Ghostbusters
Erin Gilbert: "That stuff went everywhere, by the way. In every crack. Very hard to wash off."
Ghostbusters
is directed by Paul Feig (The Heat, Bridesmaids, Spy) and stars Kristen Wiig as Erin Gilbert, Melissa McCarthy as
Abby Yates, Kate McKinnon as Jillian Holtzmann, Leslie Jones as Patty Tolan,
Chris Hemsworth as Kevin, Neil Casey as Rowan North, Cecily Strong as Jennifer
Lynch, Andy Garcia as Mayor Bradley, Michael Kenneth Williams as Agent Hawkins,
Matt Walsh as Agent Rorke, Zach Woods as Tour Guide, and Ed Begley Jr. as Ed
Mulgrave.
Science Professor Erin Gilbert is seeking
her childhood and old ghost hunter friend Abby Yates for a favor, but she
eventually ends up forming a team known as the Ghostbusters with Abby, Abby's
assistant, Jillian Holtzmann, and a subway officer, Patty Tolan. With their
science background and New York city landscape knowledge, the four women start
this ghost hunting business and immediately get titled as "frauds" by
ghost debunkers. Despite the misunderstanding from society, the Ghostbusters
try to continue their work when someone tries to open up a portal so that
ghosts can come through to our world. Now it's up to the Ghostbusters to save
the world from slimy chaos.
We all know the trailers weren't good,
but that doesn't mean that the Ghostbusters
movie couldn't be good, right? RIGHT? It is, I guess. Well, it's at least
better than expected. The internet wanted to hate this movie so much that the
first trailer currently actually has 270, 243 likes 946, 497 dislikes on
YouTube. People, understandably, didn't want their childhood movie, a good
movie, to be butchered and from first glance of the trailer, people took it
apart by saying that the nothing was funny, bad actress choices, lack of
original cast, blah, blah, blah. The only thing I agreed with was the humor. I
didn't find the trailers all that funny and it just seemed like a cashgrab;
throwing joke after joke. The finished product, however, is much better than
the trailers and doesn't deserve the hate that it got. Unfortunately, if a
reboot is going to happen, that reboot better be as good, if not better than
the original or else there wouldn't be a point in rebooting the movie. Ghostbusters did not do that. The magic
of seeing Bill Murray, Harold Ramis, Dan Aykroyd, and Ernie Hudson running
around New York hunting ghosts is not captured with these four actresses. The
original is just too much of a classic. This also isn't to say that the 2016
version is unfunny or bad. Not at all, actually. It's just mediocre. I think
that the reason Ghostbusters is
actually not that bad is because of the leads' chemistry, especially that of
Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig. Leslie Jones hasn't really been a lead in a
blockbuster like this, so props to her for not going over the top and staying
somewhat grounded in an otherworldly movie like this. Kate McKinnon is a
hit-or-miss actress in Ghostbusters.
Her character was the problem actually: Holtzmann is too much of a cartoon
character and yeah, this is a cartoon-ish kind of movie, but she didn't fit
into this film for most of the action she was contributing to. She is actually
the over the top, funny-face-making person, not Leslie Jones. These actresses
are f***ing hilarious in the most of the movies that they're in. The script in Ghostbusters just isn't as great or as funny as Bridesmaids or Spy, two hits from director Paul Feig. I wouldn't count this
as a cashgrab movie either, though. The
four leads were fantastic and tried very hard with the script.
There's not too much to say about a movie
that was just alright. Ghostbusters
never amazed me, but it never let me down. I know that's what I've pretty much
been saying, but in all honesty, Ghostbusters
was just that: it was "meh". The special effects were very enjoyable,
actually. This includes the action that I didn't think Kristen Wiig, Melissa
McCarthy, Leslie Jones, and Kate McKinnon could do. I know that might sound
rude, or for you extremists, sexist, but they have never proved that they could
do that kind of acting in the past (except maybe for McCarthy). In any case,
the action scenes with the ghosts surprised me in a good way. The proton packs
have cool upgrades and it's pretty neat to see them in action. However, special
effects, more or less, go hand in hand with action and they just gradually get
better with time. For example, the original Ghostbusters
in 1984 had some pretty crappy special effects as compared to many of today's
special effects. Still, the original Ghostbusters
was revolutionary at the time with special effects, comedy, and horror; things
the 2016 Ghostbusters isn't. Maybe
it's just the wrong time to come out, but maybe all in all, a reboot is just
unnecessary. Who knows...
In the end, Ghostbusters isn't a film to pick at and it isn't a film to praise.
It's kind of just there for our enjoyment. I legitimately had fun watching this
movie and I think that's really all that matters for a blockbuster of this
magnitude; not an Oscar contender, by
any means, but a fun movie to watch with friends in the theater. This 2016
version should not destroy your favorite childhood (current) movie so go and
watch it. This year's Ghostbusters is
just a proven point that you shouldn't judge a movie by its trailer. Prove the
internet wrong. Trust me, it'll oddly feel like an accomplishment.
3.1/5
PRO
- The lead actresses' chemistry
- Cool action scenes
- Kinda actually funny, for the most part
CON
- Doesn't capture any of the true magic the original has
- Unnecessary...?
Ghostbusters is rated PG-13 for supernatural action and some crude
humor
Click here to watch the trailer
Ghostbusters is in theaters everywhere
No comments:
Post a Comment