Ghostbusters (2016): Why You Should Give it a Chance

(Disclaimer: Literally just a day after I started writing this, a second trailer for the new Ghostbusters film was released online. I’m only going to mention it here for now but the reaction that I have to the first trailer will basically apply to the new one as well.)

As a film critic, I strive to be as open-minded as possible when it comes to every new film that I see. Even if I feel that the film doesn’t look very good based on what I’ve seen from its trailers, TV spots, etc., I still give it the benefit of the doubt and hope for the best. Because if you ask me, it’s both fairly cynical and quite unfair to immediately write off a film before you even see it. Unless you have a time machine that allowed you to go forward in time to when a certain film is released, which I’m 100% certain no one actually has yet, there’s really no way in knowing that a film is going to be good or not solely based on trailers and the film’s marketing. And that’s exactly what has been going on with what has easily been one of the most controversial productions in recent memory; director Paul Feig’s upcoming reboot of Ghostbusters. In fact, this film has been so polarizing amongst internet folk that it recently become the most disliked film trailer in the history of YouTube; no other film trailer is even close to having that many dislikes. Damn! Clearly a lot of fanboys aren’t too happy with this female-led reboot of the iconic Ghostbusters franchise… and I’ll be perfectly frank in saying that all of this vitriol is rather embarrassing because all of these angry fanboys are prematurely judging a film without even seeing it just because it’s trying something with their beloved franchise that they don’t like. So today on Rhode Island Movie Corner, I’ll be addressing the two primary reasons as to why the new Ghostbusters film is attracting so much negative attention online. And with that in mind, hopefully this post will serve as some kind of encouragement for people to actually give the film a chance instead of just writing it off right off the bat, which is what the majority of the internet has been doing so far.

The Ghostbusters franchise obviously needs no introduction. It’s one of the most famous franchises in pop culture history. What started with the 1984 titular film written by the film’s stars, Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd, ended up becoming a worldwide phenomenon, spawning a 1989 sequel, a hit TV series in the form of The Real Ghostbusters, and a wide array of merchandise ranging from toys to video games. As far as the films were concerned, over the years there were many attempts in doing a potential third Ghostbusters film. However, this planned sequel ended up facing numerous setbacks over the years, namely the fact that franchise star Bill Murray routinely expressed disinterest in returning. Ultimately, with the passing of Harold Ramis in February 2014, it seemed as if this Ghostbusters III wasn’t going to happen, especially after it was announced that Ivan Reitman would not return to direct the film. And then, in August of that year, things changed when it was announced that Paul Feig (Bridesmaids, The Heat, Spy) was going to direct a new Ghostbusters film that would star an all-female group of leads. Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones were then subsequently cast in the main roles for a film that will serve as a ‘reboot’ of the franchise; in other words, it seems as if the film will not be taking place in the same universe as the original films. So now the big question is this; Why is this new Ghostbusters film being subjected to some of the most vitriolic scrutiny that you’ll ever see, arguably even more so than some of the most hated films of all-time? Well, there have been two main reasons for this and the first is fairly obvious.

REASON 1: IT’S A REBOOT

Like any major reboot, this new Ghostbusters has been criticized by fans for one major reason; why reboot a film franchise when the original is so beloved (the first one, at least; the sequel, not so much)? Obviously this is a problem that a lot of people have whenever a franchise that they love gets some form of continuation but this has clearly been the one reboot, more so than any other, that a lot of people simply couldn’t tolerate whatsoever. But as for me, I’m not really part of that crowd. I guess you could say it’s due to the fact that I didn’t watch Ghostbusters until I was older. But you see, there is this stigma that the internet creates when it comes to sequels, reboots, and remakes in which fanboys claim that one ‘bad’ film ‘completely ruins a franchise’. In reality, though, that’s not really true because the previous beloved films in a series are still going to be there afterwards; it ain’t like they were destroyed in a fire or anything. If you didn’t like one entry in a franchise, just ignore that one and stick to the other films. Same goes for that argument of ‘[insert film here] destroyed my childhood’. No, your childhood wasn’t destroyed because of one film based off of a franchise you followed when you were a kid. So to put all of this into perspective, imagine this scenario. I’ve made it clear in the past that Back to the Future is my favorite film of all-time. A few months ago there was some talk about a potential continuation of the franchise which was quickly shot down by creators Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale, who said that it’ll happen ‘over their dead bodies’. But if a Back to the Future remake/sequel/whatever does end up getting made some day, that doesn’t mean that I’m going to be all pissy about it and condemn the new film before I even see it. I will, at the very least, give it a chance because it at least deserves that. And so does this new Ghostbusters film.

