Ghostbuster (Film, 2016)

I finally got to see the Ghostbusters reboot, albeit in something of a rush because the film has dropped out of the cinemas fairly quickly (indeed, an earlier effort to see the film was scuppered by AMC Manchester cancelling its scheduled performances).

First of all, I think it’s important to place Ghostbusters (2016) in its proper context: it is its own beast and it is not trying to be the original Ghostbusters. Whether that is a good thing or not is very much down to personal preferences, but what I would say is that there is absolutely no reason why a person (i.e. me) can’t like all of the entries in the Ghostbusters franchise. Yes, even Ghostbusters 2.

Anyone familiar with director Paul Feig’s previous films – Bridesmaids, The Heat, Spy – will be at home with the comedy in Ghostbusters (2016), which is goofier and more improvised in nature than the eighties Ghostbuster films. So yes, the humour is different – more sniggery, less wry – but I can genuinely say that both my wife and I found the film to be extremely funny. How the jokes will hold up to repeat viewings is not yet clear, but that’s a concern with any comedy.

The film sets up a new Ghostbuster universe very proficiently. There are plenty of links to the previous films (cameos, music, references to iconic elements) but these are loving nods rather than rip-offs.

A special mention must also go to the 3D. My wife and I normally avoid 3D screenings because: a) the 3D usually adds nothing except cost to the cinema ticket ,and b) wearing glasses on top of glasses is not very comfortable. However, we had little choice in this case: it was pretty much 3D or nothing.  And actually, the 3D was great. The ghosts in the reboot are far more colourful and dynamic than in the original, which suited the extra dimension. Aside from Life of Pi, it’s the only film I can say I really enjoyed watching in 3D.

All of this makes the film’s poor reception even more baffling. Much has been written about the wave of misogyny which swamped the film from the minute it was announced, simply because the starring roles went to female actors and according to the internet that is a BAD THING. Except it’s not. The cast were uniformly fantastic, and the fact that they were women made very little difference (shocking, I know!). And don’t get me started on the racism faced by poor Lesley Jones… Frankly, it’s incredible that the film is so enjoyable given the strains placed on the production.

With all that said, is Ghostbusters (2016) going to be a considered a classic, like the original? No, it isn’t it. But that doesn’t meant that the film is terrible, or that it should never had been made. The movie should be judged on its own merits, of which it has many.

I would love to see a sequel to this Ghostbusters, but I’m not sure how likely that will be, which is a great shame.