Friday 30 December 2022

Ghostbusters [2016 version] (4½ Stars)


If I were a ghost I'd lie down and surrender to four sexy Ghostbusters like Kate McKinnon, Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig and Leslie Jones. I wouldn't take Chris Hemsworth seriously, with or without his hammer. He's just a stupid men that the girls keep around for his good looks. There's been gender reversal in films before, but I can't think of any other film where it's pushed as far as in this film. Why shouldn't women objectify men? Men have been objectifying women for hundreds, maybe thousands of years.

When I reviewed the first Ghostbusters film two days ago, I said that I didn't know whether the 2016 film is a sequel or a reboot. It's irrelevant what the director or the screenwriter says, I'm only interested in what the film itself says. The trouble is that the film itself isn't clear. It doesn't reference the original film, which makes it a matter of choice. The original actors appear in cameo roles playing different characters, which suggests that it's a reboot. So my decision is that it's probably a reboot.

Or a remake? In film jargon, a remake is when a single film is made again, whereas a reboot is when the first film in a series is made again with the intention of making a new film series. The correct word for this film is definitely reboot, because the post-credits scene contains a hook for a sequel. Whether or not a sequel will be made is in doubt. The fans rejected the film, and it was a box office failure.

I sometimes say, deliberately being provocative, that I'm the only person who likes "Ghostbusters 2016". The statement is obviously false, but I know that I'm in the minority. I'm willing to argue about the film with anyone, preferably over a glass of beer. It has a powerful villain (even if he's only a seedy hotel janitor), it has better special effects than the original, and it's funnier than the original. Most of all, it has four powerful women in the lead roles. Their gender isn't an object of humour, it's just taken for granted. The people who hate the film, most of whom hated it before they even saw it, consider it sacrilege that their four heroes from a classic film have been replaced by women. Is it misogyny? Of course it is! If a reboot had been made with male actors there wouldn't have been such an outcry.

Oh, and the film has a cameo by Ozzy Osbourne. That's a bonus in any film.

My Blu-ray contains two versions of the film, the theatrical version and an extended version. After watching both versions, I can definitely recommend the extended version. It's often the case that scenes are cut or shortened to improve the pacing of the theatrical version, but that's not the case here. I suspect that the extra scenes, approximately 17 minutes, were only removed to get the film's runtime below two hours. Nothing is superfluous in the extended version, it's a perfectly crafted film which only suffers from cuts being made.

Success Rate:  - 0.4

Order from Amazon.com
Order from Amazon.co.uk
Order from Amazon.de

No comments:

Post a Comment

Tick the box "Notify me" to receive notification of replies.