Live Blogging Ghostbusters (2016)

The movie begins with a tour of the house in which a rich woman murdered all the servants and was then imprisoned in the basement. The tour guide is attacked by a ghost at the end of his shift. Can't really say anything negative about this. It's a fun opening. If anything can be criticized it's the fact that the remainder of the movie doesn't treat ghosts as a serious threat. It goes for the laughs. It's the opposite of the original in which the ghosts were comical in the beginning but got scary at the end.

Post Live Commentary:

- Gather around, kids. In my day, there was a sketch comedy show called In Living Color. The cast was mostly Black but the breakout star was a White guy from Canada named Jim Carrey. How embarrassing! Likewise, in a movie starring women, the best character is the White guy from Australia. How embarrassing!

- It is rumored that James Cameron wants 3D without the glasses which is why the Avatar sequels are taking a million years to make. If true, he might just do it. The ghosts in this fucking movie are almost 3D. It felt like they could leap out of my TV at any second. This effect was achieved through trickery. The movie has the bars on top and bottom of the screen, letterbox, but the ghosts are anamorphic so it comes across as if they're going out of the movie.

- Another example of why the original worked and the remake didn't is the first big ghost hunting scene. In the original they go to a hotel to capture Slimer and the humor comes from them testing their equipment for the first time. They're making this shit up as they go along. In the remake, they go to a rock concert and the comedy is based around their interaction with the ghost and the crowd.

This leads to the biggest issue with the move. Paul Feig was the wrong guy to write and direct this movie because he doesn't take any of this serious. He treats the movie as if if were an extended SNL sketch. Nothing is internalized. The actors and humor are self aware. There's nothing wrong with that approach, in general, it just doesn't fit this material because the audience needs to believe in the threat of the ghosts.

Take Mel Brooks for example. Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein are great examples of externalized and internalized comedy. Saddles wasn't about the plot. It was about the commentary and could break the fourth wall whenever it wanted. Frankenstein was about the emotions of the characters and had to restrain itself. The audience needs to believe in the world these characters inhabit and that's why it doesn't end with Gene Wilder walking out of the Warner Bros backlot.

Young Frankenstein is actually a great comparison for this movie because Gene Wilder and Kristen Wiig are playing the same character. They both start-of as non-believers and later become believers. Difference is, as I stated earlier, there are no characters in Ghostbusters. There's no arc. It takes Gene Wilder a while to go from Fran-ken-stein to Frank-en-stein. Kristen Wigg goes from college professor seeking tenure to Ghostbuster in just one scene.

If you look at Ghostbuster (2016) as funny people doing funny things, the movie is okay. Chris Hemsworth is hilarious and the ladies have their charm. But that's not what the original was about. The original was a brilliant blend of comedy, science fiction and horror. That's why the world turned against you, Paul Feig. It wasn't sexism. If you had remade Pixels, no one would have blinked.

Speaking of which, Redlettermedia just teased that the next Plinkett review is the new Ghostbusters.  Why?  I don't know, it doesn't seem like a sacred cow worthy of an 80 minute in-depth review.  





As for Ghostbusters, I agree with your points and frankly didn't think all that much into it as I was watching.  What I do know is that it was one of the few movies that was exactly what I was expecting.  It's not the worst movie I've ever seen but it is in no way a good or competent movie.  One scene that sticks out is when they're testing the proton packs.  One of them send Melissa McCarthy up into the air and she falls back down.  Boom.  Edit.  Next scene.  No reaction, no nothing.  You can also tell it's mostly improved because lines constantly start with 'yeah, I think...' or 'I'm pretty sure...'  It's observational humor which they just riff on.  Anyways, this movie disappeared almost as fast as it came around which I think is far.  It's not good, in no way is it funny and while it doesn't deserve to be burned in a trash heap it certainly isn't worth giving much consideration to nowadays.

None of the movies that website has targeted have been "sacred cows."  They have been fish in barrels.