Film Review: Ghostbusters (dir by Paul Feig)


Ghostbusters

If you need any further proof that 2016 is a screwed-up year, just consider the fact that Ghostbusters, an entertaining but ultimately rather mild-mannered and innocuous summer action/comedy, has become the center of one of the biggest controversies of the year.

It all started, of course, when the reboot was first announced.  Fanboys reacted with outrage, offended that Hollywood would even consider remaking a film that was apparently one of the defining moments of their childhood.  Then, it was announced that Ghostbusters would feature an all-female cast and it would be directed by Paul Feig, the director of Bridesmaids.  The howls of outrage grew even louder.  Then that infamous trailer was released and even I felt that trailer sucked.  I wasn not alone because the trailer quickly became one of the most disliked videos in the history of YouTube.  Reading the comments underneath that trailer was literally like finding yourself trapped in a production of Marat/Sade.

Suddenly, in the eyes of very vocal group of internet trolls, the reboot of Ghostbusters went from being simply another dubious idea to being a crime against humanity.  And the trolls were so obnoxious that they managed to turn this big-budget, studio-backed production into an underdog.  Here was a movie directed by one of Hollywood’s biggest directors and starring some of Hollywood’s hottest stars and suddenly, it had become David in a biblical showdown with the Goliaths of internet.

ghostbusters1-800x430

And then it happened.  Earlier last week, Ghostbusters was finally screened for critics.  The first reviews started to come in and they were surprisingly positive.  In fact, they were so positive that I found myself distrusting them.  I found myself wondering if critics were reacting to the film or if they were simply trying to prove that they were better than the trolls who leave obscene comments on YouTube.

Which was true, I wondered.  Was Ghostbusters the worst film ever made or was it the greatest?  Or was it perhaps just possible that Ghostbusters would turn out to be a typical summer film?

With all the controversy, it’s tempting to overpraise a film like Ghostbusters.  Battle lines have been drawn and sometimes, I feel as if I’m being told that failing to declare Ghostbusters to be the greatest and most important comedy of all time is the equivalent of letting the trolls win.

Well, that’s not true.  Ghostbusters is not the greatest or the most important comedy of all time but you know what?  Ghostbusters is good.  Ghostbusters is entertaining.  Especially during the first half, it’s full of laugh out loud moments.  At times, Ghostbusters is everything that you could hope for.

No, it’s not a perfect film.  Paul Feig is a great comedy director but, in this film at least, his direction of the big action sequences often feels uninspired (especially when compared to his previous work on Spy).  The final fourth of the film gets bogged down in CGI and the film goes from being a clever comedy to being just another summer spectacle.  Even the one-liners, which flowed so naturally at the start of the film, feel forced during the final half of the film.  Ghostbusters is good but it never quite becomes great.

ghostbusters-2016-cast-proton-packs-images

Here’s what did work: the cast.  As he previously proved with Bridesmaids, Paul Feig is a director who is uniquely skilled at creating and showcasing a strong comedic ensemble.  Kristen Wiig plays Erin Gilbert, who is denied tenure at Columbia when it is discovered that a book she wrote on the paranormal has been republished and is being sold, on Amazon, by her former best friend, Dr. Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy).  When Erin goes to confront Abby, she not only meets Abby’s newest colleague, Dr. Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) but she also gets dragged into investigating an actual case of paranormal activity..  Soon, Erin, Abby, and Holtzmann are investigating hauntings and capturing ghosts, all with the secret approval of the Mayor of New York (Andy Garcia).  Of course, for PR reasons, the mayor’s office has to continually disavow the Ghostbusters and occasionally have them arrested.  Working alongside the three scientists are Patty (Leslie Jones), who apparently knows the history of every building in New York, and Kevin (Chris Hemsworth), their adorably stupid receptionist.

As written, both Patty and Kevin are fairly thin characters.  Kevin’s the handsome dumb guy.  Patty is streetwise and sassy.  But both Hemsworth and Jones give such enthusiastic and sincere performances that they transcend the stereotypical nature of their roles.  At times, Kevin runs the risk of becoming too cartoonish for even a Ghostbusters film.  But if you can’t laugh at Chris Hemsworth explaining that he took the lenses out of his glasses because they were always getting dirty, what can you laugh at?

Erin is an interesting character and Kristen Wiig deserves a lot of credit for her performance.  Erin is actually given a fairly affecting backstory, centering around how she was haunted by the ghost of the old woman who used to live next door to her.  Erin is a former believer, someone who, in order to succeed in the “real” world, gave up her beliefs and conformed to the expectations of society.  When she actually meets a ghost, it’s more than just a confirmation of the supernatural.  It’s a chance for Erin to finally embrace who she truly is and what she truly cares about.  When she and the other ghostbusters chase after evil spirits, Erin is not just doing a job.  Instead, she’s finally found somewhere where she belongs.  She no longer has to pretend to be someone that she isn’t.  Wiig plays the role with just the right touch of neurotic wonder.  She grounds the entire film.

Wiig McKinnon

But the true star of the film is Kate McKinnon.  Whether she’s cheerfully smiling as a ghost vomits all over her colleagues or cheerfully explaining how easily their equipment could kill them all, Holtzmann is the greatest character in the film and McKinnon gives the best performance.  If Wiig grounds the film, McKinnon provides it with a truly demented soul.

The first half of the movie, which focuses on the relationships between the characters and features snappy and endlessly quotable dialogue, is wonderful and I was thrilled while watching it, convinced that the entire movie would be as good as the first hour.  However, the second half of the film gets bogged down in a rather predictable plot and the final action sequences could have just as easily been lifted from Pixels or one of The Avengers movies.  The surviving cast of the original Ghostbusters all show up in cameos that are, at best, inoffensive and, at worst, groan-worthy.  The end result is rather uneven.  If the film had maintained the momentum of that first hour, it would be a classic.  But that second half transforms it into just another entertaining but not quite memorable summer action film.

