Saturday, December 10, 2016
Saturday, December 3, 2016
Friday, December 2, 2016
Thursday, December 1, 2016
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
Monday, November 21, 2016
Friday, November 18, 2016
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
Sunday, October 30, 2016
Saturday, October 22, 2016
Friday, October 14, 2016
Sunday, August 7, 2016
Arthouse Review: Cafe Society
Say what you will about Woody Allen as a human being, you
cannot deny that his films are truly unique. These movies don’t just tell
quirky or neurotic tales of obsession and jealousy; they make us reexamine the
concept of a protagonist and antagonist. And in most of his films, both are
usually the same character. He also enjoys creating ensembles of great actors
who can both stand out and yet work together in their scenes so that each
moment feels like a symphony of sorts. Most of his millennial work, Allen is
hit or miss. But when he hits, he usually hits big like Midnight in Paris or
Vicky Christina Barcelona.
So where does that leave Café Society, his most recent film?
It’s not as whimsical or as witty as most of his other work, but it does
something that is reminiscent of his 80s work such as Manhattan or Hannah and
Her Sisters, which is to create a hopefully melancholic atmosphere.
Sunday, July 31, 2016
Arthouse Review: Life Animated
If my moniker doesn’t give it away, I’m a huge fan of
movies, all kinds of movies. I don’t just love watching movies, I love learning
about them, the processes, the mindsets, and even what movies mean to people.
This last element is especially important because the movies that a person
enjoys is an indicator of an individual’s identity, as most art tends to do.
Yet as we see in Life, Animated, a documentary now in theaters, movies can also
play a larger part in a person’s life, especially when their mental facilities
are inflicted by trauma. In Owen Suskind’s case, it was autism at the age of
three that left him unable to speak or communicate to his family for years. Yet
it would be his deep love of Disney animated films that he found the ability to
communicate again and helped him connect to others as well.
This film, directed by Roger Ross Williams, goes through the
long fight that the Suskind family had to deal with in order to get their son
back and help him to find his independence. It also allows Owen to express
himself through watching Disney films as we see him connect to films like
Aladdin and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. These scenes, especially in the case
of Hunchback, are very poignant as it relates to an event being discussed. It
also uses art to recreate events and in several scenes, animates a story
written by Owen himself that gives us perhaps a more detailed look at how Owen
sees the world.
Now most of this could be whittled down to a very powerful
half-hour short documentary, but what really sets this documentary in a
powerful direction is the present-day setting and the questions that come along
with it. During filming, Owen is graduating high school and is looking forward
to a new independent lifestyle coming afterwards. The film shows the genuine
worry of his parents, who are slightly older than average, along with his older
brother, who in one of the most powerful scenes in the film, expresses genuine
concern about his ability to take care of his brother in their place. This is a
rare documentary that leaves the audience genuinely curious as to what will
happen later to Owen, who is desperately trying to carve an independent life
for himself.
The film’s pros come from being a compelling subject and a
catchy premise. It also uses drawings and animation in a way to express Owen’s
perspective on things and make the subject of autism more relatable. The cons,
by contrast, come from using some slight emotional manipulation which was not
needed, not to mention that the film doesn’t ask questions that should’ve
seemed elementary, such as whether or not he found any emotional relationship
to non-Disney animation, which we see he does own. This is peculiar because the
film itself wasn’t released by Disney but uses a great deal of animated clips
from the films and only specific titles. After watching the film, I found
myself asking even more questions that I would never get answers to.
For the final word on Life Animated, this is a solid SEE IT,
especially if you enjoy documentaries. It’s not one of the best films of the
year, but it’s well-told and engaging, not to mention Owen Suskind will win
your heart easy.
Sunday, July 17, 2016
The Five Steps To Correct Ghostbusters (In the Exact Same Universe)
Despite my complete disdain for recent reboot of Ghostbusters that came out, I have a genuine love and see way too much potential in the franchise to see it die. Unlike others who want to completely ignore that this movie exists, I see a great opportunity to correct the ship that director Paul Feig and former Sony Exec Amy Pascal have sent off-course. Let's be honest, we have four very talented ladies in this cast who could, with the right material, give us a genuinely great Ghostbusters film and possibly even a viable franchise. I'll break it down to five key story and visual elements that need to be corrected in the possible sequel if there is one. If you like what you read, share these ideas along with your own and maybe we can get this to the people who can make it happen. If you don't like it, well, that's what a comments section is for.