But unfortunately there’s another big reason why this film has been getting a lot of backlash…

REASON 2: IT STARS WOMEN

Yep… as much as some have tried to deny it, which basically means that they’re only further proving it true, one of the major criticisms that fanboys have had with the new film is the fact that the film stars a group of women in the lead roles. Don’t believe me? Need I remind you of when Mad Max: Fury Road came out and there were a minority of fans who were angry at the film for having a feminist slant given the greater focus on characters like Furiosa and the Wives? Well the same thing is happening to the new Ghostbusters film… and this one isn’t even out yet. It really is pathetic that this is one of the main reasons why the film has been getting a lot of vitriol directed towards it. Despite all of the advancements over the years in regards to lead female roles in film, here’s one instance where the internet just can’t let that happen for one of its beloved franchises (Imagine how angry the internet would be if this happened to other male-centric franchises). That was even more evident when another Ghostbusters film was announced in March 2015 that was going to have a cast of male leads and be directed by the Russo brothers. While it looks as if this potential film isn’t going to happen due to the Russo brothers departing the production, I saw quite a few comments online from fanboys when it was still in development that said something along the lines of “I’m more interested in that than the female Ghostbusters film”. No joke. That’s seriously what some people were saying.

Now obviously there’s a bit more to this backlash than the two reasons I listed above. It also has something to do with how people have reacted to the first trailer. Now as far as the actual trailer for the film is concerned, I’m not saying that it was a particularly ‘great’ trailer but it’s far from being the worst thing either. It definitely isn’t worthy of all those damn dislikes, that’s for sure. Yeah there are a few scenes that are clearly being lifted from previous films but the visuals do look pretty darn good and I found that there were genuinely a few laugh-out-loud moments in the trailer, particularly at the end when Leslie Jones’ character continually smacks Melissa McCarthy’s character in order to get the ghost that has been possessing her out, even after said ghost has already been forced out (“THE POWER OF PATTY COMPELS YOU!”). I mean at the end of the day I’m fully aware that this could end up being a disaster. I’m not denying that. However, a good chunk of the backlash towards the film is quite pathetic; not the part about it being a reboot, because that was inevitable no matter how well the first trailer was received, but the part about the film starring women in the lead roles. Seriously internet, it’s 2016… grow the hell up, will ya? What’s so wrong about a bunch of women being Ghostbusters, a franchise that has been fairly male-centric for pretty much the entire duration of its existence? I for one am excited to see how this new film is going to turn out. It certainly has a good cast and crew attached to it and at the very least it has the support of Ivan Reitman and the original film’s cast, many of whom are making cameos in the film. And yes, they even managed to win over Bill Murray as well, which I think is at least a good sign. You can rest assured that I will be seeing this film when it comes out. In fact, I might even end up seeing it twice if only to support it in light of all of the unfair hate that it has been getting.    

The Jungle Book (2016) review

As many of you know, Disney’s current schedule of upcoming live-action releases is almost entirely consisting of live-action remakes of their animated classics. These last few months in particular have seen the company announce numerous proposed films, including a new Winnie the Pooh, a new Mary Poppins film, and The Sword in the Stone, just to name a few. This of course is following the highly successful box-office runs of films like Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland and 2014’s Maleficent. However, this new practice of theirs has attracted a considerable amount of controversy amongst certain audiences for the same reasons that basically affect any announced remake, namely the question as to why one would attempt to remake a beloved film like the many animated classics that Disney has produced over the years. I, on the other hand, am a little more optimistic that a fair amount of these ‘Disney remakes’ are going to turn out fine. That mindset developed for me after I watched last year’s live-action version of Cinderella, which ended up being my #3 favorite film of 2015. Not only was the film full of gorgeous visuals but it was also big on heart and the end result was a film that both honored the original animated classic that inspired it while also doing enough to distinguish itself as its own entity. You could pretty much say that it is solely because of that film that I’m generally optimistic about these upcoming Disney remakes. Because if you ask me, if at least a few of these remakes happen to be as well-made as Cinderella by filmmakers who clearly show a lot of affection towards the original film, then that would mean that the fact that all of these remakes are getting announced is nowhere near as bad as some may claim.

