WARNING: This Review Contains Spoilers
In 1984, life in New York City was in paranormal peril. Until four unlikely heroes take on those that had decided to change the world as they knew it. In 2016, the Ghostbusters returned to save the people of Manhattan, only this time the faces have changed. So, we ask the question – “who you gonna call?”
Film Format
This is where important discussions have arisen, about what constitutes a remake. I feel it does not need to be frame-by-frame for it to be such. The openings are similar, the ghost in the 2016 version is just more malevolent. Yes, there is the additional ghost sighting that brings Patty into joining them replacing the sighting of Zool in Dana’s fridge. There is even the same underlying story of a person being used to release the ghosts upon the city just this time it is willingly. The only differences are that they do not live in the fire station – I believe it is shown as a nod to the original film, and instead of being asked for their help by the mayor, they are told to work in secret so they can keep what is really happening under wraps and make the Ghostbusters look like fools. The enemy even takes the form of what they desire.
The Humour
It is amazing to see how humour has changed between the two films. I avoid using the word developed as in my opinion this is not the case. The dry tone of Bill Murray outweighs the toilet humour of the remake. It is worrying state of affairs when Chris Hemsworth is funnier than the comedic actors playing the lead roles.
The Receptionist
Understandably, with the change of gender of the Ghostbusters naturally the receptionist would be switched too. However, what I do not feel is needed is for the attitude towards the receptionist to change. Of course, Chris Hemsworth is a good-looking guy – but does this mean that the style of conversation about him needs to be reasonably sexist? For example, in the interview the first question asked is if he’s single? And in regards to his clumsiness – Erin asks him if he hurt his face? It can also be considered that he is only hired for his looks, because he is a useless receptionist. I’m sure if this film had been made as a direct remake – there would have been uproar if they had spoken to Janine in such a way. So, this begs the question, why is it different just because it is women making the comments? However, I will say – making his character so useless does lend itself to the twist at the end.
The Cameos
In addition to Ozzy Osbourne, there are many cameos from the original cast that are rather prominent in the remake. Firstly, and I guess this is slightly more than a cameo as we see him at least twice, is Bill Murray. He is cast as a ghost debunker and has a full interaction with our main cast, including being thrown from a window by a ghost. Following this, we have an appearance from Annie Potts (played receptionist Janine) stars in a role as a desk clerk in the Mercado Hotel. Next up, Dan Akroyd plays a belligerent taxi driver and finally Ernie Hudson plays Patty’s uncle. So this really does beg the question, why not keep them as the same characters and made this a sequel instead?
The New Soundtrack
It pains me to say this as a Fall Out Boy fan, but even though it is a decent song I really wish they had left the Ghostbusters theme tune alone. It makes me wonder if they were not able to get the rights to reuse the original version.
So “Who You Gonna Call?”
In conclusion, I think this is the first time I can adamantly say I prefer the original. I was actually bored during the film until the climax and, honestly, I would not watch it for any other reason than this review. But I do have one question, why does it have to end with a groin shot? Once again, bringing the humour to a base level.
