2 had the same sort of problem).
That all said, the chemistry between the four leads, and the theme “We’re doing this for science!” more than makes up for its deficiencies in my view. When the foursome set up their shop, and explicitly went for the scientific rather than the financial approach and point of view, I was overjoyed.
“the other side? You mean New Jersey?”
@3 Derek Moreland – The comment I made wasn’t meant to be condescending and I am sorry that you took offense to it. What I was trying to express was that I felt that after all the silly, misogynistic internet bullshit there was a great desire on the part of many people to see Ghostbusters succeed and be good. I just also felt that the superlative reviews this site has given it weren’t warranted – they both make it seem like the best film ever made – and it’s just not. It’s also not the worst.
Holtzmann forever.
See, this… this is what annoys the hell out of me. I don’t dislike the movie because it bloody well stars women, I hate it because it’s not funny.
Liked the film a lot, and hope Kate McKinnon gets to do some more action roles. Or just more roles in general. And Leslsie Jones was also really good – I find myself flashing back to her lines a lot. The choppy Act 3 will definitely be smoothed out in an extended edition, since there’s clearly a subplot about Erin leaving the team that got clipped for time.
Just overall found the film enjoyable and amusing, which surprised me after the botch of a trailer. I wasn’t planning on going, but as some friends were giving it a thumbs up, took the chance. I’m looking forward to the sequel.
I think it was largely stunt casting, but losing your shit over it is for babies.
I came out of this movie positively giddy. It made me fall in love with the cast, and the original, and the franchise as a whole, and New York, and movies in general. This movie was made of joy. It was an absolute delight on its own merits, but also the references to the original were tuned to exactly where I like them. My one disappointment about this movie is that the sequel isn’t out yet.
I came out of the movie with the urge to re-watch the original – not to get the taste of the remake out of my mouth but because holy shit that’s right I love Ghostbusters give me all the Ghostbusters. I want to track down the old cartoon, and watch it all over again. I want to run an RPG.
I remember the first Ghostbusters movie, with all its sly jokes, and quotable lines. I saw this version on Saturday night, in an auditorium full of people who all enjoyed it (laughter and applause broke out more than once). This is a different movie, but one that gave thanks to the first one. The cameos, the in-jokes, we got them. The new stuff and all the woman-centered acting made this one so much more enjoyable. For once, we didn’t get fat jokes, or slut-shaming, or dismissal of women; we got strong women in five roles plus a cameo. Leslie Jones wasn’t an afterthought; her character supplied the history of NY and the technical skills that none of the other three scientists had, so she was also a strong contributor. All the men who claim this was a boring and unfunny movie are probably men who never paid attention to the fact that most movies are male-centered, and this one wasn’t. That’s why we liked it.
Sadly, we live in times when in the public perception a film treating ghosts as if they are real is interpreted as a pro-science. ‘Contact’ (I can bring up more examples, but I intentionally choose this to cancel the gender bias, and ‘Contact’ shows that one can make a good and brave pro-science move with a female protagonist) is pro-science. This is a clear evidence for the failure of the modern science education.
No one is positing that ghosts are real, people are just celebrating that we have a major blockbuster adventure movie starring female scientists. However good Contact is, it does not have the same bearing on popular culture that Ghostbusters does.
.. female scientists … – this is exactly the trap I am talking about – how can they be scientists if they do pseudoscience?
The movie increases the society’s tolerance to pseudoscience. What makes it worse than the first GBs is that it uses women to make this point. Special award to the creators for helping to decrease the fraction of women in STEMS.
Fiction. Let that sink in.
Fiction, but as you yourself point out, with a lot of bearing on popculture.
I’m been a fan of GBs for 31 years since i was 3 since the 85 re-issue was one of the first movies i saw in theaters and watched/taped the animated show religiously as a kid on ABC/syndicated TV and had the toys plus shirts, merchandise, drink the ecto-cooler, ate the cereal and saw GB 2 in theaters on my 7th birthday on opening day. I gotta say this remake was unnecessary and an insult to the franchise that doesn’t honor or respect it but actually disrepects the franchise.
i am very thankful the new film flopped at the box-office and how it killed the franchise and sometimes it’s better to kill something then let it suffer. This franchise has been a wounded dying half-dead soldier who got shot in a field of war many times as he is hiding behind a large boulder or building suffering for the last 25 years asking “Please let me die, kill me! please kill me! i don’t wanna live anymore, take me take me” as he cries out to his soldier friend besides him begging him to kill him off so he won’t suffer anymore since the Real GBs ended and nothing else good has came out in the last 25 years with the exception of the 2009 video game and the merchandise and comics by IDW, no movies since then and other games during the years have sucked and Extreme GBs was ok show and this remake flopped at the box-office.
You just can’t recapture the same lightning in a bottle like the original as the original focused on a brilliant mature intelligent script and reminded how well crafted it is – it functions as a supernatural fantasy comedy adventure with horror trimmings, but tops the cake with a cast of talented comedy actors who are given just enough space to subtly dick around without undermining the world of the story. The world looks realistic and has an edge to it in the original as the original is what i call great filmmaking.
The new version sledgehammers some viewers with painfully forced juvenile Sandler (modern Sandler mind you)-esque humor, There’s none of the restraint that allows space for wit, a poorly written unfunny script, poor pacing and the world seems utterly artificial plus no passion but money grab is what it is. The Peter-Dana love story that had a tenderness and made things personal when she gets possessed is replaced with a screaming black woman yelling pop-culture references while beating her friend about the face plus none of the edge of the original movie and a lame villain who lacks the menace of Gozer and Viggo. It’s closer to The Real Ghostbusters 80’s early 90s cartoon (though not as good or well written like that show). This whole thing seems to perfectly showcase what 80’s and 90’s comedy did right, and what some modern comedy is doing wrong. Not to mention shooting the logo in the dick as a bad guy which is an insult to the franchise and there is no passion in this remake and just a cash-grab made by Sony. I have female friends who even find the tokenism of doing a ‘women’s version’ of a successful franchise to be irritating and demeaning as a few of them thought this remake was poorly written, misygonstic towards men as one of my lady friends said it’s an unfunny insult to women with such man hating agenda and well i enjoyed a few of Feig’s movies, i felt he was the wrong guy for this project and even he didn’t want to do it at first but he had to for the paycheck and he felt out of his comfort zone as R-rated films is what he is good at and not big budget PG-13 films as after this flopped, he should go back to original stuff.
Hollywood needs to focus on making good films and focus on the new franchises like Jack Reacher, Bourne, John Wick, Marvel Studios etc. not digging up some old favorites and desperately mangling the corpses into some focus-group approved poorly written abortion. Ghostbusters is best left alone. If Ramis was still with us then a third film might have been worthwhile, but they should have made it years ago, and now that he’s gone so has Ghostbusters. A TV series about ghost-busters could work, but it shouldn’t use the name of this series. Stealing the names of beloved properties just encourages creative laziness, studios need to rediscover the creative spirit that birthed great films/series, not keep recycling past glories.
I hope some people here will understand what i am saying as the world has moved on and some franchises need to be dead and left alone only for the memory of the original to be seen/loved/watched by everyone for years to come on what quality filmmaking is all about and that i am right with my truth about why some series should be left alone as some would and not to recycle some past glories as we moved on and need some fresh new things for current film.
Sometimes dead is better like Jud Crandall in Pet Sematary would say and the franchise died with Harold Ramis. My pick for worst film of 2016.