GHOSTBUSTERS (2016) Headed For Massive Loss

[AndyDursin]

With all of the depressing, real-life horrors in the news lately, it's baffling to see just what a lightning rod of hatred this movie has become. The movie may well suck, or might surprise people, but why does it HAVE to be a he said/she said line being drawn in the sand? I mean, even if the new cast has been all-male, I'm sure aging fanboys would have found plenty to bitch about.

See I actually DON'T think that's where the hatred is coming from. I think it's coming from the fact that it looks like ****, that most viewers thought the film looked horrible from the very first trailer. Folks are getting tired of reboots, soulless commercial enterprises and tentpoles -- just look around this summer at the garbage diet they've been feeding us. So now they're hitting on a classic, and it looks horrible -- how did they expect people would react?

To their credit, Feig and Sony decided to play the PR game, turn the tables and attack "the haters" by painting them all as aging male nerds who need to get a life. IMO the "girl hate" is a tiny fraction of the conversation, but it's being amplified because it generates free press -- and the media has eaten it up, giving this movie more ink than it actually deserves. Plus they got to play the "victim card" -- all the while knowing their product is an unnecessary waste of time.

We'll see how that fares, because they've essentially ticked off the hardcore fanbase who would really be excited about seeing it over the last couple of months.

If the movie sucks, it'll be forgotten almost immediately, and people will still watch the "real" version from the 80's, so why the whining? Those lame re-does of Carrie, The Omen and Robocop have already passed out of the public consciousness.

Because it's GHOSTBUSTERS, one of the biggest hits of the 80s and probably one of the most beloved comedies ever made. Nobody cares as much about CARRIE, THE OMEN, ROBOCOP, TOTAL RECALL, etc., which are all strictly genre exercises. GHOSTBUSTERS had broad based appeal with all audiences and people remember it today.

[Paul MacLean]

IMO the "girl hate" is a tiny fraction of the conversation, but it's being amplified because it generates free press -- and the media has eaten it up, giving this movie more ink than it actually deserves. Plus they got to play the "victim card" -- all the while knowing their product is an unnecessary waste of time.

Time Magazine even claimed -- in complete seriousness -- there is a "misogynistic conspiracy" against this movie.

[BobaMike]

While shopping at Target today, I noticed that ALL the Ghostbusters action figures are on clearance! The movie hasn't even come out yet, and I found that funny.

I mean, who DOESN'T want a Melissa McCarthy action figure?

[Paul MacLean]

I mean, who DOESN'T want a Melissa McCarthy action figure?

[AndyDursin]

While shopping at Target today, I noticed that ALL the Ghostbusters action figures are on clearance! The movie hasn't even come out yet, and I found that funny.

Memories of the DUNE action figures in the $1 bin when I was a kid at some local department store. Except in that case, the movie WAS released already!

[AndyDursin]

Richard Roeper's 1-star review is as scathing as they come.

http://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainme ... ying-mess/

So bad.

“Ghostbusters” is a horror from start to finish, and that’s not me saying it’s legitimately scary.

More like I was horrified by what was transpiring onscreen.

How could so many talented, well-meaning artists, who clearly loved and respected the original, produce such a raggedy-looking, thuddingly unfunny, utterly unnecessary reboot?

For months, controversy has swirled around the new “Ghostbusters” movie. The trailer was reportedly the most hated in YouTube history, for what that’s worth (or not worth), which led to some pundits saying some of that hate was rooted in sexism.

Others said the fact the Leslie Jones character wasn’t a scientist and seemed to have a role that called for her to play into stereotypes smacked of racism.

Of course, people were voicing these opinions without having seen the entire movie. Well, I have seen it — and while I believe the concerns about racial stereotypes were overblown, “Ghostbusters” is one of the worst movies of the year for multiple other reasons, including:
Bad acting.

Uninspired directing, editing, cinematography and music.

Cheesy special effects.

A forgettable villain.

A terrible script.

Let’s go ahead and issue the obligatory SPOILER ALERT.

Later in this review, I WILL be discussing the nature of the cameos by some of the cast members from the original “Ghostbusters.” You’ve been warned.

The 2016 edition of “Ghostbusters” is not a sequel or a remake per se. While there are multiple visual and musical nods to the 1984 classic (to the point of distraction), this is a stand-alone disaster. (One indication this story takes place in the same universe occupied by the original Ghostbusters: we catch a glimpse of a bust of the late great Harold Ramis’ Egon Spengler character.)

In present day New York City, Kristen Wiig’s Erin is an uptight academic trying to distance herself from her college days when she and her best friend Abby (Melissa McCarthy) published a book claiming ghosts were real. Erin and Abby are estranged — but they’re reunited via plot device when honest-to-ghostness apparitions surface in New York, creating all sorts of evil mischief.

Wiig and McCarthy co-starred in “Bridesmaids” (directed by the usually terrific Paul Feig, who is at the helm here) and they’re enormously charismatic and versatile screen actors — which makes it all the more disappointing to see them flounder separately and together here. They’re both surprisingly muted and flat.

