Film Review: ‘Ghostbusters’

'Ghostbusters' Review: Paul Feig Remake Is

Paul Feig's female-driven relaunch of Sony's paranormal comedy franchise spends far too much energy channeling the original to establish its own identity.

All reboots are haunted by the specter of the movie that inspired them, but Sony’s new gender-swapped “Ghostbusters” — which substitutes comediennes Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones for the previously all-male paranormal exterminator squad — suffers from a disappointingly strong case of déjà vu. While both funnier and scarier than Ivan Reitman’s 1984 original, this otherwise over-familiar remake from “Bridesmaids” director Paul Feig doesn’t do nearly enough to innovate on what has come before, even going so far as to conjure most of the earlier film’s cast (including Slimer and the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man) in cameos that undercut the new film’s chemistry.

For Feig, who has carved out his niche in the comedy sphere by helming such distaff-led laffers as “The Heat” and “Spy,” this property offers a unique opportunity to test how a major Hollywood franchise might fare if entrusted to a female-driven ensemble — although it would be wrong to blame this side-splitting quartet for the film’s likely underwhelming box office performance. The problem isn’t that Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, and Ernie Hudson created characters too iconic to surpass; the fault lies in the fact that this new “Ghostbusters” doesn’t want us to forget them, crafting its new team in the earlier team’s shadow.

McCarthy is amusing as always, but veers dangerously close to repeating her same old shtick, while Wiig is a poor substitute for Murray’s horndog Dr. Peter Venkman, playing a brainiac incapable of maintaining a respectful professional relationship with members of the opposite sex. (It’s one of the movie’s more inspired gags to flip the sexual harassment in the other direction, offering up “Thor” hunk Chris Hemsworth as the group’s straight man, an assistant too dumb to realize he’s being objectified.) And yet the one-line idea that made the original such a success —  a comedy team fights ghosts — is so rich that surely Feig and co-writer Katie Dippold could have taken the franchise in a totally new direction.

Related

Ghostbusters 3

‘Ghostbusters’ Marketing Challenges: How Sony Is Selling All-Female Reboot

Instead, channeling the earlier film at every opportunity, “Ghostbusters” opens with an effects-driven phantom menace before introducing audiences to three scientists who’ve jeopardized their academic careers by believing in the paranormal. Like Venkman before her, Wiig’s tenure-track Erin Gilbert is the resident skeptic, while McCarthy and McKinnon — as labmates Abby Yates and Jillian Holtzmann — look and sound like loonies, setting out to prove that ghosts really do exist. Once kicked out of their respective institutions, the trio have no choice but to go into business for themselves, adopting roughly the same costumes, logo, and Ecto Mobile (a converted hearse) that their male counterparts did in the original, while spending far more time than that earlier film did explaining each of these choices.

At first, the funny ladies’ mission is simply to be taken seriously, as they investigate every ghost sighting in the newly hyper-haunted New York City area, including one from an MTA subway worker named Patty, played by Jones, who inexplicably decides to quit her job in favor of facing her biggest fear. Though Jones gets some of the film’s most memorable lines, her character channels a shameful racial stereotype — one that traces back to the days of blackface when it amused audiences to see African-American characters spook easily, bugging their eyes and running for their lives whenever confronted with a ghost — except that the ghosts here really are frightening (especially in 3D screenings of the film), when they literally appear to leap off the screen, projecting ectoplasm past the confines of the widescreen frame.

Turns out there’s a reason that business is booming for the Ghostbusters. In a cartoonishly feeble-minded plot twist that suggests Feig might be better suited to be directing the new “Scooby-Doo” reboot, a disgruntled white guy (Neil Casey), has been inviting noxious visitors from the spirit world to cross over for his own nefarious purposes. Once the ladies manage to track this sad sack down, the movie grinds to a halt as the heavily armed group of scientists (whose arsenal has gotten a major upgrade since the earlier film) try to talk him out of destroying the world. That’s pretty much the point where “Ghostbusters” stops being funny enough to sway the haters who’ve become such a vocal presence online — a phenomenon the film actually goes out of its way to acknowledge, as McCarthy dismisses such sexist comments as, “Ain’t no bitches gonna hunt no ghosts,” that appear beneath the group’s YouTube videos.

