Ghostbusters (2016) review

Well… you’ve probably heard about this film quite a lot these past few months and suffice it to say, a lot of the discussions about it weren’t very positive to say the least. Somehow, for some reason, this was the one reboot in a current film landscape full of sequels, remakes, and reboots that people JUST couldn’t handle. And to me it’s rather strange that this film is getting as much flak as it is because Ghostbusters is one of the most famous franchises in pop culture history, mostly thanks to the 1984 titular comedy classic. Following the not-so-beloved (but seriously not as bad as many put it out to be) sequel in 1989, there were numerous attempts at doing a third Ghostbusters film. However, pretty much all of those plans ended up falling by the wayside, namely due to Bill Murray’s reluctance to return. And when franchise star Harold Ramis tragically passed away in February 2014, it seemed as if that would be it for the paranormal investigators on film. And then, just a few months later, that changed when it was announced that director Paul Feig would be directing a brand new Ghostbusters film. However, instead of being a continuation of the franchise, this new film would be a ‘reboot’ starring a cast of female leads… and to put it simply, quite a lot of people on the internet got really mad about this. How mad, you ask? Well, the first trailer for the film is the most disliked trailer on YouTube. There’s seriously no other film trailers on that site that have that many down-votes. And ultimately a lot of that backlash turned out be quite premature because the film is a genuinely solid crowd-pleaser. Is it perfect? No, not at all but it certainly isn’t as bad as a certain part of the internet claims it to be.

Sometime prior to the events of the film, scientists Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) and Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) published a book on paranormal activity claiming that ghosts are indeed real. However, the book fails to be a success and Gilbert decides to distance herself from it. However, when she is about to start teaching at Columbia University, she finds that, to her horror, Abby had republished the book without her permission. As a result, the two of them end up getting shunned from academia but after a legitimate encounter with a ghost, they decide to continue their research with the help of Abby’s new assistant, engineer Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon). They set up their new ‘office’ on the top floor of a Chinese restaurant, recruit the dim-witted but extremely good-looking Kevin Beckman (Chris Hemsworth) as their receptionist, and also gain a new teammate in the form of Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones), an MTA employee who recently had a run-in with a ghost as well. Together, they come to be known as the ‘Ghostbusters’ and attempt to prove themselves to the people of New York by documenting and capturing ghosts. As this is going on, they also investigate into the increasingly frequent appearances of ghosts all over the city, which unbeknownst to them is being caused by an occultist named Rowan (Neil Casey) hell-bent on bringing about the apocalypse.  

So I guess the big question that some of you might be asking is how does this film fare as a comedy. And to that I say that the film does have a solid amount of humor. Now I’m not saying that every single joke in the film worked and there is a considerably noticeable lull at the halfway point. Still, the hit-miss ratio is still pretty darn solid; I’d say about 70-30. But another question that fans have raised in regards to the film is over the fact that instead of being a continuation of the franchise, it is instead a reboot with new characters. Whether or not this was the best move is debatable but at the very least, I feel that it worked because the film does manage to stand on its own as a unique entry in the franchise… though with that said, there are a few scenes in this film that do very much parallel scenes from the original film (e.g. the first ghost encounter). Also, there are quite a few callbacks to the original, namely the appearances of certain characters, but they didn’t bother me too much. This also included the cameos made by the original film’s cast, which actually weren’t that distracting (if I had to pick a favorite, it’d be Dan Aykroyd’s cameo). From a technical perspective, this film is certainly very well-made in terms of its action and visuals. Obviously in terms of the visuals there is a lot more CG used for the ghosts this time around but it all still looks really good and the film carries a solid visual style throughout. I mean, in terms of both visuals and action sequences, I feel that this film very much delivers in terms of being a modern-era Ghostbusters film all while still maintaining the same light-hearted spirit of the original films.

