7/17/2016 - Ghostbusters (2016) – 3+/10

(Let me preface this unnecessarily loaded review with a few thoughts. I love the original. I never thought they should have remade it. I did not find the trailer entertaining. I don’t care who is in front of the camera or behind the camera, I just want to be entertained. I went into the theater with an open mind, hoping for the best, but having low expectations for what was about to come to me. Now, let the “sexist rant” commence…)

I did not enjoy this movie. I sat in a theatre full of bubbling joyousness, with people cracking up and seeming to really like it. I did not. I honestly don’t know what it is that they were watching. I found a movie that seemed intent on pointing to the past that you liked in the most heavy-handed ways, while providing nothing much of note that was new or thoughtful. It felt self-satisfied in its approach and comedic sense while trying too hard to put over unfunny & tired bits.

I have not liked a single Paul Feige film. I don’t care for either fart joke, winky-noddy, or “look at me cuz I am wacky and saying crazy stuff” comedy, present in all of his films. Just don’t care for his, and through his muse, McCarthy’s style. I find it grating and laborious. This example was, unfortunately, more of the same.

Most tech mumbo jumbo I ever remember seeing in a film. Like the worst sections of Data from Star Trek: The Next Generation spewing out techie gobbeldy gook, without Geordi La Forge to shut him up. I understand that they wanted to legitimize their science savvy, their ability, and display their psuedo-unique creations, but it came off as forced and too focused on explaining the “what”-so-thingy-whiz rather than telling me the “why” of what I am seeing. Might have been OK, if it wasn’t constant throughout the entire film.

The cast was...underwhelming. McCarthy provided me with zilch. Wiig, who I really like, seemed a bit stifled and flat. McKinnon, who I ADORE on SNL, had bits of "alright", but was mostly too wrapped up in her own schticky Egon-the-gaming-weirdo character to give me much likable. Jones, who can be overbearing, was pretty good and fit in the role she was provided. She was the only one of these people who felt real in any way and it could have used more of her. Hemsworth almost stole the show, with his dumber-than-a-bag-of-rocks secretary bit, but it wore out its welcome quickly and became groan inducing (and even a little sad). Neil Casey’s villain was a cartoon reject who brought nothing, only instilling the film with more ludicrousness.

The plot was "meh", seemingly setting the scene for more of these while contributing stakes-less action with characters that lacked motivation or logic. The villain and his ghosts are laughable, in the worst way. The govt interactions were an actual good idea, but would flitter between sensibility and importance based purely on plot whim.

Was it the worst? No. It moved decently and I could see the hinted outline of a decently fun movie, but it felt childish, gratuitous, and ridiculous. Most pointedly, it was neither funny nor scary, which seems like the whole point of the making this, I thought. This film will always be held in regard to the original and it cannot hold a candle to it. Maybe the CGI is better, but who gives a sh*t? The original was genre bending, witty and inventive. This felt hackneyed, lacking any sense of what made the 1st one special.