Why? Just…why?
That was the prevalent question running through my head as I watched the Ghostbusters remake/reboot/retread. Why would anyone think this was a good idea? Why bother to remake a beloved comedy classic at all? Why am I sitting here watching this?
Okay, so that last one isn’t entirely true. Ghostbusters (2016) is never bad enough to make you hate yourself for watching it. It features some solid laughs and moments of genuine fun. The issue is those moments aren’t frequent enough and the majority of the film is dull and uninspired. It squanders a talented cast with jokes that rarely hit the mark and a far-too-familiar plot that leans so heavily on the original Ghostbusters, it never manages to find a life of its own.
So, what went wrong?
It all boils down to a lackluster screenplay. Paul Feig, who both co-wrote the remake with Katie Dippold and directed it, always insisted his version was supposed to stand on its own two feet. The final product, however, does nothing to back that statement up. Whether it’s the plot, the theme song, shameless cameos, familiar characters, etc., etc., Ghostbusters (2016) is slavishly devoted to reminding us of the 1984 classic. The most original thing Feig has to offer is the gender swapping of the original cast, a superficial change at best, which does little to hide this film’s lack of originality.
And what of the new cast? On their own terms, Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones can be genuinely hilarious. In the service of such a shoddy screenplay, however, they flounder.
The success of the original Ghostbusters was largely due to its lovable characters. Bill Murray’s Peter Venkman was the sarcastic, seen-it-all-before wise ass. His dry reactions made it easier for the audience to digest the film’s more fantastical elements. Dan Aykroyd was the passionate believer; Harold Ramis was the socially awkward, scientific genius; Ernie Hudson was the blue-collar everyday Joe there to get a steady paycheck.
Ghostbusters (2016) has no characters.
The actors are there to spew improvised punchlines and make funny noises. I have a feeling Feig gave them free reign to improvise and do whatever they wanted to make up for the screenplay’s shortcomings. Unfortunately, this results in characterizations that are scatterbrained and inconsistent. Wiig resorts to her awkward, stuttering brand of humor. She seems confused and baffled by everything going on and her jittery improvisational style clashes with the notion that she’s supposed to be an intelligent scientist with any level of interest in the paranormal. McCarthy’s general shtick is, thankfully, subdued, but she can’t resist jumping out of character from time to time to make some ill-fated quip. McKinnon, easily one of the funniest people on this planet and the strongest member of the current Saturday Night Live line-up, might be the worst offender. At every opportunity, she can’t resist mugging for the camera. She makes silly noises at inappropriate moments because JOKES and acts generally bizarre throughout with no motivation. Leslie Jones is the only member of the cast who manages to feel like an actual person. Her sense of humor is character-driven and she does her utmost to make it work, despite everything working against her. I genuinely loved her because I cared about her. It’s a shame the rest of the cast couldn’t keep up, though they aren’t the real problem here. If Feig had put even a modicum of effort into developing actual characters instead of joke machines, Ghostbusters (2016) would have benefited greatly.
Now, the film isn’t an entire loss. Its first half is surprisingly fun at times and managed to keep me relatively engaged. I liked watching the team come together and develop their gadgetry, and the chemistry between the cast members is strong, even if the characters themselves aren’t. But whatever goodwill is mustered by its first half gives way to a contrived second half, which devotes all its attention to a generic ‘World Domination’ plotline and a forgettable villain. All feeble attempts at characterization are hastily abandoned in favor of a flashy, effects-driven climax, which is both empty and baffling. Without any justification or build-up, the Ghostbusters are suddenly ass-kicking action heroes, flipping and blasting and making painfully unfunny quips. All the flashing lights and loud music couldn’t keep me engaged for one solitary second, and by the time this sequence has come to an end, I couldn’t help wondering what the hell was at stake in the first place.
Ghostbusters (2016) is not the disaster it could have been, but it certainly isn’t anything close to a success. Almost beat for beat, it’s the same movie you already know and love, just not nearly as funny or inspired. It’s a shame the filmmakers assembled such a talented group of gals to lead the way for a new generation of ghost-busting and saddled them with this nonsense. If Sony had devoted more time to the creative side of the process, and less to jump-starting a new franchise, Ghostbusters (2016) might have worked. As is, it’s nothing more than a shameless attempt to bank off the success of a beloved classic.
FINAL RATING: 2/5
