It's apparently not popular to like this movie. Weirdly if you look at Rotten Tomatoes, audiences disliked it more than critics, which never seems to happen in summer blockbusters or comedies. But even critics only gave it a 78% (as of this writing), which is really really weird to me since personally I'd sell it with a solid "I can't think of a single thing they didn't do completely right."
So here's me, giving Ghostbusters 100%, along with signing off that this is my favorite production to carry any part of the Ghostbusters IP. I am nothing if not unpopular.
Apparently.
Anywho, the movie is fantastic. Easily one of my favorites so far this year. Usually those spots are taken up by superhero movies, and while I might have a hard time saying whether I liked X-Men: Apocalypse or Ghostbusters more, I have no problem saying that I liked Ghostbusters quite a bit more than I liked Captain America: Civil War. It does a few things particularly well for a comedy. First, there were a number of different kinds of humor, and they were mixed and varied to keep things lively. Visual gags, inside jokes, wordplay, a little bit of slapstick, all good stuff. More importantly, none of it was base or crude. The humor wouldn't prevent me from showing this to a room full of young children, and they would have plenty of stuff to laugh at.
Of course, the reason you wouldn't want to show this to a room full of young children would be all the nightmares that would ensue, and that brings me to something else Ghostbusters did well; it's a movie about ghosts. So yeah, it's a bit creepy. Nothing over the top, and certainly nothing slasher-esque. But creepy. And I think that works so well because the movie was written as a story first, and then filled with humor where appropriate. The characters are characters instead of caricatures, with motivations and traits and depth and all that good stuff. A lot of comedies are written as a series of sketches and then slammed together with a thin (at best) plotline. Ghostbusters was not, so that's another victory.
The third thing they did particularly well was the casting. It seems to me that most people who are refusing to see the movie are doing so because of casting. They're either upset that they didn't bring back the original cast, or they're chauvinist pigs. And that seems a little odd considering that a) four of the five (or seven, depending on what you consider "main") original main cast are actually in the movie, meaning they liked the idea and signed off on it, and b) all four of the women they cast as the ghostbusters are objectively more hilarious than Bill Murray. The casting was flawless.
Sure, there's stuff to be said about gender equality and whatnot, but instead I just think back and recall that every time Kate McKinnon was on the screen, I laughed. It's not even a case of everything she said being comedy gold (which it was), but rather everything she did. If the camera was on her, she was doing something hysterical. And I'm over here honestly struggling to recall ever having laughed directly at one of Bill Murray's performances as opposed to the people in movies around him. So gender issues aside, the movie was funnier as a result of casting those four women, so I don't see why you would want to find fault with it.
In the end the movie is hilarious, well written, flawlessly performed, and hits every note I wanted as a fan of the original Ghostbusters. New fans will love it, since it doesn't require you to have seen the originals. But if you have seen the originals, you will be rewarded early and often for you fandom. I'm sure that if you really wanted to find something wrong with the movie outside of being obtuse or sexist, you probably could. No production is perfect. But Ghostbusters is so much fun I can't fathom why you would want to find issues with it. I sure don't. I just want to see it again.
And believe me, I will spend money to see this in theaters again, and I will spend money to buy it. This movie makes me want to throw money at the folks that made it, and I can't think of higher praise than that.
So here's me, giving Ghostbusters 100%, along with signing off that this is my favorite production to carry any part of the Ghostbusters IP. I am nothing if not unpopular.
Apparently.
Anywho, the movie is fantastic. Easily one of my favorites so far this year. Usually those spots are taken up by superhero movies, and while I might have a hard time saying whether I liked X-Men: Apocalypse or Ghostbusters more, I have no problem saying that I liked Ghostbusters quite a bit more than I liked Captain America: Civil War. It does a few things particularly well for a comedy. First, there were a number of different kinds of humor, and they were mixed and varied to keep things lively. Visual gags, inside jokes, wordplay, a little bit of slapstick, all good stuff. More importantly, none of it was base or crude. The humor wouldn't prevent me from showing this to a room full of young children, and they would have plenty of stuff to laugh at.
Of course, the reason you wouldn't want to show this to a room full of young children would be all the nightmares that would ensue, and that brings me to something else Ghostbusters did well; it's a movie about ghosts. So yeah, it's a bit creepy. Nothing over the top, and certainly nothing slasher-esque. But creepy. And I think that works so well because the movie was written as a story first, and then filled with humor where appropriate. The characters are characters instead of caricatures, with motivations and traits and depth and all that good stuff. A lot of comedies are written as a series of sketches and then slammed together with a thin (at best) plotline. Ghostbusters was not, so that's another victory.
The third thing they did particularly well was the casting. It seems to me that most people who are refusing to see the movie are doing so because of casting. They're either upset that they didn't bring back the original cast, or they're chauvinist pigs. And that seems a little odd considering that a) four of the five (or seven, depending on what you consider "main") original main cast are actually in the movie, meaning they liked the idea and signed off on it, and b) all four of the women they cast as the ghostbusters are objectively more hilarious than Bill Murray. The casting was flawless.
Sure, there's stuff to be said about gender equality and whatnot, but instead I just think back and recall that every time Kate McKinnon was on the screen, I laughed. It's not even a case of everything she said being comedy gold (which it was), but rather everything she did. If the camera was on her, she was doing something hysterical. And I'm over here honestly struggling to recall ever having laughed directly at one of Bill Murray's performances as opposed to the people in movies around him. So gender issues aside, the movie was funnier as a result of casting those four women, so I don't see why you would want to find fault with it.
In the end the movie is hilarious, well written, flawlessly performed, and hits every note I wanted as a fan of the original Ghostbusters. New fans will love it, since it doesn't require you to have seen the originals. But if you have seen the originals, you will be rewarded early and often for you fandom. I'm sure that if you really wanted to find something wrong with the movie outside of being obtuse or sexist, you probably could. No production is perfect. But Ghostbusters is so much fun I can't fathom why you would want to find issues with it. I sure don't. I just want to see it again.
And believe me, I will spend money to see this in theaters again, and I will spend money to buy it. This movie makes me want to throw money at the folks that made it, and I can't think of higher praise than that.
Comments
Post a Comment