LTTP: Ghostbusters: Answer the Call · 11:48pm Nov 10th, 2018
So I finally saw Ghostbusters: Answer the Call (that's the current official title of the 2016 movie) for the first time last night.
I have some notes.
I'm going to say, first of all, that I really loved the last 40 minutes or so of the movie. Once the plot really flipped over and things got intense, it turned into a legitimately good, well-crafted movie.
The entire rest of the movie is a fucking mess.
The first, and most consistent, problem with GB:ATC is that it doesn't try hard enough to divorce its SNL alum cast from their SNL roots the way the original film did. The bulk of ATC is, well...a 2010s SNL movie, relying on 2010s SNL humor to drive itself onward through its awkward first hour and a half.
And I do mean "awkward". In every way. Especially the type of humor evinced.
When your movie's tone and style is built around a core of awkward dialogue and cringe comedy, you've already lost half the battle. Every early scene with Erin is excruciating. The ENTIRE Kevin "interview" is painful and embarrassing to watch, and I felt utter shame for the cast for being forced to sit through that.
And frankly...Kevin. Kevin was a dumb joke that was taken WAY too far. They could've done so much better by the character, but they got hung up on the concept of "let's make him so dumb it's literally impossible for him to have survived until now!" and it just got RIDICULOUS. The payoff in the end, when he's possessed by Rowan? Is the only time in the entire movie Hemsworth is on screen that I don't cringe, because for those few shining minutes, the movie DESERVED his amazing presence, charm, and talent. If Kevin hadn't been such an obnoxious joke of a character up to that point, the movie would've recovered an entire star rating.
What ATC does well, it does AMAZINGLY well. I loved the cameos and references to the original films. When Slimer showed up, I was legitimately happy. It was like seeing an old friend I hadn't seen in years. That Slimer got to have two AMAZING scenes that harken back to both the second film and the cartoon? Just made me smile. Also, the firehouse was a welcome nostalgia moment. And, again, the entire climax of the movie, when the new Ghostbusters drop all the cringe comedy and do what paranormal eliminators do best? Was just plain awesome. I especially loved the build-up to Rowan's final form.
That brings me to another problem with the movie: Rowan.
I...gotta be honest. Nothing about Rowan worked as a villain. He's this obnoxious, high-strung failure of human garbage played by a guy who you'd probably not feel comfortable being on the same subway car with if you met him in real life. I get that the entire point of his character is to be this hateful little prick of an incel that blames all his problems on everyone else when he himself is an abject failure of a human being, but honestly?
They maybe hit that a little too square on the head. The result is that instead of being an effective, memorable villain, you get...well...a creep.
I run into a dozen or so Rowans on Twitter every day. I don't necessarily think any of them would make a good Big Bad for a Ghostbusters movie.
Anyway, back to the other problems: the pacing. My god, the pacing is terrible. Absolutely terrible. The bulk of the movie drags on awkwardly and uncomfortably through scene after scene of awko-taco cringe comedy conversations, teasing at hints of the bigger plot but almost losing them between scenes of everyone being an SNL character on a Ghostbusters set. And the awkward 2010s "comedy" does not help with the pacing issues. It's telling that the comedy beats I have the least to criticize here are any time Leslie Jones is being a Sassy Black Woman, because usually the Loud Sassy Black Woman trope in ANY movie or TV show is something that annoys me to no end (there are too many of them in movies and television, it's not as funny as people think it is, and I've lived around too many SBWs in real life to think it's "funny" or "cute"). Here, in this movie infested with cynical, dry, pause-driven cringe? Leslie Jones' stereotypical Sassy Black Woman performance actually fixes something that's horrendously broken.
I liked the effects. A lot. A lot of love went into the effects, and this movie's ghosts looked better than almost anything the originals coughed up. Though in 2016, that's something you just automatically expect from a movie, rather than something to be praised. Still, it's worth saying that the ghosts were really well designed and popped every time one was on screen.
My last problem with the movie: I felt like the core cast have pretty weak chemistry. I'm sorry, maybe it's just me, but it just feels like there isn't as much of a connection, a spark, between Wiig, McCarthy, McKinnon, and Jones as there should have been. They don't click the way Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis, and Hudson clicked. It made all the awkward cringe-comedy scenes even harder to watch, because you just keep waiting for this movie to start to gel together and feel like anybody on set is enjoying making it, and you never quite get there.
So, in summary: Ghostbusters: Answer the Call has a good story and solid special effects, and the action-packed climax of the film is legitimately great, but the bulk of the movie is weakened by bad pacing, uncomfortable attempts at comedy, a poor choice of villain, and weak chemistry between the core cast.
In the end, I give it a solid two stars out of five.
Be glad you saw the movie and made this review AFTER the giant international war.