FROM HERE ON, EXPECT SPOILERS
1. More New York: Personally, I would love to see Ghostbusters go to other places or to have more teams in places like New Orleans (which is where Ghostbusters should be stationed anyways!). But as the reboot really didn't give us a lot of The Big Apple to begin with (perhaps because it was shot in Boston), we need to get back to basics. Shoot at very iconic New York locations, make the celluloid bleed Empire State. One thing that the original films did right was to get that feeling of the boroughs right. Hell, find some of those 80s taxis and play it up. If you can make it feel slightly timeless, even better. Get a cinematographer and a production designer who can create that authenticity. VERY IMPORTANT
2. Don't Be Scared Of No Ghosts: I get it, you want this to be friendly to kids. But you'd be surprised what kids can take when it comes to scares. Make these ghosts scary, freaky, or both! And don't make them too colorful, play up the vapor aspect of a ghostly look. In fact, get Greg Nicoterro or one of this proteges to build you some practical makeup monsters that make you go "eww". Then what you do is let your Ghostbusters comment on just how gross, especially McCarthy or Jones. That way kids can laugh at just how gross the monster is and make it less scary through comedy. If Zuul is your villain as mentioned in the post-credits sequence, give the villain something truly terrifying. Personally, I'd go with something like Zuul the Devourer of Souls and show Zuul eating and/or liquefying ectoplasm to fuel the coming of Gozer. Make Zuul formidable and a genuine threat. This will ensure that when the Ghostbusters defeats Zuul (or delays. Because you know we want Gozer to eventually come) that it feels like a genuine challenge. Extra points if you utilize stop-motion monsters somewhere.
3. NO. MORE. CAMEOS. EVER.: This isn't Batman '66. You don't need to remind us that there used to be another better movie (until you can prove to be the better movie). It's time to own that YOU ARE THE GHOSTBUSTERS and this movie is going to meet your ghostbusting needs. Make the comedy that works for your actors and the scenario. Don't you even think about turning Bill Murray into a ghost!
4. Create A Consistent Lore: Especially considering that you're wanting to create an expanded universe, let's start off with the one thing that has been a hindrance for this franchise since the first film; consistency. Rules need to be made to explain why some ghosts can be trapped and others not. We need to to know the basis of the laws of science in regards to this universe and the laws regarding what these paranormal investigators are allowed to get away with. In the reboot alone, the Ghostbusters get away with LITERAL murder without seeing one day in jail for it. Are we going to see just ghosts or will we see demons, zombies, maybe even angels? Will we discussing the religious ramifications of these events? What agencies are gunning to take down the Ghostbusters? What supernatural forces are at play? What can they and more importantly can't they do? Why do some people not become ghosts or does everybody become one eventually (but NOT Bill Murray)? These are important questions that need to be addressed as soon as possible in the context of the series.
5. Give The Ghostbusters Real Stakes: If there is one thing you would assume Sony would have learned from their Spider-Man days, it's that bringing your heroes down to earth helps that audience root for them. The best way to do this is to create a conflict that has genuine ramifications. It is here that we can give three characters something to add to the story and to possibly introduce another beloved character to the series. As you are very aware of, owning a business in itself has these kinds of stakes. And a business that is losing money is one that is on life support, a great way to create tension and a genuine threat of implosion. So what can you do with this?
First let's talk about Patty. She's pretty one-note in the first film and yet still very interesting. Why not give her more involvement in the business, namely that she's running the firm's operations. Perhaps she's going to night school for a degree and perhaps her classmate might be a rather demur nerd who's really good at numbers named Louis/Louise Tully (in my version, played by Allyson Hannigan). Perhaps she's the one trying to keep the Ghostbusters from going into the red because they're tearing up more stuff than they can afford busting ghosts (now imagine her trying to keep the team from destroying millions of dollars in stuff busting a ghost in Museum of Fine Art). She's now a large part in a plot that needs resolution and not just the sidekick.
Let's also talk about Abby and Erin. So far, their falling apart prior to the first film hasn't been explored (that might change with the supposed Director's Cut). But from what we do know, Erin is desperate for recognition and acceptance while Abby is more dedicated to the work. Let's say that another wedge happens if Erin is considering franchising Ghostbusters in order to capitalize on possible competitors (because you know there will be at some point) and Abby refuses because it might mess up her ideal Ghostbuster family. This creates genuine tension that these two could fall apart (and perhaps they do at the end of the movie and now we have two teams for the sequel). Just saying that could be a thing.
I could also recommend having more Ghostbusters, perhaps more gender-diverse and possibly even international (seriously Europe and Asia MUST have some great ghosts to bust), but even if we just stay with these four actresses, this is salvageable and I certainly want to see great ideas come about in the future installments.
---
In short, I still believe in the Ghostbusters franchise and I firmly believe we don't need to go back to the drawing board but can work with what we have. But steps must be taken to ensure that this series doesn't become hokey and marginalized. These films can both be fun and well-made not just by visual standards. But we need to expect more from the studios in order for them to get the point that their days of lazily cashing in on cheap remakes are over.
