← Back to Reviews
in
#260 - Ghostbusters
Paul Feig, 2016
A trio of scientists join forces with a subway employee to form their own ghost-catching business.
For me, going to check out Ghostbusters is an interesting proposition because, well, I'm not all that keen on the original Ghostbusters. While I like the high concept in theory and am rather appreciative of the main players in other works, somehow the charms of this particular piece of comedic alchemy had no staying power for me and I have struggled to enjoy the film on recent viewings (you can safely assume the same goes for the decidedly inferior sequel). As such, I was comparatively receptive to the idea of it receiving a reboot, even though I have mixed feelings about Paul Feig's existing output. While I enjoyed his short-lived coming-of-age series Freaks and Geeks quite a lot, I haven't totally enjoyed his recent cinematic outings like Bridesmaids or Spy (as of writing, I have not seen The Heat). That being said, I do recognise that his films have a lot of untapped potential and I held out some hope that he would eventually do something that truly taps into said potential. As a result, the expectations for his take on Ghostbusters are especially high, and that's without even acknowledging the amped-up controversy surrounding the decision to have this particular iteration of the Ghostbusters be played exclusively by women. I know not to automatically expect an unmitigated disaster, but that wasn't necessarily its own guarantee of quality either.
The first act of Ghosbusters doesn't inspire the most confidence as it runs through many of the same narrative beats as the original by showing the slow formation of the team; this naturally involves starting with a trio of academics having their investigations into the paranormal cancelled by skeptical college deans. It does offer an interesting variation in having Erin (Kristen Wiig) distance herself from the outwardly frivolous field of paranormal research in favour of a "serious" academic career, which does result in some friction when her work with her old partner/friend Abby (Melissa McCarthy) resurfaces and forces the two to re-connect. Together with Abby's new colleague Jillian (Kate McKinnon) and historically knowledgeable subway employee Patty (Leslie Jones), this quirky quarter create the technology and operation necessary to become the Ghostbusters. Meanwhile, there's a self-absorbed misanthrope named Rowan (Neil Casey) planting mysterious devices across New York while muttering about a coming apocalypse who is most definitely going to cross paths with our heroines. While it's obvious that the plot of Ghostbusters hews a little close to the plot of the original, this is arguably a good thing as it is able to provide its own distinctive tweaks to the details and even recontextualise old flaws into more acceptable contexts (most notably the way in which it takes the "hoax" sub-plot from Ghostbusters II and actually makes it work). The trade-off is that its pacing has some obvious weak spots where the momentum lessens, though that's mainly to do with the comedy not quite managing to paper over these particular narrative cracks.
The comedic elements are naturally going to be what makes or breaks Ghostbusters, so it's fortunate that they come closer to making it than breaking it. Though Feig nominally hails from the Judd Apatow school of letting his players improvise and cutting together the best takes in post, working off a tightly-structured plot with an emphasis on special effects makes for a rather effective restraint against bloated banter sessions. Though there is a cavalcade of recognisable and not-so-recognisable performers scattered throughout the film (often in glorified cameos or, failing that, actual cameos), what matters most is naturally the core ensemble. Wiig taps into her trademark neurosis while McCarthy plays a relatively grounded character - they frequently swap the role of straight-woman as the situation demands and it's their relationship that forms the heart of the film. McKinnon and Jones play comparatively simpler roles as the team's tech genius and history expert respectively, but that allows them a lot more freedom to win some laughs. McKinnon in particular is a perpetual scene-stealer as an eccentric gadfly who is just bursting with constant cracks and quirky mannerisms, while accusations of stereotype-based humour wither in the face of Jones' actual versatility. Of course, I have to give some credit to Chris Hemsworth in his role as the Ghostbusters' handsome but incredibly dim-witted receptionist; the earnest demeanour with which he rattles off some impossibly idiotic one-liners makes him rival McKinnon when it comes to stealing the show to the point where I couldn't decide which one did it more effectively.
Just as Spy took a simplistic high concept - unconventional-looking everywoman goes on a dangerous espionage mission - and mined it for as much feminist subtext as possible, Ghostbusters proceeds to do the same thing within the existing framework of Reitman's film. I'm not sure whether this film's content was put together before or after there was any backlash over the casting of Wiig and co., but I wouldn't be surprised if many of its elements - from rude YouTube comments on the team's ghost-hunting videos to the film's chief antagonist literally being an antisocial white male - were created in anticipation of such an uproar arising from the most toxic areas of fandom itself (or were most likely just a reflection of what had come before). The fact that the most positively-portrayed male character in the film is an absurdly incompetent secretary still goes a long way towards supporting the subtext - what may seem like emasculating pettiness on the outside proves a subtle yet pointed jab at casual sexism (if the world's biggest idiot can still show these women some respect, then what's everyone else's excuse?). Its many call-backs and cameos also suggest a barbed response to the concept of misguided nostalgia wherein many of the most iconic aspects of the original are subverted (or even outright destroyed) in manners great and small. In this context, it makes sense that they'd double down on refining and redefining things rather than just recycling.