To paraphrase Cinema Sins' opinions on this film: we believed in a female-led Ghostbusters, too bad its creators didn't.
And yeah, everything that is Kevin should have been subject to second, third, tenth thoughts.
4966095
Yeah, I mean, the cartoons showed female 'Busters could work. But even though the acctresses are general funny, they just...weren't in this movie.
I just want to say that "LTTP" immediately makes me think of Zelda: A Link to the Past. I choose to believe that this is not failing in myself.
I haven't seen this movie, but this tend to hold up with what I generally heard about it. I've just felt no need to be involved with a movie that brought out the worst in a whole bunch of people.
The '84 Ghostbusters worked as well as it did mostly because it had Harold Ramis writing most of the punch-up and dialogue. 2016busters wasn't a mess because of the cast. It was a mess because it wasn't written. It was ad-libbed. Razor-sharp, finely tooled jokes were thrown out in favor of scenes where they left the camera running so another awkward, rambling fart joke could happen.
4966117
Yyyeah I heard about all the ad-libbing. There's times that works and times it doesn't. Here, it...didn't.
I agree with about 90% of what you said. While this Ghostbusters wasn't the childhood-destroying abomination most of the rest of the Internet would've had you believe two years ago, it still wasn't good. I don't care if they were men, women, children or animated ponies -- no one could've made this script work.
BTW, if anyone tells you pre-90s special effects are better than 21st century effects, they're being over-nostalgic blowhards. Those green-screen coronas are terrible when compared to today's average CGI.
4966120
Yyyyyeah, people were quick to praise Chris Hemsworth's comedy chops in this film, but... if he ad-libbed "Mike Hat"? Thank god he had Taika Waititi reining him in Thor: Ragnarok.
Because... well, before the film's release, many of of us who believed in GB '16's kept insisting that Pail Feig and Melissa McCarthy were amazing in Spy, a film that deftly deconstructed and lampooned the James Bond archetype and was a damn good action movie on its own. We believed that, with the right material, they would bring great, intelligent comedy to the table, making use of the material's premise and the strengths of its actors.
Unfortunately, we didn't get Spy. Feig's A-game is Spy. Feig's Z-game is The Heat. And that's what he brought to GB '16, with skits that felt more like "I have a Dad Joke I'm dying to tell and I'm going to use my next film to tell it, whatever it is!" than the organic humor of, well, nearly any regular comedy film. GB '16 stops in its tracks to tell multiple jokes about wonton, or about farts, or a fossilized "where are my glasses" gag, or to deliver Kevin's non sequiturs.
And it's a shame, because Patty and Holtzmann are wonderful characters for Ghostbusters, with plenty of charm and appeal, and there's lots of clear, but unrealized potential in Erin and Abby's relationship. But Feig apparently thought the strength of the premise and the legacy of the material were enough to let him coast by, and he relied almost exclusively on artificial, cringe-comedy humor and awkward segues. Toilet humor aside, the cast did a good job; it was the the writing and directing which failed them.
4966228
This is why the Ghostbusters: ATC comics are a better indicator of what their universe can be. No Feig anywhere in sight.
Also, the "Mike Hat" joke may have just been a toned down "Mike Hunt" raunchy joke. Like the Simpsons' "Mike Rotch."
Oh god I complained about this movie a lot when back in 2016 and still do but it stems from the controversy that it stirred that I got caught up in. At first when I heard about/saw the trailer I was getting hyped for the movie UNTIL I learn that despite the first 10 seconds of the trailer mention the original GB, ATC was to have no connection to the original, IT was complete reboot which to be honest annoyed me a lot. BUT I was willing to give it a chance until I heard about the backlash that one YouTuber got after he posted that video explaining that he wasn't going to see the movie because he didn't like the premise.
That's when I got caught up in the whole SJW crap along with rumors about Sony's questionable actions and other things that honestly i came to hate the movie itself.
That said I think the movie would have been a hit or at least made a profit had Sony done things differently. Like maybe not antagonize the fans of the original Ghost Busters the way they did. It is a VERY bad idea, no matter how mad you get (and probably deserve to be), to call potential movie goers man-babies or anything like that.
I'm going to stop my rant over the controversy attached to the film right now cause just thinking about it is giving me a huge headache.
Let me move onto the plot. Yeah I know, I haven't seen the movie but I DO know the general plot (thank you Wikipedia) and I have heard others reviewing the movie.
Now the general plot isn't bad to be honest but it definitively could have been improved on. Especially when it came to it's villain. Some changes "I" think might have made it better would be connecting it to the events of the first movie. Say maybe the original team were blamed for the incident and called frauds by the media, claiming the ghost sightings and everything to be a hoax. Eventually the team disbanded and went their separate ways after a mob attack on their HQ. The girls that would eventually become the new team could have been relatives or just big fans of the original team.
