Technically speaking, I never said I was sure this movie would suck, but I sure did expect it to make Debbie Who Did Dallas look like an amateur. I know, another politically incorrect remark bordering on sexism, but since this is a flick in which someone with huge balls below the belt gets shot (proton...ly?) in the balls by someone with balls above the belt, I guess our sense of humor is now officially a two-way stream, and I'm all for it. Always have been, always will be. No need to walk on eggshells all the time, ladies and gents. Now, where are my slippers?
You see, when I bought my tickets, I told myself to keep as open a mind as bluemanly possible. Concentrate and give it your best shot. So, I walked up the stairs towards my V.I.P. seat (that is, my Vanity Inducing Pricey seat), sat down and decided to enjoy the party. Given the unbelievable barrage of negativity — reminiscent of that yucky river of purple slime in Ghostbusters II — about those truly horrible, horrible trailers, it only seemed fair to try and not be similarly hateful toward a movie I hadn't even seen. You can be proud of me: I pulled it off, and much to the movie's credit, it wasn't hard at all.
The trick is to now say something reasonably substantial without barfing sticky green spoilers all over your pretty face. Let's start by saying that the trailers did the movie a real disservice — to say the least. Sometimes trailers make you think a movie is great when it's not and you get suckered into wasting your hard-earned money, leading to disappointment, anger and a costly visit to your local shrink. Sometimes trailers do not misrepresent a movie and you experience a sense of relief. But sometimes... oh sometimes, when the clock strikes twelve and the golden carriage strangely enough does not turn into a giant pumpkin, a movie is a much more pleasurable experience than its trailers have led you to believe. This movie falls into the third category. Does that preclude a costly visit to your local shrink? Of course it doesn't. The pleasant shock may be more than you can handle.
You see, a Ghostbusters movie is supposed to ooze a mixture of fun and excitement, but somehow the marketing geniuses decided to put all the least funny moments in the trailers. Surprisingly, some of the jokes that didn't work out of context in the trailers do work in the actual movie, and that's a pity because they would've made me laugh or made me laugh more had they not already been ruined by the marketing team. Watching the same jokes in context, I was fully aware of the bad aftertaste left by the same jokes as they occurred in the trailers. It was a schizophrenic experience which told me to better keep my eyes closed next time some ill-advised Hollyhead wants to inject a shot of pure marketing disaster into my butt of a brain.
Were the main characters in this reboot as funny, engaging and memorable as their 1984 counterparts? Not by a longshot. In my book, a movie may have cost $200,000,000, $300,000,000 or more, but none of that matters one bit if you don't give a rat's hairy butt about the characters living in the expensive movieverse created. The fact remains that the characters in the original Ghostbusters had much more chemistry and screen presence, but Kristen Carroll Wiig is doing a pretty good job as quantum physicist Erin Gilbert while Melissa McCarthy's big mouth is wonderfully kept in check. I still feel the editors of The Heat (2013) should've been fired, though. McCarthy's mouth was so big in that unintentionally humorless movie you could've easily parked a car in it.
The special effects didn't make me feel dirty like I was, once again, indulging myself in a truckload of FX porn — think Independency Day: Resurgence, which made me feel like I was tied to a bed and someone I didn't even know was moaning, "Watch this, Blue. Watch this..." into my left ear. No, the effects in this movie clearly served a purpose that went beyond the much anticipated oooohs and ahhhhhs of a guillible audience. They were basically a character in their own right that, much to my relief, didn't flip the bird on the style of the original movies. Did I mention the colors were great? That's saying a lot when you happen to be wearing tinted IMAX glasses. Overall, I found it hard not to appreciate the amount of effort that has been put into the look of this movie, and something tells me I'll go and see Ghostbusters (2016) again real soon. No, I'm not drunk.
Now, I have one rule when it comes to deciding if I liked a movie, yes or no: Would I buy it? The answer is, yes, I would, and I'm not ashamed to admit it either. Now I need a drink. One more thing: watch this movie until the very end.
The very end.
Acting and chemistry: ★★★☆☆
Look and feel: ★★★★☆
UPDATE JULY 7, 2017: I haven't watched the movie a second time ever since, meaning it's forgettable. Sigh.