Ghostbusters (2016 movie)

Category: Comedy about supernatural beings/reboot of established IP

-----

Sometimes you can have good ingredients and experienced chefs and a tried-and-tested method, and sure, the end product will look like a cake, and the texture will resemble a cake, but when you go to consume it, it hits you that it just doesn't feel like a cake should - especially when you remember you've had a better cake before that was made from the same ingredients.

And that is the best way I can summarise Ghostbusters (2016), otherwise known as the female Ghostbusters movie. So yes, the movie has people who can act. The movie features people who can do comedy. The movie features special effects and props. Heck, the movie even has some of the original cast members - so that should mean this is a good comedy and an even better film, right? Wrong. The final product looks like a film that acts like a comedy, but in the end, something just doesn't sit right.

Plot-wise, Ghostbusters 2016 is a fairly direct copy of the 1983 original - four people by various happenstance find themselves in the business of capturing ghosts in New York City, all the while seeking the validation of the city they live in and those around them.

There are plenty of nods to the original, as I said including some of the original cast members in cameos, while also updating things to have an updated look and sound and feel.

But this film has two big problems. First up, delivery.

Now, I don't have a problem with Ghostbusters being remade to be all-female. Fine by me. If it's a good movie and it's well put-together, I'll like it and give it a good review. I'm not going to play into the politics.

But what I do have a problem with is that it seems like the writers of the movie essentially seemed to rely on an all-female leading cast as the main selling point, and particularly these females - Melissa Mccarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones. After watching these women in action, all I can say is that you can be good at sketch comedy and maybe at stand-up as well, but being good at sketch comedy and stand-up does not translate in to being a good comedic actor for a full-length movie.

And that's because there's something to be said about the value of understatement. The original Ghostbusters worked because the comedy and the delivery was understated. The original four men weren't of the mindset of "look how funny we are! If we just say our lines a little bit louder and exaggerate our movements more, it will be even funnier!". If this movie proves anything, it is that just because you're loud and you deliver your lines emphatically, it doesn't make your performance any better. Volume does not equal laughs.

Matter of fact, I thought Chris Hemsworth stole the show just with his job interview scene alone. His performance was the perfect foil to the exaggerated desperation of the four women he was cast alongside. He wasn't trying to dominate the scene with volume, and the aloofness of his character shone through.

This isn't to say there weren't funny moments - there were indeed a few times I chuckled. But for every attempt at comedy that made me chuckle, there were probably five or ten attempts at comedy that fell flat and made me think "that could have been done better".

And the other problem is the writing, especially with regards to the plot. Lots of things just didn't make sense.

As an example, there is one scene where the four women are brought in before the mayor of NYC and essentially told to stop ghost-busting. Then the very next scene is the four women walking out of the mayor's office expressing a sense of relief that they can continue ghostbusting and go straight back to testing weapons. Hold up - weren't you just threatened by powerful and shadowy government officials? And then later on, the same government officials are thanking the ghostbusters after they stopped the antagonist of the movie from carrying out his nefarious plot.

And what about the Holtzmann character, who is the gadget woman. The way she creates gadgets and equipment and then gets her colleagues to test them out with very little regard to well-being and public safety comes across as if she creates gadgets just because the plot has a gap which needs to be filled.

The whole spiel about "Ley Lines" was barely dramatic - despite it being the breakthrough moment the four women needed.

The university academic who freaked out that her long-time friend released a book they wrote without her knowledge, but then decides that the opinion of a stranger they've never met and who just invites himself into their office is somehow worth releasing a ghost for - the one ghost they could prove the legitimacy of their adventures with!

It's almost as if this movie is a whole series of interrelated sketches taken from different plot directions, rather than something made with a coherent vision. 

Now, I actually didn't finish this movie. It was too laborious. I just got to the 1-hour mark and thought "there's another hour to go?" - and I am someone who got through Morbius! Ghostbusters could well have had an Oscar-worthy finish, but I suppose I'll never know.

This isn't to say there aren't some redeeming features. There are. It's just that most of the redeeming features are named Chris Hemsworth.

STAR RATING: 1.5/5