FROM HERE ON, EXPECT SPOILERS
1. More New York: Personally, I would love to see Ghostbusters go to other places or to have more teams in places like New Orleans (which is where Ghostbusters should be stationed anyways!). But as the reboot really didn't give us a lot of The Big Apple to begin with (perhaps because it was shot in Boston), we need to get back to basics. Shoot at very iconic New York locations, make the celluloid bleed Empire State. One thing that the original films did right was to get that feeling of the boroughs right. Hell, find some of those 80s taxis and play it up. If you can make it feel slightly timeless, even better. Get a cinematographer and a production designer who can create that authenticity. VERY IMPORTANT
2. Don't Be Scared Of No Ghosts: I get it, you want this to be friendly to kids. But you'd be surprised what kids can take when it comes to scares. Make these ghosts scary, freaky, or both! And don't make them too colorful, play up the vapor aspect of a ghostly look. In fact, get Greg Nicoterro or one of this proteges to build you some practical makeup monsters that make you go "eww". Then what you do is let your Ghostbusters comment on just how gross, especially McCarthy or Jones. That way kids can laugh at just how gross the monster is and make it less scary through comedy. If Zuul is your villain as mentioned in the post-credits sequence, give the villain something truly terrifying. Personally, I'd go with something like Zuul the Devourer of Souls and show Zuul eating and/or liquefying ectoplasm to fuel the coming of Gozer. Make Zuul formidable and a genuine threat. This will ensure that when the Ghostbusters defeats Zuul (or delays. Because you know we want Gozer to eventually come) that it feels like a genuine challenge. Extra points if you utilize stop-motion monsters somewhere.
3. NO. MORE. CAMEOS. EVER.: This isn't Batman '66. You don't need to remind us that there used to be another better movie (until you can prove to be the better movie). It's time to own that YOU ARE THE GHOSTBUSTERS and this movie is going to meet your ghostbusting needs. Make the comedy that works for your actors and the scenario. Don't you even think about turning Bill Murray into a ghost!
4. Create A Consistent Lore: Especially considering that you're wanting to create an expanded universe, let's start off with the one thing that has been a hindrance for this franchise since the first film; consistency. Rules need to be made to explain why some ghosts can be trapped and others not. We need to to know the basis of the laws of science in regards to this universe and the laws regarding what these paranormal investigators are allowed to get away with. In the reboot alone, the Ghostbusters get away with LITERAL murder without seeing one day in jail for it. Are we going to see just ghosts or will we see demons, zombies, maybe even angels? Will we discussing the religious ramifications of these events? What agencies are gunning to take down the Ghostbusters? What supernatural forces are at play? What can they and more importantly can't they do? Why do some people not become ghosts or does everybody become one eventually (but NOT Bill Murray)? These are important questions that need to be addressed as soon as possible in the context of the series.
5. Give The Ghostbusters Real Stakes: If there is one thing you would assume Sony would have learned from their Spider-Man days, it's that bringing your heroes down to earth helps that audience root for them. The best way to do this is to create a conflict that has genuine ramifications. It is here that we can give three characters something to add to the story and to possibly introduce another beloved character to the series. As you are very aware of, owning a business in itself has these kinds of stakes. And a business that is losing money is one that is on life support, a great way to create tension and a genuine threat of implosion. So what can you do with this?
First let's talk about Patty. She's pretty one-note in the first film and yet still very interesting. Why not give her more involvement in the business, namely that she's running the firm's operations. Perhaps she's going to night school for a degree and perhaps her classmate might be a rather demur nerd who's really good at numbers named Louis/Louise Tully (in my version, played by Allyson Hannigan). Perhaps she's the one trying to keep the Ghostbusters from going into the red because they're tearing up more stuff than they can afford busting ghosts (now imagine her trying to keep the team from destroying millions of dollars in stuff busting a ghost in Museum of Fine Art). She's now a large part in a plot that needs resolution and not just the sidekick.
Let's also talk about Abby and Erin. So far, their falling apart prior to the first film hasn't been explored (that might change with the supposed Director's Cut). But from what we do know, Erin is desperate for recognition and acceptance while Abby is more dedicated to the work. Let's say that another wedge happens if Erin is considering franchising Ghostbusters in order to capitalize on possible competitors (because you know there will be at some point) and Abby refuses because it might mess up her ideal Ghostbuster family. This creates genuine tension that these two could fall apart (and perhaps they do at the end of the movie and now we have two teams for the sequel). Just saying that could be a thing.
I could also recommend having more Ghostbusters, perhaps more gender-diverse and possibly even international (seriously Europe and Asia MUST have some great ghosts to bust), but even if we just stay with these four actresses, this is salvageable and I certainly want to see great ideas come about in the future installments.
---
In short, I still believe in the Ghostbusters franchise and I firmly believe we don't need to go back to the drawing board but can work with what we have. But steps must be taken to ensure that this series doesn't become hokey and marginalized. These films can both be fun and well-made not just by visual standards. But we need to expect more from the studios in order for them to get the point that their days of lazily cashing in on cheap remakes are over.
Saturday, July 16, 2016
Contemplating Ghostbusters (2016)
When it comes to reboots, I'm very much down the road on the entire concept personally. There are a few reboots that I thought were unique and watchable, but for the most part the entire concept is ill-conceived and meant solely for the milking of nostalgia into a few extra dollars and the added possibility of revitalizing the brand into creating a cash stream. Sony Pictures is one of the most egregious offenders of this practice. Having done by far the most reboots of any studio in which all but one, the Jump Street films, has been a colossal failure (RoboCop, Total Recall, The Karate Kid to name a few).
