Skip to main content

New Ghostbusters Movie

"Ghostbusters" is an silly, good-natured summer movie that just so happens to be based on/rebooting one of the most beloved of all comedy horror flicks - "Ghostbusters." One of the first movies I remember watching, part of me still considers the original a masterpiece, a basically perfect encapsulation of high, middle, and low humor mixed with old-fashioned thrills and chills. So, I get it, the new movie comes with a lot of baggage. There are people who are even more wrapped up in that mystique than I am and to them, the idea of rebooting the movie is and continues to be a non-starter.

Ghostbusters busting: from left to right - Melissa McCarthy (Abby Yates), Kate McKinnon (Jillian Holtzmann), Kristen Wiig (Erin Gilbert), and Leslie Jones (Patty Tolan).

To me, that's a shame because most of what made the original movie fun has survived the translation to 21st century. Instead of four really funny men, we have four really funny women. Like the original, this movie draws most of its comedic potential from workplace struggles. Ghost busting is a messy, unappreciated job and running a small business brings a lot of frustrations both small and potentially cataclysmic. The same off-handed, pseudo-scientific absurdity also appears in this movie. References to mass undersea sponge migrations and Tobin's spirit guide felt a lot more subversive in the original but there enough references to New York's tangled history to make things feel lived-in and plausible.

The basic tension in the movie is between the two leads, Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig. McCarthy, in perhaps my favorite role of hers as Abby Yates, plays the former partner and friend of Erin Gilbert. Abby was the only person to believe Erin's account of childhood haunting but the two have had a falling out prior to the beginning of the movie. Gradually, Erin makes peace with her driveto be accepted and validated by the scientific community. For the most part this relationship is well-handled in the movie although I think they could have gone for a bigger crack-up before the final reel.

Unfortunately, focusing the movie on the two main characters leaves a less time and material for the other two stand-outs of the movie - Kate McKinnon's bizarre mad-scientist Jillian Holtzmann and Leslie Jones' former subway worker Patty Tolan. Both McKinnon and Jones are amazing comedians in their own right but I would have liked to see more of their backstory. With word that Sony's going all in for a sequel, that's something that could be addressed in the next movie.

The first half of the movie is also way better than the latter half. The original made the jump from four hard-working stiffs to world-threatening danger through a montage and well-placed portents. This movie has an awkward confrontation with the mayor (played by Andy Garcia) that never quite pays off. I suspect somewhere there's a longer version of the movie with more explanation about why the government is so keen on covering up paranormal activities and how that might tie into the bad guy, a geeky misanthrope Rowan North (Neil Casey). As it stands the ending is exciting but doesn't quite land with the impact of the original.

Even at this late-date there are online critics who refuse to see this movie - complaining about the gender swap casting or Paul Feig as the director or the supposed inviolability of the original. I honestly struggle understanding these sentiments - especially those that claim they don't need to see the movie to know that it's crap. In a year where people are refusing to see the good in the other side of a political debate, or a societal issue, maybe it shouldn't be surprising to see the same rigidity creep into fan culture.

I think you should see this movie before you decide on its merits.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Writing Horror

I'm wary offering advice to other writers. 

First of all I've got the whole imposter syndrome thing and whatever advice I give feels like a good way of revealing how little I know about anything. Second, what I've learned mostly relates to solving problems in my own writing. What advice does a dog have to offer to a duck on how to swim? 
However, for Arisia 2018, I'll be participating on a panel of doing just that - giving advice to aspiring horror writers about writing horror.

So, what truths can I impart?

Some advice feels absolutely true, if a bit self-evident.

You must read. If you're trying to write horror then you must read horror. Not just one novel. Not just one author. You should make a sincere effort to read everything by everyone. The more recent the better. The classics are always going to be there, but if you want a sense of where your stories could fit, you need to see what is being published out there.

You must write. I do not think you have to write …

Reading Response to "A Good Man is Hard to Find."

Reader Response to “A Good Man is Hard to Find” Morgan Crooks I once heard Flannery O’Connor’s work introduced as a project to describe a world denied God’s grace. This critic of O’Connor’s work meant the Christian idea that a person’s misdeeds, mistakes, and sins could be sponged away by the power of Jesus’ sacrifice at Crucifixion. The setting of her stories often seem to be monstrous distortions of the real world. These are stories where con men steal prosthetic limbs, hired labor abandons mute brides in rest stops, and bizarre, often disastrous advice is imparted.  O’Connor herself said of this reputation for writing ‘grotesque’ stories that ‘anything that comes out of the South is going to be called grotesque by the northern reader, unless it is grotesque, in which case it is going to be called realistic.’ This is both a witty observation and a piece of advice while reading O’Connor’s work. These are stories about pain and lies and ugliness. The brutality that happens to characters …

We Have Always Lived in Haunted Houses

As my final pre-Arisia post, I'd like to tackle ghosts. Metaphorically, of course, because ghosts are intangible and also don't exist. 


I don't believe in ghosts. Not the sort of ghosts, anyway, that float around decaying old mansions or scare impressionable media personalities. Physics, at least the way I've grown up understanding it, precludes the existence of energy that cannot be detected reliably. Put another way, physicist Brian Cox stated that if ghosts existed the Large Hadron Collider would have almost certainly found one by now.

So, when I say I'm a fan of ghost stories and tales of haunted houses, am I being hypocritical? Possibly, but I also think one can appreciate ghosts and haunted houses in a different way. Even though they might not exist in a 'peer-reviewed' and 'experimentally replicable' fashion, phantoms absolutely exist as a potent symbol of the past.

When we talk about ghosts what we're really talking about is that annoying…