Which brings us to the latest in this line of ‘Disney remakes’, The Jungle Book. It of course follows in the footsteps of the company’s 1967 animated adaptation of Rudyard Kipling’s iconic novel of the same name. Unfortunately, that version is forever connected to a tragic point in the history of Disney Animation as it was the last Disney animated feature that Walt Disney himself produced prior to his death in 1966, just ten months before the film’s release. But even with the loss of the studio’s visionary leader, the original Jungle Book became an animated classic and served as a very fitting swan song for the man who was responsible for some of the most famous animated films/shorts of all-time. This new version is directed by Jon Favreau, who in the past gave us hits like the first two Iron Man films, the modern holiday classic Elf, and his most recent effort, the charming (and also hunger-inducing) indie flick Chef. And just like Kenneth Branagh last year with Cinderella, Favreau very much succeeds in regards to how his take on the classic story of the man-cub Mowgli both honors the original film that inspired it while also making its own mark in film history. The new Jungle Book is easily one of the best-looking films of the year, which is even more impressive considering the method in which the film was made. But those visuals are only the icing on the cake as this remake very much succeeds in capturing the heart of the original Disney flick without being a complete rehash of what came before.

The film of course follows the same general plot of both the original Kipling novel and the 1967 Disney animated version. In the middle of the Indian jungle, a young orphaned baby boy is found by the panther Bagheera (Ben Kingsley). Realizing that he has no mother or father to look after him, Bagheera brings him to a wolf pack, which includes the boy’s ‘adoptive mother’ Raksha (Lupita Nyong’o) and the pack’s leader Akela (Giancarlo Esposito), who then proceed to raise the young man-cub, Mowgli (Neel Sethi), as one of their own. Mowgli’s peaceful life with the pack is soon threatened, however, when the vicious tiger Shere Khan (Idris Elba), who hates man after being threatened by them via man’s great asset, fire AKA what the animals refer to as ‘the red flower’, threatens to kill him and anyone who dares to protect him. Realizing that he is in danger, Bagheera and the wolf pack agree to have Mowgli brought to the nearby man-village so that he will be safe from Shere Khan’s wrath with his own kind. But while on the way to the man-village, Mowgli soon finds himself coming across all sorts of characters, from the laid-back bear Baloo (Bill Murray) to the devious and hypnotic snake Kaa (Scarlett Johansson) to the imposing ape King Louie (Christopher Walken), all while being simultaneously hunted by Shere Khan.

You want to know the most interesting thing about this film? It was shot entirely on a soundstage. Just like all of its animal characters, all of the jungle locales in the film are basically done entirely in CGI. And while some may argue that this would make the whole film ‘too artificial’ as a result, it actually does really work in regards to make everything look so photo-realistic even when knowing that most of it was created by computers. As for the film itself, it takes on a much darker tone compared to the original animated film, which does sort of make sense because the predator animals in this story could be considered as being more menacing in a live-action setting. However, it doesn’t get too dark to the point where it would completely draw younger audiences away. And aside from three new renditions of the songs ‘The Bare Necessities’, ‘I Wanna Be Like You’, and ‘Trust in Me’, the film avoids going the same musical route of its animated predecessor. All in all, this results in the film’s overall tone and plot being a generally equal mix of both the original animated film and Rudyard Kipling’s original novel. But of course this film is more than just pretty visuals, even though said visuals could very much make the film a worthwhile theater experience all on their own. At the end of the day, Favreau very much succeeds in capturing the heart of the original animated film in this new live-action setting. He does this through many things, including the multi-layered characters who are just as memorable as they were in the original animated film and the story’s strong themes of friendship and courage.  