Ghostbusters as a concept should've ran the same gambit as any of the other reboots of the Sony brand. The problem is that after the magnificent failure of the Spider-Man franchise in 2014 and the underperformance of the latest James Bond film, Sony was extremely desperate to create a franchise that could keep them from collapse. This was their trump card. Personally speaking, this is probably one of the best trump cards to have as this franchise has been underdeveloped since the late 80s. A lot of that has to do with the fact that the creators themselves didn't know what they had until it became an international success, launching merchandise and an equally popular children's television show that sold even more merchandise. The lackluster Ghostbusters 2 was more caused by writers Dan Ackroyd and Harold Ramis along with director Ivan Reitman not knowing exactly where to take the blooming franchise. And due to it's awkward box office, Colombia Pictures put a lid on any further activity. But that didn't stop the fans from insisting on more coming from the series.
The reason I'm bringing this up is put into perspective the failures of what should be simply the most can't-fail franchises in existence. Ghostbusters was never created for families or young children, yet it resonates strongly with kids. A good reason for that is because the concept of ghosts are very strong in children, the reason parents have to leave closet lights on and chase the Boogeyman away. Ghostbusters, very simply put, get rid of the ghosts and therefore are champions in the imaginations of the very young. This is also one of the reasons that all ventures in the franchise since 1984 have been kid-friendly.
Since the announcement that Ghostbusters was not only going to be female-led but also a complete reboot, the response has been apprehensive. No doubt part of that is the peculiar insistence on reverse-gendering the cast instead of something more co-ed irked a few fans and a large swath of trolls, but the biggest complaint was the fact that this would be a complete reboot, leaving nothing (but cameos, we'll get to that in a little bit) from the series to stand. This last bit was the worst decision that Sony could've made as there was a trove of lore that was left on the table that could've been explored, but also now we're getting a new origin story (which fans deeply dislike, as Sony should've known considering the backlash over Amazing Spider-Man).
After nearly six months of divisive marketing, feuds within both the fan community and filmgoers alike due to misguided allegations, the film has surfaced to be judged on its merits. Film critics, many of which were vocal against the vocal opposition to the film, came out to support the film while the overall tone comes out to "meh". Audiences seemed to be mixed as seen on review sites and what I've heard in passing both before and after seeing this movie myself.
In order to explain how I feel about the film after seeing it, I need provide two contexts. I'm not just a fan of the franchise, but I'm also someone who looks a film objectively. I know when I like something that is for all intents and purposes a very bad movie. I also know when I don't like something that is well-made and is just not my kind of movie. On a personal level, I despise this movie as a cheap parody to a franchise that deserved much better (with one massive exception). As a film guy, this movie is poorly constructed, poorly paced and doesn't understand at all what it is trying to do, but it isn't one of the worst films ever made nor is it even close)
While the bulk of the remainder of this contemplation will be focused on the objective problems with the film, I do want to express one thing that I like and one thing that I LOVE about this film and that is Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon, respectively. While I'm going to write another thing about Ghostbusters that will will go more in dept about these two, I will just say that Patty is a good type of sidekick in the vein of Leo Getz from Lethal Weapon and that Holzman is the kind of character that I've been dying to have in a Ghostbusters series and McKinnon is simply having fun with this part. If there is a sequel, I would stomach it simply on the hope that Holzman gets to have a bigger and more fun part in the insanity. Look for more on this in my next Ghostbusters piece where I detail how to salvage this franchise with the remains of the reboot. I promise you it can be done.
I had seen this movie in the IMAX format and if I may say so, if you're going to see it despite what I say, see it in this format because the use of 3D is brilliant. I say this because if the movie were better-made, I'd go see it again in a heartbeat just on the IMAX 3D alone. That said, the film's overall look is oddly generic and disjointedly colorful. Normally this would be a great thing, but all the ghosts are nearly neon, something that jumps out visually, yet bland in character. The only ghost that is truly well-made was the first one we see, Madame Aldridge, who is also the only one (with the exception of Slimer, a cameo) that gets a close-up. On top of that, considering that New York City is supposed to be a character in this film, we never truly get the feeling we are in New York. Most of the time we are indoors or in alleyways. We do get the finale in Times Square, but it doesn't set up the location very well. The only set that felt distinctly like New York was the subway location.
Keeping on visuals, the film fails to create a unique look that stands out, or create much visual excitement. Practically all the Ghostbusters gear feels slapped together (which they explain as trial and error and in a way I can get behind that in concept) and doesn't have any flair. When Iron Man went from Mark I to Mark II, it knew to throw in some candy red. The only upgrade to the suits appears to be the addition of name tags. All the gear looks the same and yet does different things, something we'll get into in just a little bit.
