Perhaps no other movie in recent memory has engendered (ahem) as much internet controversy, at least in terms of fan outcry and high-emotion commentary as Paul Feig's reboot of the classic comedy Ghostbusters. Released this weekend, the film is a remake of an 80's classic, with the obvious but notable casting of four comedians in the titular roles who just so happen to be female. These decisions - choosing to remake the film, choosing to cast women in the main roles - have led to a furor that makes the disgust over Jar Jar Binks' existence pale by comparison.
So with all the hubbub going on, there is, of course, one question that needs to be addressed: How is the movie?
Well...
Let me just get this out of the way: I absolutely LOVE the original film. I actually love the whole franchise, at least the components from the 80's. The original film was actually the first movie I ever owned, and I still have that battered VHS tape. I can quote it pretty much verbatim, and it remains one of my top ten movies. It's near and dear to my heart.
So with that said...
I actually kind of loved the reboot.
Yep, I said it. Deal.
Here's the thing - it is a remake, but it also has its own identity. Yes, it follows the same premise and general plot points of the original film, and yes, there are a number of references to the 1984 classic. But at the same time, the movie works quite well on its own merits...it's more kid friendly than the original, but not exclusively so. The characters are not direct analogs of the classic characters, and while the script does cite the original, it does so far less frequently than I would have expected. The movie seems to know just the right level of seriousness to give itself. After hearing so much bashing of the movie, I didn't expect to like it - but I found it enormously fun. Which really should be a reminder that listening to the opinions of people who haven't (or refuse to have) seen a movie is a futile exercise.
 |
| Welcome to the new age. |
The four protagonists are new characters - they are not Peter, Ray, Egon and Winston, though in many ways they fulfill the same general roles. They're distinct from the classic characters and from each other; each of the four actresses gets good moments and lines throughout, and there is a very genuine and lively chemistry between the four leads. The humor is fairly tame; there are a few ribald lines, to be sure, but that's hardly a franchise first. I'm finding myself slowly becoming a fan of Melissa McCarthy, and she does quite well here, though Kate McKinnon is probably the funniest of the quartet - certainly the quirkiest. Kristen Wiig does fine as the 'straight woman' of the group, usually ending up on the receiving end of both antics and slime; if anything, Leslie Jones' character gets a bit over the top in somewhat stereotypical fashion at points, but most of the time manages to keep it reined in. There are a few scenes in the movie that seem to strive for a poignancy that isn't necessary, but fortunately those moments are few.
Chris Hemsworth, as the Ghostbusters' ludicrously dimwitted receptionist, is clearly having a blast with his role, getting to show off some comedic chops as brainless beefcake. There are a ton of cameos, including many members of the original cast (living and spectral, and some set pieces too), as well as some other clever bits of casting. There is even a little nod to the departed Harold Ramis near the beginning of the film, and the movie is dedicated to his memory as well. The villain of the piece, a nerdy bellhop named Rowan, is more of a plot device than a character, only there to move the plot along without being particularly interesting in and of himself, and such is probably the weakest component of the film.
 |
| Buster's let himself go in recent years. |
The movie is silly, yes - but in an engaging way. There's an earnestness to this movie, a kind of goofy sincerity that gives it an energy and playfulness that belies the online angst that has surrounded it since its announcement. It's a different style of humor than the original - it's obviously not as Bill-Murray-ish - but that doesn't keep it from eliciting a lot of laughs. Some of the jokes are telegraphed, but for all of that there are quite a few moments that end up being surprisingly worthwhile. There's a running soup gag that I rather liked, in particular.
The effects are clearly CGI, but still rather neat - I enjoyed the variety of spooks that showed up, referencing the wide variety of those who have inhabited (and passed away in) New York City over the centuries. Some of the ghosts have menace, but it's something of the Scooby-Doo variety, which again plays into being kid-friendly...not that the ghosts of the classic film were particularly terrifying in their own right. And while the classic theme was revamped, the original version is present as well at points in the remake, with the signature musical motif of the siren present throughout.
 |
| It would appear that female Ghostbusters needn't have to worry about crossing their streams. |
I realize as I write this that much of this review is taking the form of comparison; that's probably to be expected when discussing a remake, but that's actually doing something of a disservice to the film- it deserves to be judged on its own merits as much as any film, but with something this iconic, I think the comparisons are inevitable. Anyone seeing this movie without knowledge of the original (specifically, kids), will be able to approach it without a biased opinion, and I suspect that will lead to greater enjoyment for them. The children in the theater I attended seemed to love the film, at any rate. I'm usually not thrilled at the concept of remakes of original pictures (I don't mind multiple incarnations of adaptations, generally), but if you're going to remake a movie, this is how you do it - put your own spin on it, and do it with heart.
Unfortunately, many of the armchair warriors of the internet don't see it that way. Offense has been taken as to the movie's existence. Some of that comes in the form of objection to a beloved movie being remade, as though that somehow desecrates the original movie. These objecting individuals seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that the Reboot Police will come along and confiscate their DVD of the original (which is strange, considering how most retail chains are currently offering fantastic sales of Ghostbusters I and II). This remake takes nothing away from the first movie - no, it's not as good as the first movie, but very, very few comedies are - and it's okay, fellas - you can still watch the 1984 movie. I certainly will. No big scary person's going to come steal your movie. (I assume.)
 |
| Things we learned: aquariums are submarines for fish. |
Then there are the hipsters who sneer at anything and everything to establish their credibility as the effete elite regardless of experience or honesty; woe betide the unsuspecting soul who dares to like something common or - gasp - popular. There are the fans of the franchise, clinging despairingly to the lost hopes of a third film with the original team (25% of which is deceased), seemingly oblivious to reality and bleating ever more piteously about some non-existent "disrespect". And then, of course, there are the devolved troglodytes who have lambasted this film for committing the unforgivable sin of casting women as the leads. On the one hand, these 'fans' have revealed something deeply disturbing about the rampant sexism that's not only tolerated but often encouraged in pop culture, but on the other hand, have descended into such unwitting self-parody that they ironically befoul themselves with their own filth. If THAT is your objection to this movie, then I do not care to know you, whomever you may be. I was pleased to see the movie itself got a few laughs on that subject. I'm even more pleased to see how much this movie is appealing to young girls.
 |
| "Choose! Choose the form of the Destructor!" |
A writer to whom I am partial once devised a description that was "full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing", which is an apt assessment of the negative reaction to this movie. Far too many people attacked the film based on nothing more than their own prejudices. An enormous amount of the e-vitriol spewed against the project now seems to me as nothing more than the ectoplasmic spittle of misplaced nerdrage. I have a suspicion that of the people who have said they dislike this movie, a fair number have not seen it, nor will they, and a further percentage will simply refuse to give it a fair chance. Of course there will be some who simply will not care for it - but among certain circles, I will likely always wonder about why. I like to think of these people as the Walter Pecks of the real world - and everything that implies.
I've devoted too much time to dignifying the primordial response against the film, but it's hard to disentangle discussion of the movie from its publicity, good or bad. Ultimately, it's a perfectly fine film - enjoyable, clever, funny, and cheerful about four New Yorkers, three of whom are scientists, who find and trap ghosts. With plenty of enthusiasm - and support from the original creative team, including original director Ivan Reitman - this movie makes for a nice addition to the franchise. Speaking as one of the fans of the franchise since the beginning, I can only say this to the new movie:
"We're ready to believe you."
FINAL RATING: 7 PAWS (OUT OF 10)
