Monday, June 2, 2025

Got a Tip?

Forget The Sexes: Gender Is The Least Of The New ‘Ghostbusters’ ‘ Concerns [Review]

Has any film in 2016 been as embattled with its own fans and faced an uglier pre-release narrative than Sony’s rebooted “Ghostbusters”? Directed by Paul Feig (“Bridesmaids,” “Spy”) and starring a bevy of our top comediennes as its protagonists, the modern update received an unreasonable amount of fanboy backlash from misogynists who couldn’t handle the thought of people with XX chromosomes wielding proton packs and ion cannons. And while this awful campaign threatened to overshadow the film’s release, gender, unfortunately, is the least of “Ghostbusters”’ concerns — not even the funniest actors on the planet could save what is an occasionally humorous but largely unremarkable rehash.

READ MORE: ‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens,’ The Legacy-Quel, And The Rising Danger Of Fan Service

To that end, fan service has quickly become the most dangerous threat to creativity in mainstream movies. Beholden to those whose childhoods could be ruined by wandering away from the familiar — see “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” “Jurassic World,” “Terminator Genisys” and more — reboots, remakes and prequels have hewed so closely to their antecedents, they’ve ceased to possess much of the élan that made their forebears so beloved by audiences.

ghostbusters_paramount_1.0.0And this is certainly the chief issue of the 2016 “Ghostbusters,” an unexceptional and even lazy update of a formula you’ve seen before. Comparisons to the original are unavoidable. And yes, it’s a reboot, but there’s a conspicuous absence of the charming oddball eccentricity that made the original film so endearing. Most of the characters are largely indistinguishable from the original archetypes. Kristen Wiig plays the skeptical Bill Murray character who has mostly given up on his paranormal-researcher profession; Melissa McCarthy is the never-stop-believin’ Dan Aykroyd prototype; Kate McKinnon performs the nerdy Harold Ramis role with a pronounced gearhead bent; and Leslie Jones portrays the urban, blue-collar outsider originally played by Ernie Hudson.

The main difference, and a semantical one really, is the movie’s antagonist, an embittered and alienated outcast (Neil Casey) radicalized enough to want to destroy the world by creating a new gateway for evil apparitions and demons. But his (rather irritating) character is nothing more than a delivery system to introduce ghosts for the Ghostbusters to battle.

ghostbusters-wigg-mccarthy-4-20160331-160709-1The plot, insofar as there is one, is by-the-book: A group of parapsychologists lose their university funding after discovering real spectral evidence and strike out on their own to make money, survive, and eventually save New York City while facing resistance from the doubtful powers that be. With the plot treated as an afterthought — you already know how this goes, the movie seems to suggest — the filmmakers and comedians are freed up to make jokes and riff on top of the original paranormal comedy template.

Feig’s version is more of a forum for four funny actresses, Wiig, McCarthy, Jones and McKinnon, to be amusing. And sure, lots of scenes are very funny on their own, even laugh-out-loud funny at times. But in the context of a larger movie that doesn’t even bother with the most basic narrative through line — the original at least had an underdog and New York-unity theme going for it — the laughs become increasingly hollow and fleeting.

Much of this failure stems not from the acting, but from the film’s director and co-writer. Feig’s direction appears to be: let the talented comediennes improvise as much as they want and stitch the core plot together afterward. And it’s not like the original “Ghostbusters” had much insight into the human condition, but it was idiosyncratic and funny, not to mention entertainingly offbeat, a charming little oddball of a film. As essentially a beat-for-beat remake of the original, 2016’s version of “Ghostbusters” literally has nothing to add, aside from new jokes, to a forgettable movie that never dares to take risks.