Then again, better understated than insanely over-the-top, which is what we get from Kate McKinnon as Holtzmann, the “wacky” scientist of the bunch. McKinnon is so good on “Saturday Night Live,” but she absolutely butchers her performance in this film — mugging for the camera, bouncing around in an exaggerated manner as if she’s in a “Three Stooges” short, and drawing attention to herself even when a scene calls for her to react and not engage in wholesale attention-getting thievery.

Jones is loud and unsubtle as an MTA worker named Patty who becomes the fourth Ghostbuster, but I’m not sure there’s a way to deliver lines such as, “Aw, hell naw!” without going big.

There’s very little chemistry between any combination of the four Ghostbusters, who spend a lot of time strategizing about their next move and then saying “Woohoo!” when they hit the streets.

Chris Hemsworth further drags down the proceedings as their receptionist, Kevin, who’s monumentally stupid — but also narcissistic and annoying. Hemsworth tries too hard to be funny, instead of creating a legitimately funny character. (It doesn’t help matters that Wiig’s Erin is so smitten with this dope she can barely think straight around him.)

As for those wildly hyped cameos by original “Ghostbusters” cast members Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson and Annie Potts — and once again, SPOILER ALERT! They don’t play older versions of their characters. They’re just wedged into the story as irrelevant, plot-stopping cameos. Dan Aykroyd saying “I ain’t afraid of no ghosts” isn’t a clever homage to the original — it’s a self-conscious and cloying wink that serves no real purpose.

The special effects in “Ghostbusters” are so mediocre I’m wondering if it was a nod to the relatively crude effects of 1984. (Or maybe they’re just not very good.) The ghosts aren’t frightening and they’re not funny and they have almost no backstory; they’re just hissing, hateful, murderous creatures storming through the city.

Neil Casey plays the movie’s main villain, a creepy hotel janitor named Rowan. He’s one of the most forgettable villains of any movie I’ve ever seen. I’m already forgetting his name as I finish this paragraph.

Andy Garcia does what he can with this role as the mayor of New York, who is in deep denial about the whole ghost thing. (It’s a pale imitation of William Atherton’s fantastic work as Walter Peck, the EPA official who tried to shut down the Ghostbusters in the 1984 film.)

From multiple visual references to the iconic logo to a new take on the catchy Ray Parker (by way of Huey Lewis) theme song to the appearance of some very familiar ghosts to the aforementioned cameos, “Ghostbusters” keeps telling us: yes, we know we’re revisiting a classic.

Some things are better left alone.

[Monterey Jack]

8.5/10

Dammit, I had a blast this this, one of the summer's most pleasant surprises. I think you'd have to go into this scowling, with arms folded, and a terse "Show me!" attitude, not to end up enjoying it (the mindset that, of course, a lot of butthurt fanboys will be bringing with them into the theater). Consistently funny, with great comic chemistry between the quartet of leading ladies, amusing support from a game Chris Hemsworth, well-designed visual effects and thankfully it's not so beholden to the original that it feels like a wan, gender-swapped copy. In fact, the cameos from the original cast members offer up the biggest lead balloons in the film's lineup of gags, far more of which connect solidly than don't. It's more consistently amusing than Ghostbusters II, which -- aside from the lazy pleasure of simply seeing the original cast back in those roles -- was a wan retread of the original, only about 2/3rds as funny and with a patina of awkward self-awareness. I'm sure that it won't be enough to appease those who have been tearing this to shreds sight-unseen since it was announced, but for a new generation of fans just being introduced to the brand, and those of our generation willing to give it a shot, it's lots of fun.

[jkholm]

I've seen several critics say Kate McKinnon steals the movie. Do you agree?

[AndyDursin]

Seems like the gamut is wide on mcKinnon. Personally I find her more annoying and "weird" on SNL than funny most of the time. Straining too hard to be offbeat. Then again, she's funnier than Leslie Jones...faint praise as that is.

[Monterey Jack]

I've seen several critics say Kate McKinnon steals the movie. Do you agree?

Oh, definitely...so many off-kilter line readings and a great physical sense of play. When she goes to town on the ghosts at the climax, it's the perfect mix of comedy and legitimate badassery, like a female Bruce Campbell. Seriously, this will please a LOT of people, although some will need convincing. There was this one other guy who stuck with me through the end credits (yes, there is the obligatory Cookie), and as we were exiting, there were two people sitting on the floor propped against the wall waiting for the next showing, and the guy said to them, with evident enthusiasm, "It's good, you'll really like it!", to which I added my hasty praise (I had to book it to meet my train). If they make another one with this cast, I'm totally up for it (just hope it doesn't take five years ).

One thing I failed to mention...Theodore Shapiro's score is surprisingly good, a full-bodied orchestral effort that takes the same "play the supernatural threat with poker-faced seriousness" tack as Elmer Bernstein's music for the original. I couldn't detect any homages to Bernstein's work, but Shapiro does a good job riffing on Ray Parker's theme song at several points.

