Now here is my review of ‘Ghostbusters’ 2016
1. The film looks great. The visuals get slightly generic towards the final act, but it doesn’t ruin the overall look of the film.
2. Humor doesn’t fall flat. Most of what was intended to be humorous, I found to be humorous. As I expected, McKinnon and Jones shined in the film. They were really the main draw for my anticipation after seeing the original trailer.
3. My biggest peeve was the writer giving respectable cameos to everyone except Mr. Murray. He was so pivotal to the original films, yet his character was not likable.
There really wasn’t even a point to having these cameos: the characters weren’t really involved in the story. I prefer Mr. Akaroyd’s original vision of the original members training the newer members.
4. Gender-based mockery: All except on ghost was male, and they pretty much spat in the face of the beloved Ghostbusters logo by having it turn out to be subversive. The original film didn’t need to put women down, or code dialogue to fit a “The Future is Female” rhetoric. But this film did just that.
And taking the time (as well as several scenes) to address the YouTube trailer controversy was pointless.
5. The overall tone of the film seemed to be focused on spite, spite for negative portrayals of females in film and television. Why use Ghostbusters to get back at previous instances of sexism in film? I do not know, you’d have to ask Pascal & Feige that question.
But those of us who grew up on the original know that it (the original franchise) wasn’t sexist toward females in any way. Hemsworth’s character “Kevin” was the dimwitted hunky guy who’s only hired for his looks.
Some say it’s just turning the tables on how females are portrayed but I don’t remember “Janine” being hired for her looks (as gorgeous as Ms. Potts is) in the original film. And she was far from dimwitted.
6. Why recreate scenes from the original, when you can simply write new and creative scenes? I don’t know, you’d have to ask the writer about that one. And all the Ghostbusters were female, why wasn’t the antagonist female as well?
7. Leslie Jones. Firstly, yes, she had some dialogue that was stereotypical of Blacks in Hollyweird. But for the most part her role was just fine, with only a few minuscule lines of typical “Token Black” characteristics.
She was an addition to the comedy in the film, I really can’t imagine having watched it without her. I will not go to the sequel (and there’d better be one) if she doesn’t return as “Patty”
As a lifelong fan of the original franchise (released on my first year birthday) I assumed I would at least enjoy this film, after seeing it I can honestly say that it was enjoyable. I mean they played Debarge, I wasn’t going to not-like it.
But my biggest problem with the film is the character given to Mr. Murray, other than that, with one point removed for Mr. Murray, and one point removed for the Feministic undertone I give it 7/10
In my egalitarian world you don’t need to mock men to respect women. And I think Mr. Akaroyd and Mr. Reitman’s vision of ‘Ghostbusters 3’ would’ve been nearly perfect.
Involving Cern, being an egalitarian centered cast, and respecting the original team? Now that would’ve been a dream come true. I just wish Pascal saw it that way.