Rowan could have been a descendant OR at least a huge fan/self-proclaimed disciple of the man who built the hotel to summon the *Great Destroyer (*I can't remember his name and I don't feel like looking it up right now) and sought to complete his work using the man's old occult collection he had come across coupled with some old notes from the original Ghost Busters team he had bought or stolen.
Note: I think remember hearing a bit that the producers or writers or someone from Sony wanted for the all gal team to be the ones to have created the tech on their own and not use/based their tech on the original team's which is why they went for the full reboot. I think the one that brought it up, who or where i can't remember, claimed it was just another attempt for the feminist agenda. or something. My mind's a mess right so I can't think straight but I do think that reasoning was stupid. The women could have just recreated the tech themselves from scratch AND then later on could have gotten their hands on the original's gear and notes, using them to help improved their own tech and the old one.
*Hell for the final battle how about having the new team use some kind of device that made the invading ghosts easier to fight that even the common folk could take them on. Pretty sure something like that would have been a comedy gold mine or at the very least fun to watch. Still sounds better then from what I heard was Paul Feig's original idea of having Rowan control the amassed military and police force (all male by the way) and making them do a musical number. Again someone said it was for the feminist agenda's of making men look stupid and etc.
I'm going to end this now and go lay down before my head explodes.
But out of curiosity what do you think could have been done better?
I think my biggest beef with the movie is the fact that it's a reboot. With reboots, no matter what you might say otherwise, you are trying to replace the original with your take on the story and people will be constantly comparing and contrasting your version with the original. You might not be able to remove the original from existence but it gives you a chance to stand up and say "Mine was better."
Which I hate.
There's multiple ways they could have done an actual sequel while having a full new cast. You could go with the plot 4966383 suggested and have the original team get discredited again à la Ghostbusters 2, or you could have this group setting up a franchise up in a completely different city. Like idk Chicago. They can bust undead gangsters until the Rowan plot kicks in. I also would probably only make one of the characters related to the original team. For me the top choice is Jillian Holtzmann. She already looks like a genderbent Egon, so she can be his daughter. Either with Janine or maybe he grew her in a test tube.
I'd go with Janine being her mom but whatever.
Her personality could be described as her trying to be the opposite of her father and her trying to escape his shadow so her tech could be recognized on it's own merits. I'd also make her the one that starts the franchise out there.
I was perfectly comfortable and happy with it being a reboot. New generations are allowed to have their own versions of the tales, wholly disconnected from older conceptions. It gives creators a chance to bring forth their own vision of the premise, and for said vision to be judged on its own merits.
I mean, FiM is not a sequel to any previous MLP generations. It's a reboot just the same :p
Making it a sequel would have just been an uncomfortable crutch, and, more than likely, old fans would've complained about the original cast members not getting enough screentime or having unflattering performances (let's be honest here, Bill Murray is not at the same place in his career as he was in 84. And Aykroyd is... yyyyyyyyeah.) Just look at the criticism leveled at the New Trilogy of Star Wars, both legitimate and infantile. Better to wipe the slate clean and start from scratch and avoid all the complications that a sequel would cause..
The problem is that Sony wanted to have their cake and eat it, too. They wanted a new version... that still coasted on retroactive recognition of the original franchise. They wanted a whole new cast... but still pay homage to the original actors. They wanted to play the concept straight... but also deconstruct the original one. And then they had Feig direct and make a mess out of an already problematic production. And that's before the honestly disproportionate reaction from certain sectors of the fanbase, which Sony and Feig also responded to, and then pro-reboot fans escalating the issue, and so on and so forth until everyone involved just entrenched themselves in the most extreme positions.
Honestly, I want a do-over of 2016 (don't we all) and have Sony replace Paul Feig with, say, Patty Jenkins. Someone who would take the franchise and the cast seriously enough to craft good character humor and good chemistry between the leads. Not a cringe-humor guy who had at best one surprise hit in a sea of mediocrity.
I have a lot of mixed feelings on this film. Yeah, it's nowhere near the childhood-destroying abomination that the people who hate it make it out to be. But hoo boy it's not a movie I'm a fan of. The comedy is awkward and all over the place, the villain is too much of a creep to be an effective or memorable villain... that being said, it uses its cameos of the original actors well (I remember the audience in my theater applauding at Sigourney Weaver's cameo), the ghostbusting action at the climax is genuinely well-done and entertaining.
Yeeeeaaaah..... I guess you could say the way this movie was made, the cast together, and let alone the "jokes"; they pretty much "crossed the streams", and not in a good way....
I mean, don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie! I was, let's just say, disappointed due to all the hype and build up towards it's premise.
It was only in theaters for about a week, if that tells you how much it flopped.