That said, Paul Feig is an excellent comedy director and let’s hope that he never gets so self-important that he ends up turning into Jay Roach.  Hopefully, if there is a sequel, Feig will return to direct it and Kate McKinnon will have an even bigger role.

tumblr_o3h37546Pl1v6mqeeo2_540

 

Meet “The Flintstones” All Over Again


Trash Film Guru

5305528-01

So far, DC’s newly-launched revamps of classic Hanna-Barbera cartoon properties have ranged from fairly traditional takes (Future Quest) to radical re-imaginings (Scooby ApocalypseWacky Raceland) with not much in-between and, if I’m being brutally honest, fairly limited success. Scooby Apocalypse is an atrocious mess, Wacky Raceland is at least an interesting mess, and Future Quest — well, even a hardened cynic like yours truly has gotta admit that book is just plain cool. Into the breach next, then, comes writer Mark Russell and artist Steve Pugh’s updated version of The Flintstones, and if the first issue is any indication, it seems to be the first of these titles to stake out something of a “middle ground,” remaining fairly faithful to the core characters and concepts but updating them for a contemporary, and somewhat older, audience. Sure, there’s nothing in here to prevent 20-something, 30-something…

View original post 588 more words

It’s A Bird! It’s A Plane! It’s “New Super-Man”!


Trash Film Guru

5318627-01

I’ll be blunt — given what a mess otherwise-celebrated writer Gene Luen Yang made of things during his run on the “main” Superman title recently, I was initially in the “think I’ll pass on that” camp when I heard that his next project for DC would involve chronicling the exploits of the Man of Steel’s new Chinese counterpart/knock-off. The idea of a teenager given super-powers in a clandestine government-funded experiment sounded kind of played-out, as well, and the more I heard about it, the more I thought the book sounded like a loser.

But then a few preview pages began to leak online, and I had to admit that Viktor Bogdanovic’s art looked pretty good. The small sampling of the script we were able to glean from said pages read reasonably well. And hey, who knows? Maybe heavy-handed editorial dictates — always a strong possibility whenever supposedly-“reformed” serial sexual harasser/assaulter…

View original post 905 more words

Artist Profile: Cornel Lucas (1920 — 2012)


British photographer Cornel Lucas was a world-renowned film still photographer who, from the start of his career in the late 1940s, revolutionized the field of film portraiture.  During his career he created the defining images of many celebrities at a time when carefully staged publicity photos were essential to the process of turning an actor into a star.  Considered to be a master of lighting, Lucas’s work was so influential that, in 1996, he became the first photographer to receive and award from the British Academy of Film and Television Arts.

Permanent collections of his work can be found at London’s  National Portrait Gallery, The National Media Museum and London’s Photographers’ Gallery.  A few examples of Lucas’s work can be found below.

Brigitte Bardot (1955)

Brigitte Bardot (1955)

Brigitte Bardot (1955)

Brigitte Bardot (1955)

David Niven (1955)

David Niven (1955)

Diana Dors (1955)

Diana Dors (1955)

Lauren Bacall (1958)

Lauren Bacall (1958)

Leslie Caron (1964)

Leslie Caron (1964)

Marlene Dietrich (1948)

Marlene Dietrich (1948)

Mary Ure (1957)

Mary Ure (1957)

Models on Scaffolding (1977)

Models on Scaffolding (1977)

Newsreel Cameraman (1952)

Newsreel Cameraman (1952)

Penelope WIlton (1968)

Penelope Wilton (1968)

Scenic Artist (1957)

Scenic Artist (1957)

Sir Ben Kingsley (1996)

Sir Ben Kingsley (1996)

Susan Travers/Linden Travers (1961)

Susan Travers/Linden Travers (1961)

Music Video of the Day: Bastards of Young by The Replacements (1986, dir. ???)


I knew I would get to it eventually, but I honestly didn’t think I would do it this early. Regardless, here’s probably the best known anti-MTV music video at least to come out of their first ten years. First, it’s in all black and white. Second, the group isn’t in the video at all. Finally, almost nothing happens. Sure they would repeat this similar formula for a couple other songs they did, but this is the one people think of. Especially because the song itself defines Generation X very concisely with the line: “you got no war to name us.” A line that would resonant with the MTV audience of the time.

What I like about this video that makes it more than just an anti-MTV music video is that they actually did something interesting with it. They could have just had it start on the speaker and end on the speaker. Nothing else had to happen. They didn’t do that. Instead, they opted for the Michael Snow option. If you look at Michael Snow’s film Wavelength (1967), then you’ll see a lot of similarities. Wavelength is a slow 45 minute zoom across a room to a picture on the opposite wall. Some things do happen in the room during this zoom. However, the film asks you to begin to see the room itself as the character and to treat the other things going on the way you would treat a set. They are just passing around the character of the room. The music video asks you to do the same thing with a slow zoom out and the occasional action of a person in the room. The video asks you to meditate on the song itself along with the room in which someone would sit to listen to the song. The song and a typical environment that someone would listen to it are the characters in this music video. This is in contrast to other music videos that ask you to focus on the artist(s) themselves and a visualization and/or narration of their song.

I love that The Replacements decided to put some thought into this when they really could have just had it stay on that speaker the whole time. I would say it was an under appreciated MTV music video, but I distinctly remember MTV even using a section of the video as a bumper in between videos or commercial breaks.

Enjoy! Even if it’s just for one of the best songs of the 1980s in my opinion.