Related

‘Ghostbusters’: Past and Present Stars Celebrate World Premiere

Whereas Feig has previously managed to cross genre streams successfully (building up to exciting spy- and cop-movie set pieces in his earlier comedy hybrids), here he succumbs to the familiar curse of the digital-effects era: When there’s almost nothing the computer can’t conjure, it falls to the director to know when to stop. The film’s unwieldy finale begins with an amusing possession gag, as the spirit villain inhabits first McCarthy’s and then Hemsworth’s body, but then it quickly spirals out of control as a flood of computer-generated ghosts cross over and start wreaking havoc around Gotham’s Mercado Hotel — a melee reminiscent of Robert Schwentke’s similarly unwieldy high-concept bomb, “R.I.P.D.”

In an unnecessary nod to fans, Feig resurrects nearly every actor or entity from the 32-year-old original — except for Ramis, who died last year, and the all-but-retired Rick Moranis — while leaving little room for memorable new spirits (stay through the end credits to hear even Zuul’s name invoked). Those that do appear make little sense, including a winged dragon creature that crashes a heavy metal concert, and a Godzilla-scale anthropomorphic version of the animated series logo. In any number of strange ways (from McKinnon’s Egon-esque blonde coif, to the too-dominant role of uglier-than-ever ghoul Slimer), 1986’s “The Real Ghostbusters” cartoon appears to have had every bit as much an influence on the team as the live-action original did. That’s enough to make one nervous for all the ways Sony intends to exploit the franchise in the future — which could be moot, considering the write-down they’re likely to take on this reboot.

Film Review: 'Ghostbusters'

Reviewed at the Grove, Los Angeles, July 7, 2016. MPAA Rating: PG-13. Running time: 117 MIN.

Production

A Sony Pictures Entertainment release of a Columbia Pictures presentation, in association with Village Roadshow Pictures, of an Ivan Reitman production. Produced by Reitman, Amy Pascal. Executive producers, Paul Feig, Jessie Henderson, Dan Aykroyd, Tom Pollock, Joe Medjuck, Ali Bell, Michele Imperato Stabile.

Crew

Directed by Paul Feig. Screenplay, Katie Dippold, Feig, based on the 1984 film written by Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis. Camera (color, 3D), Robert Yeoman; editors, Brent White, Melissa Bretherton; music, Theodore Shapiro; music supervision, Erica Weis; production designer, Jefferson Sage; art directors, Beat Frutiger, Lorin Flemming, Iain McFadyen, Brad Rubin, Audra Avery; set decorator, Leslie Pope; costume designer, Jeffrey Kurland; sound (Dolby Digital), Mark Hawker; sound designers, Karen Triest, Michael Payne, Tony Lamberti; supervising sound editors, Andrew DeCristofaro, Becky Sullivan; re-recording mixers, Mark Paterson, Beau Borders; visual effects supervisor, Peter G. Travers; visual effects producer, Sean Santiago; visual effects, Sony Pictures Imageworks, MPC, Zero VFX, Furious FX, Legend FX, Instinctual; stereoscopic supervisor, Ed W. Marsh; associate producers, Alex Plapinger, James Paul, Eric Reich; assistant director, Artist W. Robinson; casting, Allison Jones.

With

Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Leslie Jones, Kate McKinnon, Charles Dance, Michael Kenneth Williams, Chris Hemsworth, Neil Casey, Cecily Strong, Matt Walsh, Ed Begley Jr., Andy Garcia, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, Annie Potts, Sigourney Weaver.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 104

Leave a Reply

104 Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Steve Normal says:

    Wowzers. I just watched the blu-ray of this movie, even after 10 minutes (when she sees her book on Amazon) I started to get that sinking feeling. Seriously, do they actually read these scripts before they make them?

    Well, now my opinion matters. Back to my job at Fed Ex! I mean Sony! I mean uuuuhhhhhh….. October Films!

    • George Ebersole says:

      Let’s see your stinking script, pal. Someone obviously read it otherwise it would not have gotten produced.

