So they remade Ghostbusters. Or, well, this isn't a remake; it's a reboot. A remake has to have the same plot and characters for the most part (see: True Grit, Ocean's 11) and this really doesn't.

Pros: It really is pretty goddamn funny. I was laughing constantly, loud, genuine, from-the-gut laughing.

Kate McKinnon as Jillian Holtzmann is the best thing to happen to the franchise since JMS was made head writer of The Real Ghostbusters. She's fucking delightful on every level and steals every single scene she is in. The woman radiates screen presence out of every pore.

Chris Hemsworth has surprising comedic range. Also, he's surprisingly small when he hasn't spent six months power-bulking to play Thor.

The fact that they cannot afford an enormous, classically designed fire station in lower Manhattan as shoestring paranormal investigators n 2016 is handled delightfully. Indeed, Act I is amazingly strongly constructed, keeping the same general beats as the first movie but hitting them in fresh new ways such that you're legitimately wondering what's happening next rather than simply knowing. (With some exceptions. Like, obviously at some point the experimental ghost-restraining device Holtzmann is working on is going to turn into a proton pack.)

The cameos from the old cast were quite nice and not overdone. They even got Murray, who has been resolutely refusing to sign onto Ghostbusters 3 for over a decade but was happy to take a bit part in this. The best one, by far, is Sigourney Weaver, who crosses the line from "oh, ha ha, nice cameo" to "I want very much to know more about you and your advice for building containment units, science lady."

Cons: While I was laughing a lot, I can't now remember very many of the lines I was actually laughing at. That's worrisome; usually with comedies that have legs you can do that.

Erin, Patty, and Abi, the other three new Ghostbusters, are somewhat... flat. Especially compared to Holtzmann. I realize that not every ensemble cast can catch on fire. Still, tho.

The plot is oddly slight, despite having more of one than either of the first two did. The first Ghostbusters movie was very nearly a slice-of-life film about a group of friends who just happened to catch ghosts for a living; it scattered understated hints that there was some big threat but didn't bust it out until Act III. This one moves right to a mastermind plotting big plots re: ghosts.

It decided to have a climactic fight scene. This was... ill-advised. I don't have a lot of interest in watching the Ghostbusters literally punch CGI ghosts for about ten minutes while hurling grenades and tossing off action-movie one-liners. That's not how Zuul and Vigo were taken down. (Really, Vigo's defeat was a nearly pitch-perfect demonstration of how the Ghostbusters are humanistic scientists, not warriors, and do not simply zap-and-trap their way out of their problems.)

There are a bunch more things I could stick in the cons column, but they're very... ticky-tacky. They add up, though. I would say this is a good movie, but not a great one. It's worth the price of admission, certainly.

As I said elsewhere, I'm a little bit surprised they didn't simply make this Ghostbusters 3 and be done with it. That would have required maybe two pages worth of script changes to be perfectly all right. And it would have opened up other potential changes as well. I would have loved to have seen Annie Potts mentoring these four as a senior Ghostbuster, for example. (Shut up, Jeanine is totally a Ghostbuster.)

It also would have avoided the problem with remaking a classic that's aged well, which is that the standards are much different than simply making a sequel or a franchise spin-off. They're much higher; you really have to knock it out of the park. This would have been "damn good" as Ghostbusters 3; as Ghostbusters 2016, it's merely okay-to-good.

-Merc
Keep Rat

I chuckled a few times, but that was it.

Kevin was somewhat infuriating. Especially since he was clearly positioned to be a combination counterpart to Janine and Dana. Reboot or not, to compare EITHER of those to the idiot man-candy that is Kevin is just....disgusting.

I've heard that they basically blackmailed Murray into being in the movie, but, they got more effort out of him for his two scenes than they managed to get for the entire Ghostbusters video game, so maybe blackmail works.

The 'For Harold Ramis' at the very end of the credits made me angry. If it was FOR him, why did they push it through like two seconds after he died?

The best and funniest parts of the movie were, for me, with no joke, at and during the end credits.

"It sends them somewhere, I don't know where, but I think it may be Michigan."
And the whole dance number.

.....they caught one ghost. And they let THAT one go. I guess proton streams just up and 'kill' ghosts now? And why were ghosts falling to the ground in heaps, hitting cars, and such with very solid thuds?

And how did guy from the mansion get out of the basement alive? Or AT ALL considering the stairs were destroyed and he was last seen dangling from one arm?

The movie desperately needed a montage to show time was actually passing, because it looked like the whole movie took place over the course of MAYBE three days.

Holtzmann was probably the best character, yes. But there didn't really feel like there was any real CHEMISTRY in the group. They were characters, it wasn't an...*ensemble*. Egon was always my favorite, but you needed the whole TEAM to get the proper....experience, I guess is the word I'm looking for?

You needed the brains, the heart, the con...distinct personalities and viewpoints. ....I'm not sure why Patty was there at all except they needed 'a black one'. The only things she seemed to add were black lady sass and trivia they could have gotten from Wikipedia.

Kevin's insistence that he was 'born to be a ghostbuster' came out of nowhere. Did they slice like fifteen minutes of his scenes or something? He showed zero interest in anything they were doing OR his supposed job before, or after, that moment.

.....I didn't like the movie very much.

"I've seen work on the video game, I've watched it progress, my rap now to people is 'This is essentially the third movie.'" - Dan Aykroyd

So if the new movie was a sequel, it would actually be the 4th in the series.

(Yeah, ok, it's a bit pedantic, but I hear Merc likes that kind of thing ;) )

More on-topic, haven't seen the movie, and from the reviews I've seen I'm not sure I'd like it. I pretty much avoid crude humor, which this seems to ramp up. If I eventually see it it will probably be whenever it comes to Netflix or some other streaming service where I can see it for "free".

How would you explain the skepticism? Erin getting tossed out on her ear for believing in ghosts doesn't exactly mesh with a world where Venkman, Stantz, Spengler, and Zeddmore have a history.

Other than that, I generally agree with you.

Peter Eng
--
Also - my childhood? Not ruined. Haters can go eat rocks.