Review of Ghostbusters 2016 Full Movie: Imagine a flaky Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and a heavy Falcon (Anthony Mackie), Captain America (Chris Evans), Incredible Hunk back. Unfortunately, the whole band in good condition, even if they have problems with their marriage. The big news, delivered by Foreign Minister (William Hurt), is that, until a private problem, will now be controlled by the United Nations under the title "agreements Segovia" the name of the site of a previous adventure. (Why always made sound countries as a place governed by Groucho Marx?) Iron Man like the idea, while Captain America hates it. You can analyze their effect is a mature public debate, but not quite. It is an excuse for the two of them collides on a German airfield, each with a group of friends, at his request. Even Spider-Man (Tom Holland) and Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) coupled with mixed results. Both are very well played and the state of mind of yeast (Rudd in a small jump in the suit of metal Downey as a flea), but their presence is known despair. The motto directors Anthony and Joe Russo seems to be: if you can make it happen, it does. Do not hold back.
The fact this film is certified fresh is worrying to me because the film was everything but fresh. I'm not a fan of these all-women cast remakes just because they seem very forced and very gimmicky. Whatever happened to organic feeling female lead roles like Sigourney Weaver in the Alien series or Geena Davis in The Long Kiss Goodnight? From the start, it was clear the humor wasn't going to be subtle, witty or clever and that instead, it would substitute this with over the top, slapstick, haha-we-mentioned-Starbucks-how-relevant-because-that's-a-real-thing humor that films seem to go for these days.
The whole thing was very confusing - the cast all seemed to be constantly vying for the "funny one" spot which just created this very 2D experience, there was no variation in character, the bad guy was completely forgettable and un-intimidating, the story was very "meh". The only thing that was funny was the fact that Chris Hemsworth's character only managed to get the job as the Ghostbusters' receptionist because they found him attractive! Can you imagine for one moment if it was the other way around? Alas, it's an all women cast so it's "empowering".
I'd like to comment on the plot a little more but it was honestly that forgettable. Overall, a waste of 2 hours and unfortunately I can't use that thing out of Men in Black to erase this from my memory.
Reboots and remakes are tricky. Do you remain faithful to the source material, which then begs the question, why remake/reboot the film if it's already been done? Gus Van Sant's shot-by-shot remake of "Psycho" took this notion to the extreme, which I believe that was the point of Van Sant's remake. Filmmakers rebooting/remaking classics are left in unenviable either changing beloved iconic films, which often offends fan sensibilities or remain slavishly loyal to the original source material, leaving little reason for the remake/reboot's very existence.
The Ghostbusters reboot tried to do something new and found the ire of many fans. Sadly, a lot of those online fans turned out to be misogynistic trolls who hated this film simply because of it's all-female Ghostbuster cast, but that's a pretty ridiculous reason to hate on this film. Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones are incredibly talented comedians and deserve enormous respect for carrying this film. What I disappointed me about the Ghostbusters reboot was that the script was not all that funny and it also lacked the funhouse scares of the original (you know, where it's actually scary in parts, even though it's a comedy).
I think this film also suffered because the audience already knew the origin story, so watching the team figuring out how to use their proton packs and traps really didn't have the gee-whiz fun of the original. Another element that made the original so fun was the great use of location shooting around New York City. This reboot is also set in the Big Apple but doesn't make use of NYC nearly as well until the film's climax in Times Square. Generally speaking, this felt like a watered-down version of the original, not unlike an inferior TV series pilot for a TV show version of a popular movie. But the film does have its pluses, which primarily are the four leads, solid special effects, and fun cameos by the three of the original Ghostbuster team, Murray, Akroyd, and Hudson (Harold Ramos has sadly since passed away). Overall, the likability of the cast and the strong production values make this worth watching, even if the material is vastly inferior to the original.
I finally saw the film. It was free on iTunes, so I didn't have to give them my money; I'm glad I didn't. I counted my laughs and the film time. The count was 1 and it was a chuckle at 55 minutes 24 seconds. Patty and Abby were making fun of that guy from Weeds and how they assumed he performed sexually. I didn't laugh or chuckle again.
I know how the studios behaved about negative opinions about the film. I didn't like the film so obviously, I am a woman-hating basement dweller. That was their marketing campaign. I didn't like the film because it was poorly written schlock. Two points in the movie stand out to me and they both happened in the last 30 minutes of the film. Now the last 30 minutes of the film felt like the longest because it was the worst part of the film. The villain takes control of the Army and makes them do a dance routine. This was the most offensively stupid scene in the film. Why was this in the film? Who thought that would be funny? It was so stupid that I was offended the filmmakers thought anyone would find that funny. The next scene that stood out was this slow-motion scene where Holtz? pulled out two proton pistols and slung them around like they were whipped in what I assumed was meant to showcase an action scene but completely felt out of place with the rest of the film.
The villain was as one dimensional as an NES game villain. Why is he evil? Who knows, just because, the movie needs a villain. The closest thing to an explanation as to why he was evil was because people made fun of him. People made fun of him so he decided to break the astral plane and destroy all life on Earth. Yeah.
I've seen some really bad films and this wasn't the worst, but it's up there. Was this a comedy? Who was this film made for? Why wasn't the money put towards a script for an original idea? These are very talented actresses. I don't understand it. The only reason I would recommend this film is to satisfy morbid curiosity.
This movie is like a current Marvel comic brought to the big screen. If you are into comics you know how damning of a statement that is. However, I don't say it because of any SJW elements. The whole premise of the movie obviously comes from a feminist place, but I didn't feel any SJW or PC agendas being pushed here. The allusion I make to Marvel Comics is that the movie characters feel like the feminine ones portrayed in those books. Intentionally gross, childish, goofy, random, and dumb girls who love "sciencing". Aside from the "you're sweating" scene, the movie is generally unfunny. I love Kristen Wiig, and find Leslie Jones to be hilarious when she views Game of Thrones in those videos. I liked McCarthy in Gilmore Girls and have enjoyed her in some (few) movie roles. Yet none of their characters offered me any entertainment or laughs (though I loved Kristen's hip-hop dance moves). I don't know why, but I found myself really drawn to Kate McKinnon's character. I just couldn't look away from her goofiness. Which is notable, since she embodies the Marvel Comics criticism I mentioned. This is a definite miss.
This is about on par with number 2 and that was a horrible mess for a sequel. These reboots just don't work, the first film was a story with supernatural elements, this is supernatural elements with a very weak plot. I get sick of these films not acknowledging the original films, they fail mostly because people have been there and done that. Why couldn't one of these be the daughter taking over the business? They are too busy alienating the core audience which are big fans of the original, which is an absolute classic. Reboots are just lazy and audiences are sick of them, they just don't need to be here, especially films from the 80s. I'm most eager to see Flatliners because it is a sequel that acknowledges the original. These filmmakers and actors needed better material, I only enjoyed two scenes probably in the movie and they were the character moments. The second half of the film felt like the Scooby Doo movie and really forgot what the film franchise is about, the characters. I can't forgive such lazy filmmaking here, sure it looks good but 140 million should look good. A huge disappointment to say the least.
Ghostbusters Official Trailer
No comments:
Post a Comment