  2. Jonathan Lindsey says:

    GOOD! it flopped in the US and around the world.

    with the GB remake (not reboot mind you as there is no such thing as a reboot) being a big flop, Sometimes it’s better to kill something than to let it suffer and should leave well enough alone. Ghostbusters by now is like a wounded half-dead soldier who got shot in a war and is dying begging to be killed and has been for the last 20 years because the only good thing that came out in that time frame for the Franchise was the 2009 video game and the comics/graphic novels.

    Everything else? Extreme Ghostbusters was ok, All the other video games are horrendous. No movies came out. Nothing else good came out.This unfunny, juvenile, poorly written, poorly paced, sexist (extreme man-hating), stereotypical and braindead piece of junk remake (not a reboot, no such thing as reboot) that is a disgrace to the originals that breaks the rules and stuff and is a soulless cash-grab without a smart well written script like the original movie which had a brilliant intelligent script, this movie’s script goes for lowest common denominator writing and poor pacing. I’m glad it flopped as it’s time for Hollywood not to mess with some things of the past as it’s not the 80’s anymore and let them stay in the past only to be cherished/loved by generations an stick new fresh IPs like John Wick Marvel Studios, Bourne and so on. Jud in Pet Sematary did said “Sometimes dead is better!” and sometimes let sleeping dogs lie.

    Hollywood needs to focus on making good films and new franchises, not digging up old faves and desperately mangling the corpses into some focus-group poorly written approved abortion of a remake. This franchise also died with Harold Ramis.

    In other words, stop milking a dead cow and move on is that is the message of this poorly made written remake

  3. Super Fly Frye says:

    What a fat load of insipid malarky. It was an absolutely wonderful tribute and a stand alone jewel. If only all remakes could be that well done. I’m a solid Gen Xer and liked the first one, and like this one just as well.

  4. George says:

    You understand that comments are moderated. And if you skid too far into physical threats, then your IP will be traced, contacted, and then you might get a visit from the police. This is a private forum made for the public, and specifically for industry personnel.

    So what exactly do you do in the film industry? Because whether you’re a PA,grip or a friend of craft services, if your real name gets out, my guess is that no will hire you.

    • M-Wolverine says:

      You do realize the comment that you got deleted was an analogy, not a threat to do so, right? It was a pretty good one showing how dumb it is to make a movie that’s offensive to a big part of the audience you want to come see you move and then be shocked they don’t want to come see your movie.

      So you’ve posted on an almost month old article 8 times which would make one think you have something to do with the movie. What do YOU do in the film industry? I mean, the whole “what do you do in the industry if you’re going to comment is an appeal to authority logical fallacy, but if you’re going to do it you can’t ask someone else’s credentials without giving your own first. Otherwise why should anyone believe what you have to say? And if someone else should risk their career for their comments then you should be prepared to do the same. So let us know.

  5. BG76 says:

    Just watched it and I have to say I was in 76′ and love the original film but these days I think the 84 version has somewhat dated over time. Why is everyone saying this remake is poor or not as good? I am 40 years old now and I thoroughly enjoyed this remake! It was a comedy what had actual laughter whereas the original was just nitty gritty and relied on the wow factor! Being Ghostbusters in 1984 meant CGI was crap and everyone loved seeing new tech and ways to show us things. I disagree with all you boring farts out there and say that the 2016 remake is a worthwhile one!

    The fact it has the original actors as cameos to me says that they must have enjoyed being back on set and just glad that they were asked to star in one of the films that made most of them a major hit in the 80’s!

    This remake is a lot better than Ghostbusters 2 that’s for sure! The only thing I thought was a bit cheesy (or stupid) was the final ghost that they hunted, I sat here thinking Casper as stated in the film. But for a family night out you cannot go wrong! If you want to go home happy with laughter see Ghostbusters, if you want to go home with testosterone see Star Trek!

  6. Scott Malcomson says:

    “too much energy channeling the original to establish its own identity”

    This was one of the first criticisms of the original trailer. In fact, it’s one of the criticisms that was declared “code for misogyny”, because critics of the critics believed no one could make that call without having seen the film. This, despite the beat-for-beat moments shown in the trailer.

    So can we FINALLY put this “everyone just hates it because they hate women” garbage in the dumpster where it belongs?