The 40 Most Anticipated Movies Of Summer 2016 10Sometimes the attempts at humor backfire too. The usually charismatic Kate McKinnon wins the anti-MVP award, an obnoxious stand-out who appears to be doing the equivalent of jazz-hands with her face during every scene. The film bludgeons you with the idea that the technobabble-spewing character is the kooky nerdbuster and her presence quickly becomes exasperating. Melissa McCarthy and the other actors fare better (as well as a scene-stealing Chris Hemsworth as a himbo), but the movie underserves its funny female leads with a disposable story that lacks the quirky irreverence and endearing weirdo-ness inherent in the “Ghostbusters” fabric.

The litany of fan service doesn’t help either. Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Sigourney Weaver, the bust of Harold Ramis, Ernie Hudson, Annie Potts, Slimer and more all show their faces in scenes that feel crafted for the canned-applause section of a sitcom when the beloved character finally shows up. And their appearances always grind whatever momentum there is to a halt while it luxuriates in its nostalgic but pointless cameos.

ghostbustersThere are plenty of other issues too. Musically, “Ghostbusters” is a non-starter and its new theme song by Fall Out Boy and Missy Elliott is akin to ear cancer. Visually, the cartoonishly bad green-screen VFX is closer to something you’d experience in the animated series. The too-serious action-packed third act possibly forgets the movie was a comedy first and foremost.

“Ghostbusters” is presumptuous to include a post-credit sequence even though it’s not especially deserving of one. Ultimately, if the original scrappy “Ghostbusters” represented the colorful bodegas and people of a graffiti-riddled 1980s New York, then 2016’s version represents the alarmingly homogenized Starbucks version of the Big Apple.

It’s a shame this mostly flavorless update will only fuel the sexist haters out there. Gender is irrelevant in this by-the-numbers but still uninspired redux. Bustin’ might have made us feel good in 1984, but this rather unimaginative update crosses its conventional streams one too many times for its own good. [C-]

About The Author

Related Articles

21 COMMENTS

  1. Disappointed you fell into the “misogynist man-babies” trap that other people have lazily fallen into. yes there is misogyny in the mix but it is unfair to the majority of people, who simply thought the trailers were terrible – people whose reasonable comments have been routinely deleted from the Youtube comment sections by Sony, in an apparent attempt to pretend that the only opposition comes from misogynistic manbabies, whose comments are magically untouched.

  2. The majority of people that were upset with this film weren’t sexist, they were movie fans of all types that thought it looked bad. You can spin the misogynist angle all you want, but that’s a small portion of the response here (an equivalent portion to those complaining about Daisy Ridley in The Force Awakens, which had great overall fan response). Either way, I’m glad you didn’t let that talking point taint your critical analysis of this film, which I’m afraid many other reviewers might have. Like The Force Awakens, we all wish this film were good… unfortunately it just might not be, and gender has nothing to do with that.

    • Perhaps it’s not wanting to sound too negative about this Ghostbusters, but there could also be those kneeling down in front of Paul Feig while his pants are still down. Sure, his last three films were solid comedies, but down the line, I’ve started to feel like they were unspectacular, outside of Statham in Spy who was epic. And no one is infallible. And I really dislike when some critics and bloggers treat some filmmakers that way.

      • I’m not entirely sure about your symbolism there, but you are right about some critics being too quick to ordain Feig as the king of comedy. Aside from Bridesmaids, which he had Judd Apatow producing on, he hasn’t done anything people would even consider calling ‘classic comedy.’ And yet today we have The New York Times saying Feig’s new Harold Ramis and claiming he’s revitalizing the American comedy for a new gender and generation… You know who all those comparisons and superlatives actually apply to? Judd Apatow. If you think Feig’s movies are funny that’s fine, but they’re certainly not revolutionary or even particularly inventive. If you want to champion him solely for working with female leads, that a fine accomodation, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with the quality of films he makes one way or another. Obviously I can’t comment on Ghostbusters yet because I haven’t seen it, but even if it’s as good as The Heat and Spy, that’s nothing really special.

    • “an equivalent portion to those complaining about Daisy Ridley in The Force Awakens, which had great overall fan response”

      Respectfully disagree. Feminist/SJW MarRey Sue.