Those were just a few of the worst visual elements. The story aspects are by far the worst offenders. I have gone on file stating that the original Ghostbusters has possibly one of the worst overall plots in film history with enough gaps in logic, storytelling and presentation ever constructed. If you want to know why I still consider it one of the greatest films ever made, check out my podcast Arthouse Legends for more. The reboot will not be held to any higher standard than the original. The problem lies within the reboot's need to overexplain WHY the ghosts are showing up, a huge plot point. The original leaves it understated and therefore doesn't put too much emphasis on the main plot. On top of that, the reboot is driven by JUST the main plot whereas the original has three stories going on; the going into business story, the fight with the government story as well as the Gozer story. Where the reboot could have fixed this is if the film would've found a way to incorporate a subplot about the team coming together as a unit by, say, having them BUST MORE GHOSTS!
(SPOILER PARAGRAPH) Do I even need to express how badly this story fails that the Ghostbusters only catch one ghost in the film (then let the damn thing go to let it kill a critic)? Bear in mind that in the original film, we only see the Ghostbusters bust one ghost as well, but in the montage afterwards, we hear about a WHOLE PLETHORA of ghosts they catch. The film wisely saves money and time on effects by putting that montage after seeing Slimer caught as a means of using the audience's imagination about how they are busting these others.
So let's talk about the rules of Ghostbusting, how ghosts operate in this world, ectoplasm and containment. This film can't decide. Ectoplasm, or slime, is the concentrated matter that a ghost is made of. In one scene, a ghost projectile vomits slime, another scene, a ghost is hit by a subway car, splooges, but is carried off by the train. Another is ground up like a meat grinder, leaving slime behind and a hole bunch are are shot, zapped, and practially (re)killed, no containment required. If you can "kill" them, why capture them? Why build a containment system when you can snuff them out? And if they can come back to life, why don't they trap their "kills"?
But the worst crimes this film commits are sexism and hypocrisy. The film establishes that the world is not only distrusting of the Ghostbusters, but dismissive as "merely hysterical women" that can be ignored and used by men of power, that nobody believes them despite their evidence of the supernatural (which those of power know about but deny to keep control of people). And I'm not even going to go into the crotch joke at the climax. Then they get a dumb male-model-turned-secretary that these marginalized heroes spend the entire movie mocking and ogling over. Not only that, but every man in the film, to paraphrase Chris Stuckman, is an idiot, a wimp or an asshole. This creates a straw man that is complete unnecessary in a universe that already is having a hard time accepting that the spirit realm is invading the living. What's worse is that these subplots do not even move the story forward, making this completely arbitrary.
The last aspect is the meta element that the film brings out to attack the online mobs who have vocally shown disapproval to the film. It will be curious how to view these parts of the film in years time after the controversy has waned. On one hand, it will show an aspect of modern life that is unavoidable when you put yourself out for public scrutiny. On the other hand, it could appear to be a loose end to the film, an unsatisfactory buildup to a joke best done by Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.
For me, this film was unpleasant and unlikable. I'm not going to lose sleep over it nor am I going to protest people going to see it. My childhood isn't going to be affected by this movie or any movie. All I can do is put my two cents in on what I see and if you think I have merit, then thank you for your time. And if you think I'm full of crap, I'm sure you'll find a way to let me know. That's the beauty of film; the subjectivity of the medium allows for varying opinions on the subject.
And if you're interested in knowing what I would do with this Ghostbusters universe, check out my next post where I'll explain the wide range of possibilities using the canon provided in this film and ways that the ship can be righted to ensure a better future for this great franchise.
Ghostbusters as a concept should've ran the same gambit as any of the other reboots of the Sony brand. The problem is that after the magnificent failure of the Spider-Man franchise in 2014 and the underperformance of the latest James Bond film, Sony was extremely desperate to create a franchise that could keep them from collapse. This was their trump card. Personally speaking, this is probably one of the best trump cards to have as this franchise has been underdeveloped since the late 80s. A lot of that has to do with the fact that the creators themselves didn't know what they had until it became an international success, launching merchandise and an equally popular children's television show that sold even more merchandise. The lackluster Ghostbusters 2 was more caused by writers Dan Ackroyd and Harold Ramis along with director Ivan Reitman not knowing exactly where to take the blooming franchise. And due to it's awkward box office, Colombia Pictures put a lid on any further activity. But that didn't stop the fans from insisting on more coming from the series.
The reason I'm bringing this up is put into perspective the failures of what should be simply the most can't-fail franchises in existence. Ghostbusters was never created for families or young children, yet it resonates strongly with kids. A good reason for that is because the concept of ghosts are very strong in children, the reason parents have to leave closet lights on and chase the Boogeyman away. Ghostbusters, very simply put, get rid of the ghosts and therefore are champions in the imaginations of the very young. This is also one of the reasons that all ventures in the franchise since 1984 have been kid-friendly.