    • George says:

      I have to nod with Variety’s review by Peter Debruge, the film did seem like a retread in many ways, but I wouldn’t chalk that up to any social agenda. I think it was just SONY wanting to keep some product stability, probably thinking that their target audience would like the familiarity of the story and setting. I don’t think they expected the noticeable backlash that this film has created.

  7. Cindi says:

    I think it is not a good concept it is just a reversal of gender roles it would have been better if one of the woman was a daughter of one of the originals what would have been better than a child carrying on her beloved daddy’s work

  8. Murray B says:

    This is not the sequel I wanted to see! What I wanted was a film as good as the first one made with all the original cast at the age they were back then. How hard could it be? All they need to do is fit a flux capacitor to to Delorean and attach a Mr. Fusion power generator then send the car back to 1984 and pick up the actors. That would be easy or they could also use a chronoton particle generator and a transporter to beam the actors from the past directly on to the set. Until then we will have to make do with a bunch of talented women busting up the ghosts. Who you gonna call…now?

  9. Is the 2016 reboot better than the 1984 original? No. I think the original is slightly better. However, I feel that the 2016 movie is better than the 1989 remake.

    Question . . . does one has to be a scientist in order to be regarded as intelligent? Because I am a history buff, like the Leslie Jones character and I find it offensive that anyone who is not a scientist – even if he or she is proficient in another area – is considered less than intelligent.

  10. Someone who went to art school says:

    Funnier and scarier? Where you paid under the table? My children won’t watch the original past the library ghost who turns into a demon. The reboot is poorly written, forced acting, unfunny gags like the wonton soup beat to death. Cheap jump scares and crappy video game ghosts that are literally forgettable except for the standard slimer and stay puff. I really blame the writing. The male acts like a bimbo, and the movie comes off a tad sexist. Nothing like the first 2 that were better made and better written. This movie is really not good. You are reminded every time a cameo happens and it makes you wish you were watching one of the originals. the girl spin was supposed to make the movie cool and subversive but some how this is a strait dud. The writer of this film is exposed as either choking or needs to find a job they are good at.

    • George says:

      How is the acting forced? That sounds like an empty criticism written for the sake of it because you don’t care for the film.

  11. shaun says:

    it was so bad, felt like most of it was added after the backlash just to upset the original fans even more, i dont remember fart jokes being a constant of the original films…. and continuity on how the ghosts and equipment all work was kept… but not in the new movie, so sad

  12. indianahomez says:

    “Who you gonna call?”

    It is too far beyond belief… that ANYONE would call four women in such a situation… in fact… any situation… remotely associated with an emergency.

    Just the truth folks

  13. indianahomez says:

    Personal Rule #1: Never see a movie with more than one woman on the movie poster; unless, she’s a ‘ninja chick’ or something like that.

    Ghostbusters: FAIL!

    Follow this rule, it may save your life one day.

  14. Kyle Cashman says:

    Well, while I’m eating crow over my criticism on the film before it was released, you are spouting nonsense simply because you’re a upset fan boy. I’m a fan boy as well, but I can at least recognize when I’m wrong and enjoy a truly funny and engaging film.

  15. Jack says:

    “Funnier and scarier”
    Your opinion tells me everything I need to know about your cluelessness. Dismissed.

  16. Bob Cratchit says:

    The original cast of the original gritty film were never IN on the joke, thats the whole point! The new one is like a cheap SNL parody crossed over with a Scooby Doo live action sequel. Forget the other issues with script and plot, this film failed on conception. You need to make the audience feel like they are getting something quality for their buck not make them feel like they are getting ripped off for something they will be castigated for if they protest and refuse to pay for. Hollywood at its worst. How about make a piece of art you can sell like the original rather than a badly orchestrated toy advert everybody hates. Epic, and I mean EPIC, fail.

  17. Dave says:

    “Funnier and scarier than the original”
    At this point any credibility this review has died faster than the attempt at a plot in this movie.