  3. I’m just going to ignore any valid complaints you have for this for this movie, because clearly you’re just trying to cover for the fact that you’re a whiny man baby worried about women raping his childhood, just like anyone else who wanted to criticize this movie.

  4. This is by far the best review on Rotten Tomatoes – the only people that are giving it the two thumbs up didn’t live in NYC during the original – like a copy of the Mona Lisa done by Banksy

  5. “the modern update received an unreasonable amount of fanboy backlash from misogynists who couldn’t handle the thought of people with XX chromosomes wielding proton packs and ion cannons.”

    This is an outright lie. I find that this narrative is pushed so successfully in reviews like this to be creepy. I have literally not found one sexist or misogynist complaints against the film online. I’ve also never seen someone say it “ruined their childhood.” Never. And if the author claims it happened, they’re lying. The actual complaints are perfectly justified: tired of reboots, trailer was poor, scenes look rehashed, special effects look weak. You acknowledge ALL of these points in your review. Every single one. Show stop insulting your readership with your ridiculous sexist narrative, Communications Grad.

    • The “misogynist” accusation is very exaggerated, but not a complete lie. You have to be blind if you can’t see some of the misogynistic crap being thrown around in the Youtube comment section of the original trailer. I’ve been watching those comments for a long time and have seen plenty of nasty sexist turds being flung around. And I have seen the “ruined my childhood” idiocy as well. However, those morons are in the considerable minority. The large majority simply disliked the trailer because, well, it sucked. If that’s the best Sony had to entice people into theaters then the reasonable conclusion is that the movie’s gotta really suck too. And so people made the correspondingly negative reviews of the trailer. Unfortunately, the more reasonable the comment, the more chance it had of being vanished by Sony. Which is a dick move by a desperate company trying to paint all critics as misogynists. I hope this movie tanks, not because of sexism, but because Sony – and Feig – are playing dirty pool by falsely accusing the majority of people who didn’t like the trailer of being misogynistic manbabies, and rigging the trailer’s comment section to make their accusations magically come true.

  6. 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 and it simply didn’t look particularly good. As soon as we said that, we were shouted down as misogynists. 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 “himbo” eye candy. Where I take umbrage is 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”. Even if Murray hadn’t bothered participating, imagine having Akyroid and Hudson “discovering” two of the main characters and then allowing those two characters to find the other two and grow from there. 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 the new film in the same continuity. But no. It’s just a cash grab remake and, frankly, 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 repackage an old movie with a gender-bend and try to pass it off as new and interesting.

  7. “the modern update received an unreasonable amount of fanboy backlash from misogynists who couldn’t handle the thought of people with XX chromosomes wielding proton packs and ion cannons.”

    Did your wife tell you to type that? Your boss so you’d get paid?

    To ignore women being stuck in male roles in this feminist/SJW fuckery political climate is the same as putting your fingers in your ears going lalalalalalalalala.

    How unaware can people be?

  8. I think after releasing the first trailer Sony realized that the fans of the original Ghostbusters were going to hate it so they used the misogynist angle to try and convince women and feminists to go see the movie. Man did they eat it up and totally clueless to the fact that they are being manipulated and used.

  9. Even though you bought wholesale into the whole misogyny lie like so many other mindless SJWs who are unable to think for themselves, I’ll give you credit for at least being honest in your criticism of the movie itself, unlike many of your biased brethren whose obsession with political agenda has eliminated their integrity.

  10. Gender always has been irrelevant in this film. The majority of the critiques and preoccupations of the people was mostly in all the points this review focus. For some reason this movie became a gender fight which was a minority in reality. Sony deleted constructive comments from its trailers and they left the sexist ones. They deleted at least 3 of mine that pointed out my worries of this film failing in the parts this reviewer pointed out.

    At least this was an objective review and wasn’t one of those praising the movie just for being lead by women.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

- Advertisement -spot_img
Stay Connected
0FansLike
19,300FollowersFollow
7,169FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe

Latest Articles