top of page
  • Writer's pictureJason Farr

Ghostbusters 2016 is Not a Bad Movie

I've heard a lot of negativity from the randos on the internet and most critics have given the new Ghostbusters favorable reviews.

Such confusion!

I went to see the movie myself. Here's my review!

All a comedy has to be is credibly funny.

A movie has to be several things. A movie has to be compelling and gripping. It has to get your attention and keep that attention, also there are things the writers, director, editors can do to make sure a movie has the right pacing to keep your attention. The skill everyone involved displays can make a movie good or bad.

People confuse "good" and "bad" with "I liked it" and "I didn't like it." This confuses things.

Take a painting, for instance. People can analyze the brush strokes, the use of color and space, and the overall skill level of the artist. Regardless of how well done a piece is, one can see a painting and like it or hate it. The delicate brush strokes won't matter. The use of color and space, bah. If you don't like how it makes you feel then you don't like it. That's fair.

The same goes for a movie.

A movie can be a classic because of how well it's made (Citizen Kane) or simply based on how warm and fuzzy it made everyone feel (Ghostbusters 84). How a movie makes you feel carries a lot of weight, and boy does the original Ghostbusters weigh tons.

So that leads me to Ghostbusters 2016. What did it do for me?

I laughed a LOT. There were a lot of well deserved laughs. I'm not an easy laugh when I'm in a movie theater. It has to actually get me. This one got me going a lot, which I wasn't surprised about considering the caliber of comedic talent involved.

The criticism I've heard of the film-making is all mentioned the same way. It's a paint by numbers of the original. It follows a formula like most origin stories and they created a lot of their own stuff. Most movies follow a similar formula. That's a valid concern, but this one isn't devoid of creativity.

A lot of people are comparing it to the original. They are asking themselves, "Does this movie make me feel what the original does?" "Is it made as well as the original?"

Comparing it to the original makes little sense to me. I know why it happens, but this movie, no movie, can truly make you feel what Ghostbusters 84 does. Brand new or remake.

Why? Because you are a different person than you were at 6. Movies have a different impact on you as an adult. No movie can live up to that.

Is it the classic the original is, not for me. The thing is, it not being the original does not mean it's not a good movie. That's a poor way to assess the quality of this movie.

This movie doesn't have to be as good as the original. It doesn't have to be as funny or funnier than the original. It just has to be funny and well made. Judge it honestly.

It can be different than the original and stand on it's own merit.

It's not a bad movie because it's not the original or not a classic like the original. It's funny and the skill put into making it is above average.

Let's talk about standards. Why does this movie have a standard that is so high? It's like they removed a glass ceiling just so the bar can be raised impossibly high.

There is a level of hate for this movie online that is unparalleled.

Some complaints are that it's another Hollywood remake and "we're tired of it!" Well, this is hardly the first remake or reboot. Nor is it the last.

Why is this the movie that made everyone put their foot down on reboots and remakes? Why wasn't the proposed Channing Tatum Ghostbusters slammed with such venom? Why not such levels of hate for Jurassic World? Speaking of venom, why isn't yet another Spider-man franchise being bashed in droves by the internet and being reduced to "yet another Hollywood remake?" The new Spider-man comes on the heels of the previous reboot which came a few years after the first movie franchise. That's overdoing it a bit, isn't it? Where's all the anger?

I have to consider that a lot of the hate they are getting has to do with the people involved. People who happened to be women.

Why do I think it's got to have something to do with misogyny?

Well, why else would the news of a female Ghostbusters be met with such scrutiny and vitriol, yet when a male-centered Ghostbusters movie was announced no one really complained? Certainly not with the rage they complained about the female one. I like Channing Tatum, but there's nothing about Magic Mike that makes him any better of a fit for Ghostbusters than Melissa McCarthy. Seems more likely to complain about Hollywood doing a money grab with a Channing Tatum Ghostbusters reboot than the one that came out.

We can't say it's the timing of the announcements, they were announced within the same time frame. Though, years prior there was talk of a Ghostbusters with Jonah Hill, Ben Stiller, and Seth Rogen that was not met with any anger or hostility.

There's a reason the internet got super mad about this one. It's no reflection on the movie.

If you didn't like the movie because it wasn't the original, you didn't give it a fair shake. You were looking for it to be the original, which is a lot of pressure that it can't sustain.

You can still watch the original and like it. Even if it's only 7 points higher on Metacritic than the new one. (true story)

I should point out that if it wasn't for the original movie I wouldn't have gone into acting or comedy. It's the most impactful movie on my life. Seeing Bill Murray in it made me realize who I was. The original is in my DNA.

I will say, though, if I had seen this Ghostbusters at 5 years old instead of the original, Kate McKinnon's performance in this would have made me realize what type of person just like Bill Murray did.

That's high and deserved praise.

152 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All
bottom of page