  18. Carson Oglesbee says:

    “Funnier and scarier than the original” wat

  19. samantha says:

    it was disappointing. it’s scarier i missed the cuteness. needed more 3d to the side instead of to my head the whole time.
    the black lady was the funniest. it had too much plotline and the fight scenes went on for too long when doesn’t it? it just copied the script of the 1st one it just missed what’s the word orginality.
    each scene was dragged out.
    they could have used chris hemsworth more, he could have been possessed by more accents. maybe the mayor could have been the bad guy cutting out one of the plotlines.
    conspiracy say hollywood is just a way of dumping drug money: the truth is in the real.

  20. Pierre Savoie says:

    The likelihood of people becoming professionals in a STEM field even as nebulous as paranormal ectoplasm all turning out WOMEN is very slim. This movie celebrates the politics of gender replacement TOO MUCH! Let’s take a pass on this turkey and hope for a more EQUITABLE future.

    • George says:

      I really didn’t get that. I think that may have been the director’s and producer’s aim, but to me it was just a case of “what if they were women…” kind of thing. I never picked up any anti-male or pro-women kind of vibe. It was just a gender-swap kind of thing. I thought it worked, but agree that it did mirror the original one a bit too much, and I’m guessing did so for the sake of playing it safe. A bad move, in my opinion.

    • therealeverton says:

      WOW. Not sure where to begin. One the idea that you can’t see 3 female scientists, 3 friends working together, or that with everything else in Ghostbusters, you have to abandon suspension of disbelief at the idea that it’s 3 women in 2016 doing the science.

      It’s a good film, simple as that. Fun, good entertainment and everything else is just noise.

  21. Idea Monkey says:

    I was talking with Harold Ramis last night, via my ouija board. He asked me to tell everybody involved with the making of this movie to go F themselves! I concur!!

  22. Titus Pullo says:

    kinda ironic that the new ghostbusters idea of female empowerment means every male in the film is either boarderline retarded or evil. Then to throw in the bit where mellissa mccarthy shoots the evil white man in the penis? really?
    And somehow men are haters/sexist or trolls if they don’t go see this movie

    • George says:

      I guess maybe that didn’t register with me, and I can be fairly thin skinned too, but the only real “anti male” moment that I picked up on the dean at the school who was played like an overpowering jerk who wasn’t qualified. I think the film might have been better served with one or two more cranky or objectionable women as obstacles.

  23. “Disgruntled white guy”? very confused by this description of the character

  24. scut says:

    Let’s call the movie funnier and scarier than the original but also give it a 5/10

    Yup.

    Very convincing.

  25. Ben Arrowood says:

    If you have read the leaked emails from the November 2014 Sony hack, you will find out that the real reason that the remaining original cast members appeared in this crappy reboot is because the Sony executive overseeing the production, Amy Pascal, threatened to sue them. Plus, Amy Pascal might be on thin ice at Sony after overseeing 3 big flops-Amazing Spider-Man, Amazing Spider-Man 2, and the Fantastic 4 reboot. If the Ghostbusters reboot flops, then Sony might be showing Amy Pascal the door.

    • Suikodudeman says:

      Three things you need to be informed about: 1) Fant4stic was done by Fox, NOT Sony, so their flop doesn’t count in this respect.
      2) Amazing Spider-Man was a good movie that made big money for a reboot (not the mega-moolah of the original Sam Raimi flick, but good enough to justify more sequels), but you are right that AS-M2 WAS a flop which tanked further solely-Sony made Spider-Man flicks and why it is now being handled by Marvel Studios (with Sony having final say in how it goes, but seeing as they know that Marvel knows how to make the money, they won’t argue).
      3) Amy Pascal already is out the door… she WAS the President of Sony’s American Movie division (as well as a producer of Ghostbusters 2016), but now she is just a producer of this and doesn’t work at all for Sony anymore because the board of directors fired her over the disparaging racist remarks she made about Obama in those leaked emails.

  26. Brian Landon says:

    McCarthy starts playing the same person in every movie she’s in. Terrible actress.

    And they do spend a lot of time wasting time. Lots of gag lines, and little substance. Wait til it comes to Netflix and save your money.

  27. Jackball Johnson says:

    The only thing “funnier than the original” will be the box office receipts. Sony won’t be laughing all the way to the bank. Numbers don’t lie, but apparently if I have an opinion about the film, I’m a misogynist. That’s fair. Think I will smoke a fat J and order the less funnier original version on demand. Who you gonna call?