Since the announcement that Ghostbusters was not only going to be female-led but also a complete reboot, the response has been apprehensive. No doubt part of that is the peculiar insistence on reverse-gendering the cast instead of something more co-ed irked a few fans and a large swath of trolls, but the biggest complaint was the fact that this would be a complete reboot, leaving nothing (but cameos, we'll get to that in a little bit) from the series to stand. This last bit was the worst decision that Sony could've made as there was a trove of lore that was left on the table that could've been explored, but also now we're getting a new origin story (which fans deeply dislike, as Sony should've known considering the backlash over Amazing Spider-Man).
After nearly six months of divisive marketing, feuds within both the fan community and filmgoers alike due to misguided allegations, the film has surfaced to be judged on its merits. Film critics, many of which were vocal against the vocal opposition to the film, came out to support the film while the overall tone comes out to "meh". Audiences seemed to be mixed as seen on review sites and what I've heard in passing both before and after seeing this movie myself.
In order to explain how I feel about the film after seeing it, I need provide two contexts. I'm not just a fan of the franchise, but I'm also someone who looks a film objectively. I know when I like something that is for all intents and purposes a very bad movie. I also know when I don't like something that is well-made and is just not my kind of movie. On a personal level, I despise this movie as a cheap parody to a franchise that deserved much better (with one massive exception). As a film guy, this movie is poorly constructed, poorly paced and doesn't understand at all what it is trying to do, but it isn't one of the worst films ever made nor is it even close)
While the bulk of the remainder of this contemplation will be focused on the objective problems with the film, I do want to express one thing that I like and one thing that I LOVE about this film and that is Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon, respectively. While I'm going to write another thing about Ghostbusters that will will go more in dept about these two, I will just say that Patty is a good type of sidekick in the vein of Leo Getz from Lethal Weapon and that Holzman is the kind of character that I've been dying to have in a Ghostbusters series and McKinnon is simply having fun with this part. If there is a sequel, I would stomach it simply on the hope that Holzman gets to have a bigger and more fun part in the insanity. Look for more on this in my next Ghostbusters piece where I detail how to salvage this franchise with the remains of the reboot. I promise you it can be done.
I had seen this movie in the IMAX format and if I may say so, if you're going to see it despite what I say, see it in this format because the use of 3D is brilliant. I say this because if the movie were better-made, I'd go see it again in a heartbeat just on the IMAX 3D alone. That said, the film's overall look is oddly generic and disjointedly colorful. Normally this would be a great thing, but all the ghosts are nearly neon, something that jumps out visually, yet bland in character. The only ghost that is truly well-made was the first one we see, Madame Aldridge, who is also the only one (with the exception of Slimer, a cameo) that gets a close-up. On top of that, considering that New York City is supposed to be a character in this film, we never truly get the feeling we are in New York. Most of the time we are indoors or in alleyways. We do get the finale in Times Square, but it doesn't set up the location very well. The only set that felt distinctly like New York was the subway location.
Keeping on visuals, the film fails to create a unique look that stands out, or create much visual excitement. Practically all the Ghostbusters gear feels slapped together (which they explain as trial and error and in a way I can get behind that in concept) and doesn't have any flair. When Iron Man went from Mark I to Mark II, it knew to throw in some candy red. The only upgrade to the suits appears to be the addition of name tags. All the gear looks the same and yet does different things, something we'll get into in just a little bit.
Those were just a few of the worst visual elements. The story aspects are by far the worst offenders. I have gone on file stating that the original Ghostbusters has possibly one of the worst overall plots in film history with enough gaps in logic, storytelling and presentation ever constructed. If you want to know why I still consider it one of the greatest films ever made, check out my podcast Arthouse Legends for more. The reboot will not be held to any higher standard than the original. The problem lies within the reboot's need to overexplain WHY the ghosts are showing up, a huge plot point. The original leaves it understated and therefore doesn't put too much emphasis on the main plot. On top of that, the reboot is driven by JUST the main plot whereas the original has three stories going on; the going into business story, the fight with the government story as well as the Gozer story. Where the reboot could have fixed this is if the film would've found a way to incorporate a subplot about the team coming together as a unit by, say, having them BUST MORE GHOSTS!
(SPOILER PARAGRAPH) Do I even need to express how badly this story fails that the Ghostbusters only catch one ghost in the film (then let the damn thing go to let it kill a critic)? Bear in mind that in the original film, we only see the Ghostbusters bust one ghost as well, but in the montage afterwards, we hear about a WHOLE PLETHORA of ghosts they catch. The film wisely saves money and time on effects by putting that montage after seeing Slimer caught as a means of using the audience's imagination about how they are busting these others.
So let's talk about the rules of Ghostbusting, how ghosts operate in this world, ectoplasm and containment. This film can't decide. Ectoplasm, or slime, is the concentrated matter that a ghost is made of. In one scene, a ghost projectile vomits slime, another scene, a ghost is hit by a subway car, splooges, but is carried off by the train. Another is ground up like a meat grinder, leaving slime behind and a hole bunch are are shot, zapped, and practially (re)killed, no containment required. If you can "kill" them, why capture them? Why build a containment system when you can snuff them out? And if they can come back to life, why don't they trap their "kills"?