While Ghostbusters is first and foremost a comedy, there's also a pretty strong need for it to back up its supernaturally-themed premise with a thorough realisation of this particular universe. Though the setting has naturally changed over the decades, the technology largely hasn't (but that's not enough to stop Jillian from adding her own ghost-busting weapons and devices to the classics). This much is reflected in the effects used to bring everything from Ghostbuster tech to the ghosts themselves into being. While one could easily worry that the many advancements in SFX technology might undermine things simply out of complacent mediocrity, in practice they suit the franchise's established aesthetic of day-glo colours and neon lighting. The technical competence on display extends to the many scenes where the Ghostbusters must do their jobs - the entire third act alone is able to make good on the action-packed potential of the premise as it manages to expand the scale of the proceedings while still finding inventive enough ways to keep it fresh. In this regard, the cartoonish nature of the proceedings does not obscure or replace the substance as the action is shot through with clarity, showing there's more to Feig's filmmaking than being a glorified cameraman.
Though it's easy to get jaded by the prospect of yet another Hollywood remake (especially when it comes to one based off a classic comedy), Ghostbusters effectively proves that it not only has the right to exist but is capable of demonstrating how solid a remake can be if the right amount of heart and competence is involved. Just as many of the best cinematic parodies are done out of irreverent appreciation of their subject matter, so too does Feig's take on Reitman's original get what is important about the source material while also adjusting things enough to avoid a hollow rehash and provide something new. It may have its fair share of issues when it comes to pacing and there are more than a few jokes that just don't land (especially during a rather shaky first act), but there's nothing that brings the film to a screeching halt. The members of the core ensemble get their moments to shine while also playing off each other just fine, and they do so in a film that builds reasonably well on the storytelling potential of its premise. While I couldn't say for certain whether or not the film is strong enough to sway every single naysayer, I appreciate that it's at least trying to be more than just a vacuous cash-grab and actually proves a decent film in its own right - at the very least, I feel like this is a property that actually deserves a sequel (and could even get a good one).
Paul Feig, 2016
A trio of scientists join forces with a subway employee to form their own ghost-catching business.
For me, going to check out Ghostbusters is an interesting proposition because, well, I'm not all that keen on the original Ghostbusters. While I like the high concept in theory and am rather appreciative of the main players in other works, somehow the charms of this particular piece of comedic alchemy had no staying power for me and I have struggled to enjoy the film on recent viewings (you can safely assume the same goes for the decidedly inferior sequel). As such, I was comparatively receptive to the idea of it receiving a reboot, even though I have mixed feelings about Paul Feig's existing output. While I enjoyed his short-lived coming-of-age series Freaks and Geeks quite a lot, I haven't totally enjoyed his recent cinematic outings like Bridesmaids or Spy (as of writing, I have not seen The Heat). That being said, I do recognise that his films have a lot of untapped potential and I held out some hope that he would eventually do something that truly taps into said potential. As a result, the expectations for his take on Ghostbusters are especially high, and that's without even acknowledging the amped-up controversy surrounding the decision to have this particular iteration of the Ghostbusters be played exclusively by women. I know not to automatically expect an unmitigated disaster, but that wasn't necessarily its own guarantee of quality either.
The first act of Ghosbusters doesn't inspire the most confidence as it runs through many of the same narrative beats as the original by showing the slow formation of the team; this naturally involves starting with a trio of academics having their investigations into the paranormal cancelled by skeptical college deans. It does offer an interesting variation in having Erin (Kristen Wiig) distance herself from the outwardly frivolous field of paranormal research in favour of a "serious" academic career, which does result in some friction when her work with her old partner/friend Abby (Melissa McCarthy) resurfaces and forces the two to re-connect. Together with Abby's new colleague Jillian (Kate McKinnon) and historically knowledgeable subway employee Patty (Leslie Jones), this quirky quarter create the technology and operation necessary to become the Ghostbusters. Meanwhile, there's a self-absorbed misanthrope named Rowan (Neil Casey) planting mysterious devices across New York while muttering about a coming apocalypse who is most definitely going to cross paths with our heroines. While it's obvious that the plot of Ghostbusters hews a little close to the plot of the original, this is arguably a good thing as it is able to provide its own distinctive tweaks to the details and even recontextualise old flaws into more acceptable contexts (most notably the way in which it takes the "hoax" sub-plot from Ghostbusters II and actually makes it work). The trade-off is that its pacing has some obvious weak spots where the momentum lessens, though that's mainly to do with the comedy not quite managing to paper over these particular narrative cracks.