[AndyDursin]

OK MJ, you've done it. My wife has been reluctantly pressed into going thanks to your review. lol

I've got a free ticket too so we'll take a chance on it.

[Monterey Jack]

It's good. How good you find it will probably be up to personal taste, and there are some rough patches (the villain is a complete non-entity), but I was very satisfied by it.

[AndyDursin]

I will try and write a full review this weekend when I have some time. I'm not sorry we went -- it's good to get out of the house with babysitters here, so that alone is a plus

I did find it funny in spurts, especially the first hour, before it succumbed to being a wan recycle of the original, without the charm.

What worked: the set-up. Feig finding humor around the edges, as he did so well in THE HEAT especially. I found the movie a lot more fun BEFORE any of the ghosts really showed up.

Hemsworth, for me, was actually funny in this film. It's a one-note role, but he carries it off well, and the only chemistry among the cast seemed to be between him and the ladies.

I did not like McKinnon. In fact I take back what I said about Leslie Jones. Jones dialed back her SNL persona effectively here -- all her "loudest" moments were in the ad -- and I felt she did a pretty, surprisingly solid job. On the other end, I found McKinnon's ENDLESS mugging to be tiresome and even embarrassing. Yes she's funny in a few places, but unless she was trying to do a live-action portrayal of one of the "Real Ghostbusters" cartoon characters, I didn't think she came off well at all. There's such a thing as modulation and she seemed completely incapable of ever utilizing it in the film, and just acted "weird" and "cartoony" in every frame, sometimes for no reason. Then again, that's how I often find McKinnon on SNL. Very self-conscious and unwilling, or unaware, how to dial it back...in stark contrast to the other three performances, amazingly.

McCarthy and Wiig were fine, but again, almost surprisingly restrained. I didn't feel the chemistry with them, and I certainly didn't think McCarthy played off her the way she did so well with Sandra Bullock in THE HEAT. That kind of comedic spark was missing between them, though it certainly looked like they were trying hard.

The editing was glaringly off at several points. Why is Wiig suddenly "separated from the team" before the climax -- when she sees the group again, they seem excited and exclaim "welcome back!". Where did she go? lol. I also didn't get how they found out about the villain's "device" which lured the ghosts in the first place (could've missed it, to be honest). Why did Times Square suddenly turn into the 1970s at the end? The villain exclaims "welcome to the past" -- but why? Plus the whole Hemsworth dance number was obviously excised and relegated to end credits fodder...maybe for good reason, but it still left a weird hole. The movie seemed to lack a rhythm as it moved along editorially.

The villain was a total dud -- an incredible waste of time -- and so was Andy Garcia's Mayor. And let's be honest: so were all the cameos. Bill Murray's sequence stopped the movie dead. And the last 30-40 minutes were dull and almost laughless, with Feig and everyone just adhering to the modern standard of endless special effects and a Theodore Shapiro score that, for me, was insanely overwrought with shouting chorus (the only time I even noticed it earlier was when he did an orchestral reprise of the Ray Parker [Huey Lewis] theme song). It had no restraint, and I'm glad it was orchestral, but it did nothing for me. A couple of the effects were clever, but most of them weren't, and they seemed to drag on forever.

Overall, for me it's about a 6.5/10. Maybe a 7. I did like its energy and it was definitely better than the trailers indicated, which did the movie no favors -- at all. I don't want to dump all over it, because it's certainly likable and fun -- at least for a while, before the bottom falls out of it. (And it's better than GHOSTBUSTERS II on balance...I think)

What will be interesting to see is how frontloaded the film is, and how it holds up over the weekend.

[DavidBanner]

Nothing I've seen in any of the reviews or reactions indicates that this is a movie I should spend more than two dollars on at any point. And the startling failure at the box office appears to confirm that.

I also must disagree with the notion of the original 1984 "Ghostbusters" being some kind of comedy landmark. It wasn't. It was a fun movie with a couple of SNL and Second City alumni paired with some heavy duty 1980s VFX and Sigourney Weaver. The original was not a classic for the ages, nor was it even the best movie of Ivan Reitman's questionable filmography. It was a fun movie to watch in summer 1984 with a bucket of popcorn and a Coke. Nothing more.

The new movie appears to be the latest attempt to find some instant gold nuggets in the notion of rebooting a high box-office performer from 30+ years ago, following the sadly failed attempts at Poltergeist, Robocop, Carrie, etc.

At this rate, Melissa McCarthy is well on the way toward rediscovering her love for television, as we'll see in her cameo appearance in the Gilmore Girls reunion. I wouldn't be surprised to see people saying that the "Gilmore Girls" appearance is her finest work on camera during 2016...

[AndyDursin]

We all know David is secretly itching to work on Melissa's next TV series. lol

This deal announced yesterday confirms we're at least a few years off from that happening.

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/melis ... #ifrndnloc