Ghostbusters [DVD] [2016]

Friends and reviewers with tastes similar to mine were saying this was good, so I gave it a shot, and I’m glad I did. This film is great.The premise, as I’m sure people know, is this: three scientists and an amateur historian discover that ghosts are real and decide to study them and protect the living as an evil scientist unleashes a horde of the wrathful dead. So far, so straightforward: what about the other aspects?To start with, this is a hilarious film. Nearly all the jokes work, most of the humour arises naturally from the characters, and the physical comedy – not my favourite kind – is often used well. Some gags do outstay their welcome, it’s true, but you can say that about pretty much everything except Young Frankenstein.But more than funny, is it well-done? Yes. Definitely. It’s not without its flaws, which I will get to later, but this film works. It does what it sets out to do and largely does it well. This is a film about four smart women whose first reaction to discovering the existence of ghosts is to learn about them. Not to run, not initially to fight, but to learn. That in itself made me love these characters, and everything about them just added to that – most especially the fact that they’re kind. They care about each other, they love working together, and it’s absolutely clear that they’re all friends. I like sarcastic sniping heroes as much as anyone, but kindness done well is so good, and this cast is so good at conveying it.Speaking of the main characters, the absolute stand-outs are Kate McKinnon as the team’s engineer Holtzmann and Chris Hemsworth as Kevin, their pretty-but-ditzy blond receptionist. Every moment they’re on screen is a high point, and they’re on screen a lot. Holtzmann in particular has a fantastic moment of ass-kicking in the climactic battle wherein she’s not at all sexualised but sexy as hell, and how often do you see that in Hollywood? None of the women are sexualised at all, and between this and Mad Max: Fury Road last year it’s almost as if it’s not that hard to do – pay attention, directors!From characters to themes: Ghostbusters is about how we overlook and belittle women’s work. It’s about how we pressure them to keep quiet about their inconvenient experiences. It’s about women who like, support, and listen to each other and win because of this. And it’s about history.History in this film is full of cruelty, bigotry, and suffering – the guide in the Aldridge mansion talks about the anti-Irish security fence and P T Barnum’s enslavement of elephants before telling us of Gertrude’s murder of the servants and her father’s prioritising his family name over any kind of justice or accountability; Patty tells us that New York suffered regular blackouts to satisfy society’s bloodlust via the electric chair, this shiny new method of executing people; then of course there are the massacres on the site of the Mercado hotel – and all the ghosts we see are apparently embodiments of history’s traumas. Hence Rowan’s redecoration of New York in the climax – which leads into my thoughts on the film’s villain.Rowan is a simple but effective character: he has, to hear him tell it, been tormented all his life and feels entitled to indiscriminate vengeance against the world at large. He’s a recognisable type from real life, but instead of a gun he has an army of angry ghosts, all seeking to avenge their own traumas on the world at large. In this he serves as a foil to the Ghostbusters, who themselves come in for their share of ridicule from the world around them, but seek out companions and friends in each other – and the film does something that many similar stories don’t, in that it shows people like Patty and the rock fans being nice to him, making friendly overtures that show he doesn’t have to be alone. To Rowan, however, such people are insignificant specks in the universe, less than he deserves as company.He’s not a villain like Darth Vader or Hannibal Lecter, someone of whom we can say “well, he may be a monster but wouldn’t you like to have his confidence and presence?” He’s what lies at Vader’s core: a small broken man unable to see anything beyond how the world has hurt him and him specifically. He’s not angry at how he’s been treated because it’s wrong for anyone to suffer whatever he’s suffered, but because it’s wrong for him personally to have suffered at all. And because of this utter lack of imagination and empathy, he can’t imagine a better world beyond “just like history but I’m on top”. He’s a mundane villain, and all the more effective in this film for it.(It may not be coincidental that he possesses Kevin when Kevin’s asking to become a Ghostbuster despite his immeasurable lack of qualifications – a less-than-competent white man feels entitled to a spot on the team and turns into an embittered violent misogynist when he doesn’t get his way.)Thematic and character-based goodness aside, there are a few flaws to this film. To start with, there’s Patty’s skillset. She’s a valuable member of the Ghostbusters, providing them with their transport and protective clothing, and it’s her idea that saves the day in the end, but she’s also an expert on the history of New York and this knowledge never comes into play. Sometimes she provides exposition about why a place is haunted, but they never use this knowledge to deal with a ghost. Exorcisms are done solely by proton beam – there’s no righting unaddressed wrongs or resolving unfinished issues. All the Ghostbusters’ problems (except their PR) are science problems; Patty’s exposition is for the audience rather than the characters.There’s also a tension between the light-hearted tone and the prospect of apocalypse – the Ghostbusters are the only people we see in lethal danger in the climax, it’s unclear whether Martin Heiss is dead or not, and Gertrude Aldridge seems much less homicidal dead than she was when alive. The film did on first viewing manage to carry me along without noticing this, but rewatches do make it more noticeable. Finally, there’s an assumption that slime is inherently funny; evidently this is a Ghostbusters thing we have to put up with.The Blu-Ray comes with an extended version of the film, and it’s worth seeing at least once: there are some alternate takes and a few scenes that improve the narrative flow, as well as a few more gags, but the plot with Erin’s terrible boyfriend is pointless and the crowd dance scene worked better in the credits of the theatrical cut. It’s worth watching at least once, but not essential.So to sum up, watch this film. It’s awesome. Four and a half stars, rounded up to five because of Holtzmann.