The comedic elements are naturally going to be what makes or breaks Ghostbusters, so it's fortunate that they come closer to making it than breaking it. Though Feig nominally hails from the Judd Apatow school of letting his players improvise and cutting together the best takes in post, working off a tightly-structured plot with an emphasis on special effects makes for a rather effective restraint against bloated banter sessions. Though there is a cavalcade of recognisable and not-so-recognisable performers scattered throughout the film (often in glorified cameos or, failing that, actual cameos), what matters most is naturally the core ensemble. Wiig taps into her trademark neurosis while McCarthy plays a relatively grounded character - they frequently swap the role of straight-woman as the situation demands and it's their relationship that forms the heart of the film. McKinnon and Jones play comparatively simpler roles as the team's tech genius and history expert respectively, but that allows them a lot more freedom to win some laughs. McKinnon in particular is a perpetual scene-stealer as an eccentric gadfly who is just bursting with constant cracks and quirky mannerisms, while accusations of stereotype-based humour wither in the face of Jones' actual versatility. Of course, I have to give some credit to Chris Hemsworth in his role as the Ghostbusters' handsome but incredibly dim-witted receptionist; the earnest demeanour with which he rattles off some impossibly idiotic one-liners makes him rival McKinnon when it comes to stealing the show to the point where I couldn't decide which one did it more effectively.
Just as Spy took a simplistic high concept - unconventional-looking everywoman goes on a dangerous espionage mission - and mined it for as much feminist subtext as possible, Ghostbusters proceeds to do the same thing within the existing framework of Reitman's film. I'm not sure whether this film's content was put together before or after there was any backlash over the casting of Wiig and co., but I wouldn't be surprised if many of its elements - from rude YouTube comments on the team's ghost-hunting videos to the film's chief antagonist literally being an antisocial white male - were created in anticipation of such an uproar arising from the most toxic areas of fandom itself (or were most likely just a reflection of what had come before). The fact that the most positively-portrayed male character in the film is an absurdly incompetent secretary still goes a long way towards supporting the subtext - what may seem like emasculating pettiness on the outside proves a subtle yet pointed jab at casual sexism (if the world's biggest idiot can still show these women some respect, then what's everyone else's excuse?). Its many call-backs and cameos also suggest a barbed response to the concept of misguided nostalgia wherein many of the most iconic aspects of the original are subverted (or even outright destroyed) in manners great and small. In this context, it makes sense that they'd double down on refining and redefining things rather than just recycling.
While Ghostbusters is first and foremost a comedy, there's also a pretty strong need for it to back up its supernaturally-themed premise with a thorough realisation of this particular universe. Though the setting has naturally changed over the decades, the technology largely hasn't (but that's not enough to stop Jillian from adding her own ghost-busting weapons and devices to the classics). This much is reflected in the effects used to bring everything from Ghostbuster tech to the ghosts themselves into being. While one could easily worry that the many advancements in SFX technology might undermine things simply out of complacent mediocrity, in practice they suit the franchise's established aesthetic of day-glo colours and neon lighting. The technical competence on display extends to the many scenes where the Ghostbusters must do their jobs - the entire third act alone is able to make good on the action-packed potential of the premise as it manages to expand the scale of the proceedings while still finding inventive enough ways to keep it fresh. In this regard, the cartoonish nature of the proceedings does not obscure or replace the substance as the action is shot through with clarity, showing there's more to Feig's filmmaking than being a glorified cameraman.
Though it's easy to get jaded by the prospect of yet another Hollywood remake (especially when it comes to one based off a classic comedy), Ghostbusters effectively proves that it not only has the right to exist but is capable of demonstrating how solid a remake can be if the right amount of heart and competence is involved. Just as many of the best cinematic parodies are done out of irreverent appreciation of their subject matter, so too does Feig's take on Reitman's original get what is important about the source material while also adjusting things enough to avoid a hollow rehash and provide something new. It may have its fair share of issues when it comes to pacing and there are more than a few jokes that just don't land (especially during a rather shaky first act), but there's nothing that brings the film to a screeching halt. The members of the core ensemble get their moments to shine while also playing off each other just fine, and they do so in a film that builds reasonably well on the storytelling potential of its premise. While I couldn't say for certain whether or not the film is strong enough to sway every single naysayer, I appreciate that it's at least trying to be more than just a vacuous cash-grab and actually proves a decent film in its own right - at the very least, I feel like this is a property that actually deserves a sequel (and could even get a good one).