Ghostbusters (2016) – Review

Review Format 1 - The Plot Spot

This 2016 reboot of the beloved franchise, “Ghostbusters,” sees the successful Dr. Erin Gilbert, played by Kristen Wiig, haunted by a paranormal studies book she had written years ago with her one-time friend, Dr. Abby Yates, played by Melissa McCarthy. The book, which she had thought was never released, threatens to undermine her serious career and reputation, so she searches out Dr. Yates to force her to cease its publication.

Instead, when she is reunited with Yates and her wonderfully weird assistant Dr. Jillian Holtzman, played by Kate McKinnon, they are all sucked into an investigation of a paranormal event. When footage of their investigation hits the internet, Gilbert’s career is over, so she joins Yates and Holtzman in forming a paranormal investigation group, the “Department of the Metaphysical Examination,” based out of an upper room above a bad chinese restaurant.

Ghostbusters 2016 03

From there, the “Ghostbusters,” as they come to be known, develop technology for dealing with the spirits they meet. They recruit the amazingly unintelligent receptionist Kevin Beckman, played by Chris Hemsworth, as well as a fourth Ghostbuster, Leslie Jones. They go about their work while struggling for recognition from a disbelieving public. All the while, a terrible danger arises that threatens the entire city with destruction. Only the Ghostbusters are equipped to handle this threat, yet they do not fully understand the scope of the villain’s plans. Can they figure out what is going on in time to stop the oncoming ghostly apocalypse?

Review Format 2 - Target Audience

This movie was directed by Paul Feig, and it is a movie that I believes falls very much in line with his skills and sensibilities. That is to say, if you enjoy the humor of his movies, you will probably enjoy this film. If you are not a Feig fan, you will probably not like this movie. It is a comedy first and foremost. If you are going into this movie looking for supernatural thrills, it’s not really for you. If you’re looking for intense, well conceived and choreographed action set pieces, this film is not for you. This film is a Feig show, through and through.

Ghostbusters 2016 09

Also, do not be confused by the title. This film is not aimed at the diehard fans of the original “Ghostbusters” movie. It doesn’t have the same style, the same humor, and it avoids most of the same aesthetics except for the basic outfits and the look of the car. There is certainly some “Ghostbusters” flavoring in the mix, and the plot is very similar to both of the previous films, but this movie has a very distinct and different feel and chemistry. If you go in expecting a tonal successor to the original, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

Review Format 3 - The Short Take

This film is at its best when the characters are talking and interacting with one another. Importantly, the characters are unique to themselves – they are not stand-ins for the original 80s group. There is great chemistry between the leads, and their personalities and senses of humor riff well off of one another.

The film is really quite funny. The jokes are mostly hits, even though there are definite misses too. At least it isn’t full of fart and vomit jokes, like the trailers implied. It isn’t exactly high-brow, but I didn’t have to roll my eyes more than once, and I found myself chuckling quite a bit. I think I even laughed out loud once or twice.

However, there are plenty of serious flaws. While the designs of the ghosts aren’t bad (in fact in some places it is as strong as the original), the CGI-heavy nature of the final battle goes over the top and the film suffers for it. The plot follows most of the same beats as the original two, and the villain is the cheesiest out of all three films. I will say that while the bad guy is pretty lame in the first half of the film, he does get much better in the second half.

Ghostbusters 2016 04

The worst offenders, however, were the terrible pacing, editing, and cinematography. The editing is choppy, the framing is plain and uninteresting, and the pacing is lethargic when it needed to be active and too quick when it needed to slow down, with poor transitions between the two. Combine this all with the fact that the action scenes in the film were poorly staged and it just robs the story of the energy and intensity it needed in the climax of the movie.

If you insist on judging this film strictly against the ‘84 original, this film can’t be anything but a massive disappointment. It doesn’t match that film’s originality or humor, and I doubt any movie could – the original is one of the great comedies of all time. When judged on its own merits, however, this film is very fun. It is a basic popcorn-munching summer blockbuster worth seeing at matinee price. Don’t get me wrong, “Ghostbusters” (2016) is not great, but neither is it a train wreck. In fact, I might even pick it up if I found it in…

3-4 Rating - The Bargain Bin

If you want to know more about my rating systems, check out what each rating means HERE.

If you enjoyed this review, keep on reading for “The Long Take” and “Spoiler Talk,” and don’t forget to support me on Patreon!

Continue reading


“Thor” Review

Marvel’s latest brings the lightning and the thunder.

May 06, 2011 – I can’t lie, I’m a huge Thor fanboy. For whatever reason, Norse mythology, and the character of Thor, has always been one of the Marvel heroes I gravitate towards. So some of you out there simply won’t be as enamored by the subject matter as me. That’s fine. Tastes are each to their own. But even with that grain of salt, let me state that Thor is a great movie, with lots of flashy and cool effects, that also has a heart and spirit that resonates after the visuals are gone.

Thor(Chris Hemsworth) is the son of Odin(Anthony Hopkins) and an Asgardian, immortals who live in the magical/scientific (they’re both the same, there) city of Asgard. He grows up to be an arrogant and naïve young man who craves battle and adventure. After an incident in which Frost Giants (menacing, but never actually scary gray-skinned aliens) infiltrate Odin’s storehouse and fail to steal a weapon, Thor goes against Odin’s express commands and invades Yodenheim, the home of the Frost Giants, which has been at peace with Asgard for many years after a bloody war.

This act stirs motions of war, which angers Odin, causing him to realize his son is not ready for the throne. He strips Thor of his powers and banishes him to Earth, where Thor has a couple fish-out-of-water experiences and meets Jane Foster(Natalie Portman) who shares a mutual attraction. Thor begins to learn that his arrogance has a price, and that power and battle are not as important as relationships and love. Meanwhile, Loki(Tom Hiddleston), Thor’s brother who has long been jealous of Thor’s success and favored place by Odin’s side, is revealed to have been working mischief in Asgard for some time in an effort to usurp Thor’s place as king of Asgard.