Miss judged and was a great branch of feh serious .

Great film that has me laughing

good fun film

What can I say about this film that hasn't been said? Well Haters are going to hate, and this isn't a bad film.True I was extremely disappointed by the trailers for this movie. It made me think that it was going to be a disaster like Pixels was, so maybe my expectations were lowed when I went to the cinema to see this. But I really enjoyed it! It was funny and (I'm going to hated for saying this!) did one thing better that the 80's original, which was that this was much more of a ensemble where as Ernie Hudson was a little sidelined in the first film (let the hate begin?)Other than that one point it is no where near as good, but that doesn't make this a bad film. I feel this is more of an action comedy rather than a horror comedy and the action is great, the comedy could be better sometimes, and you will never get the same feeling of the original, even Ghostbusters 2 didn't.I loved the scenes showing Holtzmann developing the equipment and, speaking of Holtzmann Kate McKinnon steals every scene she is in, even if she's in the background. There was a lot of wasted opportunities for both comedy and horror, just a little more scary and funny and I'd have loved it.For the extended edition, nothing much is really added. Maybe a few alternate takes that were just as good and I can see whey they dropped the boyfriend for Erin. I am also glad they dropped the dance routine in the theatrical version, putting it over the closing credits instead was a good idea, although saying that it wasn't as bad as I expected.All in all, it is a good film. Just a shame it wasn't great.

We watched this on its release a few years ago and were unimpressed. I watched it again now (2021) and felt better. It's not a classic film, but it's also not terrible.At the risk of damning with faint praise... "It could've been a lot worse."The film illustrates issues with rebooting a franchise. The film makers have to find a way to take the reader away from the original. And when the original is a nuclear bomb of a classic like Ghostbusters, which appears on many lists as one of the funniest movies of all time, then that's really difficult.Star Trek did it by recreating rather than entirely reimagining, and moving to an earlier timeframe to fill in plot gaps. Other movies just throw away the original and start afresh with the plot's keywords, keeping only the film's title (e.g. Scarface).This reboot takes many of the original movie's features, but says the original movie's events didn't exist. That was probably a mistake, in hindsight. It feels like a ripoff. Yes, there's proton packs, but they don't quite work like the ones in the original movie. Yes, there's a hearse used as the car but it's not quite the same as the original.But but but but but... If you can bear this in mind before watching the movie, and if you prepare for what feels like jarring inconsistencies, then you'll receive a pretty decent movie in return – especially for older kids (probably 12+ because there are some scary scenes and menacing characters; this would've given me nightmares if I'd seen if aged 10 or below).There's a lot of talent on the screen here, but the buddy comedy doesn't quite gel in the same way it did in the original movie. Again, recreating rather than replacing would've worked better – maybe if one of the characters had the Venkman ethically dubious nature, for example. In fact, just like Venkman was something of a protective patriarch for that team, what this team of women probably needed was a matriarch. Melissa McCarthy's character isn't that (but there are signs that was an intention). But, again, hindsight is always perfect. Notably, the character that works best here is Kate McKinnon's character, which most closely mirrors Spengler from the original movie, even though she adds her own layer of craziness on top.Anyway, I suppose I can sum-up this review easily. Kids will love it. They know no better. As a grown up who's seen the original, you won't love it unless you give this movie space to exist on its own terms, as if the original doesn't exist. For me, the five years since the original release provided that distance.