Metaphysical Movie Mania!
And in today's offering from last year, we have one of 2016's more controversial action extravaganzas, and I'll let you in on a wee secret: CONTROVERSY IS DUMB.
Shocking, isn't it?
Let's have a look-see at what happens when the internet explodes.
Ghostbusters
Ah, the magical 80's, a glorious period in human history, full of great music, great television, and great movies. So many great movies. Wacky, crazy, silly, not-so-serious, unique movies. The 21st century has given us so many remakes of movies and television from the 80's, and most of the time, the original is better. This is true on so many levels. Did you even know that Knight Rider had a reboot TV series with five fancy sports cars? You probably didn't, because it SUCKED BALLS. But I digress.
Ghostbusters is a tale of the paranormal, wherein an apocalyptic supernatural event is approaching, and our heroes, nay, our only hope for salvation, must come together and stop it. They believe in the supernatural when no one else does, and they use science to try and bridge the gap between normal and paranormal. Yes, I know. It's not real science. This is what, in literary terms, is referred to as "science fiction". You have to roll with it. Anyway, with tongue firmly in cheek and with humour sprinkled liberally throughout the film, our heroes save the day, defeat an ancient Sumerian god, and get covered in marshmallow fluff for their trouble. A perfect 80's ending.
Oh, and our heroes are four guys. You know, whatever.
Also, a sequel was made, which was horrible, but gave us the name Viggo long before Aragorn showed up to tell us how it was done.
Fast forward to the early 21st century, when reboots are everywhere (Robocop, why? Why do you make me hate so much?) (although, to be fair, The A-Team was much better than I expected, so, credit where it's due), and someone decides that Ghostbusters needed the treatment. Sure, why not, Hollywood's already made plenty of horrible decisions, let's keep that train going. But, in a strange twist, they decided to make the Ghostbusters... WOMEN. DUN DUN DUUUUUNNNNN.
This set off an apocalypse that nearly required real Ghostbusters to be invented just to save mankind from the collective stupidity that manifested.
So the big question is, was all this outrage justified?
The plot: Just like the original, only with some gender issues. Like taking pictures and looking at the negatives: IT'S THE SAME, ONLY DIFFERENT.
The pros: You've got comedy going here, and they have written some effective humor for the audience. Abby and Erin's bickering and teasing start things off, Patty brings some sass and energy to the mix, and Kevin provides some of the most unexpected laughs, but it's Holtzmann who steals the show for me with her manic glee and enthusiasm. On top of this, there are a few easter eggs for fans of the original, with cameos from the three surviving primary cast members, plus Sigourney Weaver, plus the son of Harold Ramis, as well as a few other visual cues. The special effects are decent, there are some good action scenes, and the rest of the cast keeps the movie real.
The cons: There are a lot of similarities to the original - in many ways, the movie is very much a photocopy (much like Star Wars Episode VII). Had the original never existed, this film would stand alone just fine. This is somewhat painfully clear in the "three white science types and one black non-scientist type" breakdown. Forget sexism; a bit of racial diversity couldn't hurt here. The trailers, I think, hurt the movie - a different selection of scenes might have made the film appeal to a broader audience. And finally, personally, I liked the story from the original better. Here the villain was not quite as menacing, as threatening, as malevolent as the first.
The verdict: Is the original better? Yes. Does that make this one a failure? No. Give it a fair chance, it was funnier than it appeared. And yes, female Ghostbusters are just as good as male Ghostbusters. Get over it.
Bonus: "Aquariums are just submarines for fish." This line punched me right in the funny bone and half-lobotomized me. Thanks, Thor. You're good people.
Shocking, isn't it?
Let's have a look-see at what happens when the internet explodes.
Ghostbusters
Ah, the magical 80's, a glorious period in human history, full of great music, great television, and great movies. So many great movies. Wacky, crazy, silly, not-so-serious, unique movies. The 21st century has given us so many remakes of movies and television from the 80's, and most of the time, the original is better. This is true on so many levels. Did you even know that Knight Rider had a reboot TV series with five fancy sports cars? You probably didn't, because it SUCKED BALLS. But I digress.
Ghostbusters is a tale of the paranormal, wherein an apocalyptic supernatural event is approaching, and our heroes, nay, our only hope for salvation, must come together and stop it. They believe in the supernatural when no one else does, and they use science to try and bridge the gap between normal and paranormal. Yes, I know. It's not real science. This is what, in literary terms, is referred to as "science fiction". You have to roll with it. Anyway, with tongue firmly in cheek and with humour sprinkled liberally throughout the film, our heroes save the day, defeat an ancient Sumerian god, and get covered in marshmallow fluff for their trouble. A perfect 80's ending.
Oh, and our heroes are four guys. You know, whatever.
Also, a sequel was made, which was horrible, but gave us the name Viggo long before Aragorn showed up to tell us how it was done.
Fast forward to the early 21st century, when reboots are everywhere (Robocop, why? Why do you make me hate so much?) (although, to be fair, The A-Team was much better than I expected, so, credit where it's due), and someone decides that Ghostbusters needed the treatment. Sure, why not, Hollywood's already made plenty of horrible decisions, let's keep that train going. But, in a strange twist, they decided to make the Ghostbusters... WOMEN. DUN DUN DUUUUUNNNNN.
This set off an apocalypse that nearly required real Ghostbusters to be invented just to save mankind from the collective stupidity that manifested.
So the big question is, was all this outrage justified?
The plot: Just like the original, only with some gender issues. Like taking pictures and looking at the negatives: IT'S THE SAME, ONLY DIFFERENT.
The pros: You've got comedy going here, and they have written some effective humor for the audience. Abby and Erin's bickering and teasing start things off, Patty brings some sass and energy to the mix, and Kevin provides some of the most unexpected laughs, but it's Holtzmann who steals the show for me with her manic glee and enthusiasm. On top of this, there are a few easter eggs for fans of the original, with cameos from the three surviving primary cast members, plus Sigourney Weaver, plus the son of Harold Ramis, as well as a few other visual cues. The special effects are decent, there are some good action scenes, and the rest of the cast keeps the movie real.
The cons: There are a lot of similarities to the original - in many ways, the movie is very much a photocopy (much like Star Wars Episode VII). Had the original never existed, this film would stand alone just fine. This is somewhat painfully clear in the "three white science types and one black non-scientist type" breakdown. Forget sexism; a bit of racial diversity couldn't hurt here. The trailers, I think, hurt the movie - a different selection of scenes might have made the film appeal to a broader audience. And finally, personally, I liked the story from the original better. Here the villain was not quite as menacing, as threatening, as malevolent as the first.
The verdict: Is the original better? Yes. Does that make this one a failure? No. Give it a fair chance, it was funnier than it appeared. And yes, female Ghostbusters are just as good as male Ghostbusters. Get over it.
Bonus: "Aquariums are just submarines for fish." This line punched me right in the funny bone and half-lobotomized me. Thanks, Thor. You're good people.