As Mowgli, newcomer Neel Sethi is the only major live-action actor in the entire film. And considering that he had to go through the entire film shoot interacting with locations and characters that weren’t primarily added in until post-production, he definitely pulls off the act of managing to make it all seem natural quite well. At the same time, he also succeeds in making his Mowgli both likable and also very clever, the latter of which is represented by the many ‘inventions’ that he comes up with throughout the film. As for the animal characters, this film features a pitch-perfect voice cast as every actor/actress is an excellent fit for their respective roles. Bill Murray’s generally laid-back demeanor perfectly fits Baloo, who in this version is more sarcastic than his animated counterpart but is still a loyal friend to Mowgli through thick and thin. Ben Kingsley more than brings the right gravitas to the role of the noble panther Bagheera while Idris Elba provides one heck of an intimidation factor in the role of Shere Khan, who in this version gets a bit more backstory as to why he hates man. Some of the animal characters actually get more to do in this film compared to the animated film, particularly the wolf-pack and Mowgli’s ‘adoptive mother’ Raksha who, despite everyone telling her otherwise, very much treats Mowgli like her own son, resulting in a particularly emotional scene near the beginning when Mowgli decides to leave for the man-village. As for the characters of Kaa and King Louie, who each have one major scene in the film, Scarlett Johannsson’s alluring voice fits perfectly in the part of the hypnotizing snake while Christopher Walken’s wackier persona is fitting for King Louie. At the same time, however, this King Louie is considerably different than the one from the original film, as he is just as menacingly imposing as he is in size.

Now before I list my rating for this film, let me be clear about something first. While I’m about to give it a rating that’s ½ a star higher than my rating for the original Jungle Book, that doesn’t automatically mean that I view this new film as the ‘superior’ version, which is a claim that quite a few critics have been making these past few days. Just like with the new Cinderella, I view this new Jungle Book as a complement to the original film and not something that’s meant to ‘replace’ it. The original Jungle Book is still an undeniable classic (and one that, for the record, is far better than what Screen Junkies recently made it out to be) and this new version helps introduce the story of the man-cub Mowgli and his adventures in the jungle to a whole new generation. And it very much is an excellent new take on this classic story. From a technical perspective, it’s one of the most visually breathtaking films in recent memory which is saying a lot considering that the film is basically 95% CGI. But at its core lies the same heart that defined the original with a terrific cast bringing these classic characters to life. So yes… this isn’t the end of Disney’s live-action remakes. There are a lot more on the way, perhaps even a bit too many at this point. However, both this film and Cinderella are more than enough proof that they can be done and, more importantly, be done very, very well. So in short, contrary to what popular opinion may be, I am genuinely excited to see what Disney comes up with next in regards to re-imagining some of the classic films and stories that have defined many a childhood.   

Rating: 5/5!

Ghostbusters (1984, 1989): 30th Anniversary Retrospective

There have been quite a few film franchises that have become iconic parts of pop culture history like ‘Star Wars’, ‘Batman’, and ‘Harry Potter’. And easily one of the most famous franchises of all time has to be ‘Ghostbusters’, which got its start in 1984 with the film of the same name. Directed by Ivan Reitman and written by Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd, who both starred in the film along with Bill Murray, Sigourney Weaver, and Ernie Hudson, the film, centered on a trio of parapsychologists who set up a ghost-catching business after being dismissed from their university, became a major critical and commercial success when it was released. It has since spawned a huge multimedia franchise that includes a 1989 sequel, two animated series (1986’s ‘The Real Ghostbusters’ and 1997’s ‘Extreme Ghostbusters’, the latter of which was a spin-off of the first show), and much more. A third film has been in and out of development for the past few years now but with the recent passing of Harold Ramis along with reports that Bill Murray isn’t that interested in returning, it doesn’t really look like we’ll ever get an ‘official sequel’. So because of that, recent reports say that director Paul Feig (‘Bridesmaids’, ‘The Heat’) will instead be helming a ‘reboot’ of the series with a female-led cast. It’ll be interesting to see how that turns out if it does get made but for now, in honor of the first film’s 30^th anniversary, it’s time to look back upon the two ‘Ghostbusters’ films and for the record, just those two films. This post will not include reviews of the two animated series, simply because I didn’t watch either of them as a kid. So now with that out of the way, here are my reviews of ‘Ghostbusters’ and ‘Ghostbusters 2’.