But the worst crimes this film commits are sexism and hypocrisy. The film establishes that the world is not only distrusting of the Ghostbusters, but dismissive as "merely hysterical women" that can be ignored and used by men of power, that nobody believes them despite their evidence of the supernatural (which those of power know about but deny to keep control of people). And I'm not even going to go into the crotch joke at the climax. Then they get a dumb male-model-turned-secretary that these marginalized heroes spend the entire movie mocking and ogling over. Not only that, but every man in the film, to paraphrase Chris Stuckman, is an idiot, a wimp or an asshole. This creates a straw man that is complete unnecessary in a universe that already is having a hard time accepting that the spirit realm is invading the living. What's worse is that these subplots do not even move the story forward, making this completely arbitrary.
The last aspect is the meta element that the film brings out to attack the online mobs who have vocally shown disapproval to the film. It will be curious how to view these parts of the film in years time after the controversy has waned. On one hand, it will show an aspect of modern life that is unavoidable when you put yourself out for public scrutiny. On the other hand, it could appear to be a loose end to the film, an unsatisfactory buildup to a joke best done by Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.
For me, this film was unpleasant and unlikable. I'm not going to lose sleep over it nor am I going to protest people going to see it. My childhood isn't going to be affected by this movie or any movie. All I can do is put my two cents in on what I see and if you think I have merit, then thank you for your time. And if you think I'm full of crap, I'm sure you'll find a way to let me know. That's the beauty of film; the subjectivity of the medium allows for varying opinions on the subject.
And if you're interested in knowing what I would do with this Ghostbusters universe, check out my next post where I'll explain the wide range of possibilities using the canon provided in this film and ways that the ship can be righted to ensure a better future for this great franchise.
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
Why Ghostbusters (2016) Marks The End of the Reboot
A lot
has been made out about the Ghostbusters remake/reboot since the first trailer
had surfaced in February. A few might even go so far as to say since the
casting was announced in 2015. A contingent of fans, having seen a very poorly
produced trailer made their feelings quite clear on the internet. Some of it
was aimed at what was felt to be a forced transition from male protagonists to
an all-female squad, but most of the ire came from the first impression that
the film was yet another in a line of made-to-order rehashes of an earlier
title solely meant to cash in on nostalgia and to generate a sequel-making
machine that in most instances usually fail.
To the fans of these properties,
this tarnishes the respectability of the title and many of those get the
impression that the material is substandard due to plethora of studio sins, not
the least being the “too many cooks” effect that comes with many of these.
Fans, who would usually be the first audience to appease to get the good word
of mouth out, are sidelined as these properties are broadened to house the
largest demographic not just the local film going community, but also now
internationally, where what might be considered brilliant here might just be
confusing to a global market.
Sony Pictures is especially in a
dubious position here as their reboot/remakes have been for the most part
spectacular flops (such as RoboCop and Total Recall), their one giant success
ironically being the Jump Street films which are a commentary on the clichés
and tropes of reboot/remakes. When they announced that the long gestating
sequel to the 30-year-old franchise would be a reboot, fans were livid. The
biggest concerns tended to be that this film wouldn’t feel like part of the
world they were hoping to get with the franchise. When the initial trailer came
out, their worst fears appeared to be justified.
The first trailer was the worst of
all worlds; it played on the nostalgia of the fans by trying to get audiences
to remember the franchise with the theme song, the logo and the car, then
showed comedy that didn’t feel in place with the original film. Not only did it
fail to set itself apart as a new story, but it left mixed messages as to the
tone and feel of the film, putting unfunny jokes and uninspired visual effects on
display. The worst part was that this trailer got several things wrong about
the franchise it was trying to create nostalgia with; the fact that not all
four of the Ghostbusters were scientists (at the time) or the fact that they
were never in the job to be heroes (though that would be the case in the
animated show). One of the film’s strengths is that the original film
undermines the good they were doing by leaving ambiguous how much damage,
destruction and ecological harm they’ve done.
Many of the critics of the fan
backlash tend to make the valid point that other reboots coming out before and
around the same time didn’t have the same vitriol garnered to this film, many
of which placing blame on sociological reasons. These same critics then took it
upon themselves to go after the fans on a personal level, followed by the
studio and the cast and crew. This was their biggest mistake and the one that
will go down as the final nail in the reboot coffin. By attacking those that
could be persuaded to purchase a ticket eventually if and when good word of
mouth comes along, they not only made sure that those individuals took it
personally, but that they might hold everyone involved responsible and might
not purchase anything from those individuals again. This goes especially for
Paul Feig, who has gone on to say some very derogatory things about potential
customers. Not only does this almost assuredly remove Feig from possibly
returning for Ghostbuster sequels, but Sony might consider throwing away parts
of his vision moving forward (which according to the Sony leaks, might not be a
very bad thing. Ghost aliens, really?). This could also cripple Kate McKinnon’s
and Leslie Jones’ possible film careers simply out of association.