  28. Jermaine says:

    I love how the reviewer states “a disgruntled white guy”…racist much?? If he were black would you say “a disgruntled black guy”??? Didn’t think so.

  29. Lance Smith says:

    They lost me when they decided to go down the typical proton-pack-to-the-crotch shot to kill the villain at the end. Such blatant sexism (sexual assault) doesn’t belong in a movie in 2016.

    Couple that with the fact that it seems they completely wasted the talent of their cast, it sounds like this movie is one I’ll probably skip: whether in the theater or online.

    I was never all that bothered by them going this all-female route (though I would think that women would be getting annoyed with the fact that it seems Hollywood only wants to take a chance on all female casts when they already have a winning , all/mostly-male franchise ….. can’t they be more creative/innovative?). But I really don’t appreciate the blatant sexism which would never be acceptable if the genders were reversed… can you imagine a comedy where the main, male characters kill the female super villain by shooting her in the crotch? Yeah, me neither.

    So I’m good skipping it.

  30. Mitch_T says:

    Vomit me out some more crap Hollybored.

  31. Steve Bennet says:

    Not going to see this crap movie.

  32. markbegelman says:

    I am VERY FRUSTRATED. This movie was HORRIBLE. I went due to reviews on this site, now after reading REDDIT…..it appears there are FAKE reviews on Youtube, and here to get people to go to the movie. Latest case on Youtube is a PAID Youtuber by Feig to give the movie a good review. Really? Then if you look on IMDB it has not been shown in the UK but TWO people form the UK have given it 10 STARS………….how is that possible??? Further proof. I saw this movie and it is nothing but male bashing, geared toward women that hate men and this garbage movie is not funny. Read the reviews on IMDB and avoid the reviews form the paid scammers form the UK, wait for this movie to come out on cable and watch it free or wait for PBS or Netflix. This movie is a WASTE of money.

  33. Steve Spewock says:

    Disclosure: I am a big Paul Feig fan–love his bend, stories, style, and product! Really enjoyed working on his film “The Heat”, previously shot here in New England! When “Ghostbusters” re-boot production came to town last Summer of 2015, there was immense anticipation and excitement… that seemed to wane during shooting. Although many of the scenes were well-staged and executed, they weren’t necessarily all that funny, seemingly becoming one long run-on of jokes and quips… After a week on set, it became apparent that the real movie magic would have to be captured in the Editing Room, as many veterans on set were shaking their heads, not able to see the forrest for the trees…

    A year later–leading up to this Summer’s release–a lot has been said on both sides of the aisle, and from the balcony: It’s great! It’s not great! Do more reboots! Why ruin the original?… In the end, ticket sales will ultimately judge whether it was successful, or not, and/or whether more reboots should be attempted, or not. In the end, movie-making is a big business with big risk/reward, with most studios usual only evaluating the bottom line gross/net/profit numbers…

    Personally, I’m sure there will be funny parts, and I hope the movie does well. But I also hope that Hollywood spends more time and effort discovering material that has more creative and interesting story for the sake of creative and interesting story. That’s what really matters when the lights go down and the film rolls…

  34. James Ridge says:

    Industry trades agree: Industry turning out great movies and not financially nose-diving!

  35. Maaxwell says:

    Funnier than the original? Peter Debruge, you are certifiable.

  36. Dear Hollywood et al;

    No one wanted to see this movie from the get go
    Forget about reboots they suck *stop*!!!!

  37. V. Reynauld says:

    Many of us called this from the start: It’s little more than Paul Feig taking a classic movie and trying to turn it into a gender-swapped version of itself. I have *zero* problems with an all female cast, hell I don’t even have a problem with the idea of a dumb-as-rocks male secretary as eye candy. No, I take umbrage with the idea of completely rebooting the franchise and basically copying most of the original elements in order to pass it off as something new.

    It’s been 32 years since the first movie, there’s no reason these four couldn’t have been hand-picked successors of the original group who would be “retired”. That would have given the writers license to craft something new that fit the strengths of the four comediennes without being hampered by the long shadow of the old franchise by simply placing this as a continuity of the same franchise. But no. It’s just a cash grab redux and, like others, I hope it bombs. Hard. Not because it’s women but because I’m tired of Hollywood being so creatively bankrupt that all they can do is gender-swap old movies and try to pass them off as somehow new and interesting.