But of course one of the key elements to any Ghostbusters film is the strong camaraderie amongst its leads. And in the case of this film, that very much is the case with the group of Yates, Gilbert, Holtzmann, and Tolan. Not only that, but the film also very much succeeds in terms of making them endearing and likable characters. Both McCarthy and Wiig are solid and to reiterate a point that I made in my review of Paul Feig’s last film, Spy, this film is another case of proof that McCarthy’s truly at her best working with Feig. Their two primary co-stars get plenty of scene-stealing moments as well. Kate McKinnon is most certainly the most eccentric of the group as Holtzmann. It may be a bit too much for some but she certainly steals the show in quite a few sequences. The same goes for Leslie Jones as Patty, though she actually doesn’t go as over-the-top as McKinnon sometimes does. But it ain’t just the ladies who get great material to work with in this film. Chris Hemsworth once again shows off his great comedic chops in the role of Kevin. Simply put, the film very much plays up the fact that his character isn’t very bright (e.g. the first time the phone rings while he’s on the job, he doesn’t answer it because he assumed the actual phone was the one in the office’s fish-tank) and it’s hilarious. Of the cast, the only major weak link is, unfortunately, the villain. Nothing against Neil Casey, who’s mostly been known for his work behind the scenes as a writer on shows like SNL and Inside Amy Schumer, but the character of Rowan is admittedly rather bland, mostly just coming off as weird.

Now before I get to the conclusion for this review, I do have to address all of the backlash surrounding this film. Simply put… a lot of this backlash was really frigging stupid. I mean, seriously, out of all of the reboots, remakes, and sequels that have come out over the years, this is the one film that fanboys just couldn’t accept. I mean by comparison you don’t see people get that worked up over remakes of films like Point Break or Ben-Hur now, do you? And as much as some have actually tried to deny it, a good chunk of said backlash towards the film legitimately has been due to the fact that the film oh so dares to star women in the lead roles. And let me tell you, in 2016 this kind of sexism is just frigging embarrassing. What the hell is so wrong with having women be Ghostbusters, a franchise that has very much been dominated by male leads for the entirety of its existence up to this point. In having women be in the lead roles this time around, this film will no doubt give young girls great new role models to look up to. Now for the record, I know that the backlash towards this film wasn’t all about the whole ‘women are Ghostbusters’ thing. When the trailers did come out, even those who weren’t trolling the film weren’t too positive on them and I’ll admit that they were far from being ‘great’ trailers. However, just because a film has a lackluster trailer doesn’t automatically mean that the film is going to be bad. Thankfully, reviews for this film have been positive for the most part. So that shut up the trolls, right? NOPE! They then just proceeded to accuse anyone who dared to give the film a positive review of being ‘paid’ to do so. Oi… talk about setting fandom back many years.   

So with all of that said, what do I, someone who is NOT paid by Sony, think about the new Ghostbusters? I like it, I like it a lot. Is it perfect? No! There are some issues, namely in terms of pacing, and obviously not all of the jokes hit. If I were to compare this to the original film, which for the record I’m NOT trying to do here at all, I would still give the edge to the original film. But obviously that’s just because the original is still very much a classic and a tough act to follow. And yet that fact shouldn’t be held against this new film that much. Because aside from some scenes that do go off of scenes from the original film, this new film does succeed in being its own thing and as a result, this franchise’s new cast of leads prove to be a very badass new group of Ghostbusters that are very much worthy of standing toe to toe with the franchise’s original leads. In short, this film is, at the very least, a very fun crowd-pleaser. Will it appeal to absolutely everyone? No. I mean it’s pretty clear at this point that any of the trolls who have been bashing this film since the beginning will hate it no matter what. But you know what? Forget about them! If you were one of those people who were genuinely excited for this film, then by all means go see it. Don’t let those trolls spoil your fun. Seriously, even if I ended up not liking the film, I would’ve still encouraged you folks to see it because at the very least, at this point it does deserve to be given a chance. Because Paul Feig and the talented and funny group of actresses leading this film did not deserve any of the crap that they got from misogynistic and entitled fanboys at all.

Rating: 3.5/5

(P.S. There’s been a lot of talk about the film’s post-credits scene and I’ll just be honest… it’s not really worth it to stay through the credits. In fact, without giving any of it away, I guarantee that it might even elicit a groan from long-time fans because it does pull one very big callback to the original film. Here’s hoping the potential sequel doesn’t try to re-do the specific storyline that this scene alludes to.)