All of this matters because reboots
require a unique and different vision of the material, something new so to say,
but it also needs to garner goodwill for those who will be the most vocal
advocates for the film. Take the reboot to the Planet of the Apes franchise in 2011 for
example. With a horrendous advertising campaign that left no one looking
forward to this movie, yet the fans were able to get the word of mouth out once
it was clear that the film was actually quite good. The same also went for
Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins.
Sony’s mishandling of their
properties and their advertising is the reason they are on the verge of
collapse, so desperate as to throw anything together (Jump Street/Men In Black
anyone?). Perhaps they should whither and become obscure if not completely
demolished. But one thing is for sure, they have hastened the demise of the
reboot. And the saddest part is they did so out of unwarranted fear if the
critics are to be believed.
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
MovieDude Does Music: Bomba Estéreo, 'Amanecer'
I can't help but feel that this challenge is more a journey than anything else. While I have every intention of giving due diligence to the matter, I also believe it is also my job to embrace the possibilities and open myself to new concepts. Just like any good adventure, closing yourself off from where the road might lead you defeats a great deal of the purpose of the venture altogether. The trick in all of this is to both enjoy yet keep an objective eye. As I mentioned before, I'm not a music person. My understanding of music is on par with a third grader's comprehension of algebra.
Then I listened to Bomba Estéreo's "Amanecer".
Monday, February 1, 2016
The MovieDude Does Music: Intro
I enjoy music but I don't love it. I'm a movie dude. I can tell you the cast list of a billion films, tell the title of a flick within 3 random seconds of a scene. I have a listless amount of ideas and thoughts on an endless sea of cinema. Music is a passing thing. I listen to a song I like, I might sing along if I happen to know the lyrics.
I'm best friends with a music guy. He's also a movie guy but for the sake of distinction, let's just say that he's ONLY a music guy. He loves the pop music, the not so pop and even the obscure. For years he has hounded me of my limited knowledge of music (which I take umbrage in because I know and enjoy a wide variety of music... in certain quantities). His guide to music is the Top 50 list of best albums of the year from Rolling Stone Magazine. He doesn't always agree, but he swears by it that this list is THE way to know the music of a year.
As a pure exercise, I thought I would step out of my comfort zone and accept a challenge that he laid upon me this year: listen to all 50 albums and give my non-expert yet highly analytical opinion of each album. So I'm going to do so starting immediately. I intend to go through each album and post my reaction. I will be looking at both the songs and the album as a whole but I will rate only the album. As someone who does not believe in reviewing art for anything arbitrary as a score, I'm going to rate each album by a word that best fits my opinion. I'll try to be as objective as I can though as with any art, the first question I always as is "do I like this".
Let me make this perfectly clear: I have never heard these albums before. I'm coming at all of them from a perspective of a babe in the words. I have a wide variety of musical tastes but I'm still at heart a complete noob. It will be interesting to see how I see music coming out of this. I might post once or twice a week as my time allows.
For those trying to follow, here's the link to the list. This is the list for 2015 and I will be starting at number 50. I'll try to keep up with thoughts and opinions on the comments section and on twitter. I'm not going to compare my opinion with Rolling Stone or by any other writer. This will be entirely my own opinion and nothing but. I'm also going to start writing about movies again as part of my Contemplating series.
It appears that my first assignment is on Bomba Estéreo's Amanecer.
Wish me luck.
I'm best friends with a music guy. He's also a movie guy but for the sake of distinction, let's just say that he's ONLY a music guy. He loves the pop music, the not so pop and even the obscure. For years he has hounded me of my limited knowledge of music (which I take umbrage in because I know and enjoy a wide variety of music... in certain quantities). His guide to music is the Top 50 list of best albums of the year from Rolling Stone Magazine. He doesn't always agree, but he swears by it that this list is THE way to know the music of a year.
As a pure exercise, I thought I would step out of my comfort zone and accept a challenge that he laid upon me this year: listen to all 50 albums and give my non-expert yet highly analytical opinion of each album. So I'm going to do so starting immediately. I intend to go through each album and post my reaction. I will be looking at both the songs and the album as a whole but I will rate only the album. As someone who does not believe in reviewing art for anything arbitrary as a score, I'm going to rate each album by a word that best fits my opinion. I'll try to be as objective as I can though as with any art, the first question I always as is "do I like this".
Let me make this perfectly clear: I have never heard these albums before. I'm coming at all of them from a perspective of a babe in the words. I have a wide variety of musical tastes but I'm still at heart a complete noob. It will be interesting to see how I see music coming out of this. I might post once or twice a week as my time allows.
For those trying to follow, here's the link to the list. This is the list for 2015 and I will be starting at number 50. I'll try to keep up with thoughts and opinions on the comments section and on twitter. I'm not going to compare my opinion with Rolling Stone or by any other writer. This will be entirely my own opinion and nothing but. I'm also going to start writing about movies again as part of my Contemplating series.
It appears that my first assignment is on Bomba Estéreo's Amanecer.
Wish me luck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)