  38. not mine, but worth repeating
    -original problematic toxic patriarchal Ghostbusters: the black man is an everyman whose race is never played for jokes or singled out, and speaks like an adult.

    -new and improved feminist Ghostbusters: the black woman is a street smart caricature running around screaming “AWWWWWWW HELL NAW! I AIN’T GON’ GO AND BE AFRAID OF SOME GHOST!”

  39. David says:

    This reviewer doesn’t know s@# t about Ghostbusters the original.

  40. Sebastian says:

    I hope this movie bombs. I mean, really catastrophically nosedives. Most of the marketing for this film has been ‘if you don’t like this, you’re a sexist pig’. (Paid for) Articles slamming ‘gynephobic trolls’ are in abundance. Not only is this a childish approach, it takes serious social issues and uses them as a cheap ploy.
    There has never been a movie everyone liked, and never will be. People are different. Making it into some sort of brave stand against ‘haters’ leads to a loaded situation, like the classic bait question ‘when did you stop beating your wife?’ It sweeps aside any other criticism – the CGI, the writing, the character development, anything at all – and posits that the only possible reason someone could dislike it is due to hating women. What does that say about the movie, if the studio and creatives thought this was the hill to die on?
    And to cap it all off, they have the cast reading mean comments and ad libbing off them? Congratulations, you’re handing out gold medals to the people who wrote those comments. That’s what trolling is – trying to get a reaction / a rise out of someone. In this case, the trolls have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
    This movie deserves to fail, in every way.

  41. Andrew Masset says:

    C’mon Hollywood…Go for new material..This old stuff is just that old…

  42. Jon says:

    What i dont get is if this movie is funnier and scarier than the original, then why didnt they include any of the funny jokes or scary ghosts in the trailers? This movie has flop writen all over it.

    • styrgwillidar says:

      I can’t really answer your question. I saw a fan made version of the trailer that was far better. But it avoided the verbal exposition explaining which each character was of the studio version which slowed the trailer down (we already know who the characters are….) and went with more action.

      I agree with the other poster though that a sequel with folks tied to the original (daughters/protégés) would have been better received. Old team discredited as paranormal activity dropped to normal level, so now viewed as scam artists. Serious scientist embarrassed by Dad’s history comes into a situation where paranormal is only explanation (or Dad comes to them, Akroyd would have been great at this– insisting it’s on the rise on some bizarre theory with end of world implications is the reason). Could even be he and Murray’s character run into trouble and need to be rescued (Imagine Murray trapped in a demonic realm–)

  43. BillUSA says:

    Funnier and scarier? I’ll tell ya, Variety loses a little bit of credibility each day.

  44. John says:

    Really this movie is funnier and scarier than the 1984 Ivan Reitman’s original? Really? This reviewer does not know a DAMN THING about Ghostbusters lol I call this reviewer SUSPECT and BULLISH!

  45. This reviewers opinion is highly suspect right out the gate when this statement is made, “While both funnier and scarier than Ivan Reitman’s 1984 original”……

    I’ll let others read into that whatever they wish…

  46. FZ says:

    I saw the preview, which was more than enough: 4 unfunny dykes trying to reboot a classic – and failing miserably. LAME, LAME, LAME. Don’t waste a penny on it.

  47. EricJ says:

    “A Godzilla-scale anthropomorphic version of the animated series logo”

    Having not seen the movie, and as it’s rather hard to tell from the trailers, er, are we sure that’s not the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man, showing up for no immediately apparent reason than to pimp more 80’s fan-love for the original?
    Just want to be sure I’m asking the experts. (If it is the logo, that’s…just sad.)

  48. Chris Darling says:

    Hmmmm. Twenty-six guys snarking on a film starring four women. Typical.

  49. Alex says:

    2016, the year of the duds. I can’t wait for the reviews of the next “STAR TREK”….or can I?

  50. Michael says:

    The reviewer is right, cartoony CGI ghosts and a rap/rock fusion theme song IS scarier than the original!

More Film News from Variety

Loading