Kenneth Branagh directs the film very well, especially as seen in the superb direction of his actors. The material was well suited to his strengths, and I feel he brought the best of his Shakespearean experience to the table with Thor. I was happy when it was announced he was helming the project, and I feel it has truly paid off.

The script is to blame the real weak point in Thor: the plot. Not because it doesn’t work, or that it doesn’t provide cool moments, but rather because the story is so compressed in terms of time. Thor’s banishment feels like it lasts all of a weekend, making Thor’s personal revelations, and his relationship with Jane, unrealistic. If you focus too long on that fact, it weakens the otherwise well done character arc. This compression also means that Thor’s friends, the Warriors Three and Sif are all shortchanged, and feel somewhat pointless in the later half of the movie. If the actors hadn’t been as successful as they were, this could have been a film-crippling issue.

On the other hand, the script is also filled with mostly good writing. While the occasional exposition is squeaked through, or there is a throwaway cheesy line, for the most part the writing is swift and lighthearted. The difference in voice between the archaic Asgardians and the sharp and modern Earthlings is well done, and never heavy handed.

The movies has a number of well developed themes that are firm tropes of the genre, and will turn off viewers who’ve grown tired of them, such as the responsibility of power, but there are others that aren’t as often addressed such as the cost of pride, and classic Shakespearean royal family drama that is played out between Odin and his two sons. The film also does an excellent job of poking fun at itself with little bits of humor, particularly in Thor’s first day on Earth, which had the audience, and myself included, laughing aloud. But it also knows when to treat the material earnestly, managing to make the cosmic drama played out across the galaxy, and the internal drama feel meaningful.

The acting is the film’s strongest element, and Chris Hemsworth carries the lame plot on his shoulders with ease. He manages to give Thor the perfect mix of majesty, naivete, brash violence, bravery and humor that the character would have fallen apart without. Anthony Hopkins is the other standout, making the scenes in Asgard feel real, and not as alien and remote as they could have been otherwise. Portman does a fantastic job with the little she was given, which is the sad story for all of the Earth scenes, of which there should have been a lot more. Hiddleston does a great job about making Loki sympathetic, but somehow he doesn’t come off as menacing or as sinister as he should have, though I could easily believe the actor’s portrayal of his cunning.

The side characters also have great acting. The Warriors Three and Sif, while not given a lot of material, all come across as believable (you know… for Asgardians) characters with their own voices; Idris Elba was a particular standout in the role of Heimdall, the all-seeing guardian of the rainbow bridge, who comes across as a bad-ass with complex layers that I wish had more screen time.

Speaking of the rainbow bridge, the visuals are great, bridging science fiction and fantasy perfectly, while making silly sounding concepts like the rainbow bridge look cool and unique. Fight sequences are clear and energetic, never confusing the audience.

But that brings me to another criticism of the film: you never really fear for Thor’s safety in any of the battles, which is a big downer for the confrontation with the Destroyer armor, and frankly the Frost Giants are pushovers. If there was one other element besides the time constraints that hurts this film it is that lack of concern for Thor’s well-being. Tony Stark’s armor gets torn up and he loses energy. Spider-man bleeds and has gaping holes in his costume. Heck, even Superman gets humbled by Kryptonite. But when Thor has his powers, he is nigh unstoppable, and that is an issue when creating conflict.

The sound effects were decent, but not spectacular (this might be because the volume was especially loud in my theater, and when you hear bangs, booms and clangs at that volume they all start to sound the same.) The soundtrack was serviceable, but not memorable. You’re not going to find a Lord of the Rings music contender here.

Closing Comments:
All that I’ve just said would seem to say that this film is only average, what with such issues as time constraints and Thor’s invulnerability, but in the end, I loved his film for a simple reason. This film has an incredible spirit. It doesn’t aspire to be perfect. It doesn’t aspire to be art. It has a life to it. It is pure summer entertainment. It wants to be a tale of action and drama, not mindless, but not high-brow. It is simple, but utterly fulfilling. I can’t help but love it. Yes, it has flaws, but that shouldn’t stop you from seeing this movie.


Four Stars

Four out of Five Stars

For those of you who stuck around after the rating, I’ve got a extra segment for you called Spoiler Talk. It’s a segment in which I discuss what I thought of certain elements of the story or themes that are too spoilerish or high-concept for the main review. What I say here doesn’t ever trump my review, instead it might give insight into what exactly made me give something the score I did. So let’s get started.

Spoiler Talk:
To be honest, Loki never fully came into his own as a villain. I think that might be because it was all an attempt to win the favor of his father, which is a motivation that many men identify with for at least some part of their lives. We identify with him as much as, or perhaps better than Thor, except that Loki is much more manipulative. I have a feeling he will return in the Avengers to become a much more dire threat, and show his true teeth.

Speaking of Avengers, I like how this film was actually a touch more subtle about it than others. Iron Man 2 had some blatant references that feel too blunt in hindsight (the Captain America shield propping up the laser tube thing comes to mind. I give the after-credit endings a pass on this one because they’re extras for the fans who care to stick around. Their presence just informs the difference between the super fans and the casual types.

And by the way, I love this after-credits moment. The presence of the Cosmic Cube is a nod, I feel, not only to Captain America, where it plays a prominent role as either a mcguffin or a serious threat, either way we know the Red Skull is after it, but it is also a nod to the Avengers, where I feel that it and Loki will both share an important role as primary villains.

On a final note, Heimdall rules, and all those racist nut jobs who hated the idea of a black Heimdall can piss off.