GHOSTBUSTERS (1984)

Really, what more can be said about the first ‘Ghostbusters’ film? It’s an undeniable comedic classic; a film that blends its comedy with a wide array of zany visuals and it is done to great results. It’s highly quotable with great lines like ‘Dogs and Cats living together, Mass Hysteria!’ or ‘That’s a Big Twinkie’ and of course there’s much more. This is one of those comedies that isn’t afraid to get a little ‘mature’ at times when it comes to its humor. Case in point, Bill Murray. While Aykroyd and Ramis’ dialogue mostly consists of them spewing science jargon and, as Star Trek fans like to put it, ‘techno-babble’, a lot of Murray’s dialogue is more than likely going to fly over the heads of young viewers. But when you’re older, you’re going to understand it a lot more. This film came out a month before the PG-13 rating was introduced by the MPAA, and while it isn’t as ‘violent’ or ‘disturbing’ as something like ‘Temple of Doom’ or ‘Poltergeist’, this film is still a prime example of how back then filmmakers could get away with a lot more stuff in PG films than they do nowadays. I mean when you really think about it, this is a very bizarre premise but this film joyfully goes with it resulting in a highly entertaining film with a great cast, excellent writing, and fun visuals. Simply put, when there’s something strange in your neighborhood, you know who to call.

Rating: 5/5!

GHOSTBUSTERS 2 (1989)

Like with pretty much almost every sequel that has ever come out, ‘Ghostbusters 2’ is generally considered by many to be ‘inferior’ to the first film and while I do agree that it isn’t as good as the first film, keep in mind how great of a film this one is supposed to follow up on; talk about an incredibly tough act to follow. So with that said, why is this one not as good as its predecessor? According to the Rotten Tomatoes consensus, it is because it ‘lacks the charm, wit, and energy’ that the first film had. However, I don’t entirely agree with that statement. Because while I can sort of see what they’re getting at, I don’t think that the film is entirely devoid of those aforementioned qualities… far from it, in fact. The cast still has phenomenal camaraderie, there are still plenty of lines that are highly quotable (‘Sometimes, s*** happens, someone has to deal with it, and who you gonna call?’), and there are still some pretty fun visuals, like during the finale when the Ghostbusters travel through the city of New York while piloting the Statue of Liberty. It’s true that maybe the film doesn’t have the exact same amount of charm, wit, and energy as its predecessor had but still, it’s not like it’s not there. It still very much feels like a ‘Ghostbusters’ film through and through.

Really, the main problem with the film is something that occurs with a lot of sequels; it rehashes a lot of the same beats from the first film in terms of its plot like how the Ghostbusters at one point have to visit the mayor when they get into trouble with the law or how they start off having to work to become popular again with the citizens in New York as this film takes place five years after the events of the first film as their popularity has started to dwindle. I do kind of like the idea of the Ghostbusters having to get back into the swing of things having been out of the business for a while but overall there’s not much in this film that is different from the first film save for it having different plot-points, like the River of Slime, the main villain Vigo, and for introducing Dana Barrett’s baby as a plot-point. Regardless of this, I still think that ‘Ghostbusters II’ is actually a pretty underrated sequel. Sure, it’s still not as good as the original, mainly because it copies a lot from that film. Still, I disagree with the notion that it is completely devoid of the ‘charm, wit, and energy’ that made the first film so great because it’s still here, just maybe not as much as in the first film. However, I do feel that this film deserves a second chance because it still a very entertaining film even if it doesn’t fully live up to the status of its predecessor.

Rating: 3.5/5

Before I end this post, if you ever have the chance, I recommend you check out the location tour video, ‘Follow that Marshmallow: A Ghostbusters Tour’ produced by James Rolfe AKA The Angry Video Game Nerd. It’s a really nice location video showcasing a lot of the locations in New York that were featured in both movies and it’s pretty cool to see that the filmmakers made a real effort to be as geographically correct as possible. What I mean is that a lot of the locations in the film aren’t too far apart from one another meaning that the routes that the characters take in the film are accurate to the real-life layout of New York. I’ll provide the link to the video below for your viewing pleasure.

(http://cinemassacre.com/2010/04/26/follow-that-marshmallow-a-ghostbusters-tour/)