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.
No comments:
Post a Comment