- Post
- #973454
- Topic
- Last movie seen
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/973454/action/topic#973454
- Time
GHOSTBUSTERS (2016)
I had watched the trailers leading up to this and they didn’t sell me on the concept, billing it as a continuation of the series with the flavor of a soft reboot. Nevertheless, was intrigued enough to give it a try.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed the first half hour of the film, but as it approached the end I became more and more cynical towards it until the end credits scene, when my mood turned to genuine dislike. First of all, I enjoyed the four female leads (and especially Hemsworth’s character), although their humor is more improvisational and ‘messy’ than the humor of the original Ghostbusters cast. However, the film is definitely a reboot except for a single line of dialogue implying the previous existence of ‘ghostbusters’. My main gripe is with the concept of the reboot itself. Simply put, the movie would have worked far better as a continuation and a passing of the torch than as a reboot. Bill Murray’s cameo, at first merely a cameo, becomes a bit part that is entirely unfunny. It was a wasted opportunity, since Murry could have easily been played as the Han Solo of this film, a touchstone for the fan’s love for the original. I don’t hold the original Ghostbusters in particularly high esteem, but after recently rewatching it, it feels naturally goofy, classy, and funny where each scene of (2016) feels more and more contrived.
The movie proceeds almost beat for beat in time with the original Ghostbusters, yet apart from a few improvements over the original (the increased focus on ghostbusting tech being the only example that springs to mind), the movie fails to bring anything new to the table, and will naturally suffer in comparison to the original. In other words: if it aint broke, don’t fix it. The final act of the film suffers the most from these plot appropriations, with events, imagery, and entire characters placed into the film simply because they existed in the original. Now excised from their cultural zietgiest, these elements feel completely out of place and reek of half-baked, emotionally manipulative writing.
(SONY ENTERTAINMENT STAMP OF APPROVAL) out of 10.
STAR TREK BEYOND
I just got out of an early showing, and my review for this is similar to my review of Ghostbusters (2016), albeit to a lesser extent. The film opens on a fun reintroduction of the crew and proceeds to put them through the wringer, more physically than emotionally. Whereas in Ghostbusters my enjoyment declined linearly throughout the film, in Beyond I was happily invested until the revelation of the villain’s plan, when my interest immediately nosedived.
Unlike Ghostbusters, however, I left with an overall good feeling about the film and of the franchise as a whole. The film respects both the original timeline and the Kelvin timeline, and Lin brings an expected increase in quips and action. I could do without the increased action in favor of a more measured, philosophical movie, but that battle was lost with Star Trek (2009) and holding that against it is beating a dead horse. Lin knows that the best thing about Star Trek is the characters, so the movie never goes far wrong.
The best thing about Star Trek is that it leaves you feeling like the future is bright and full of possibility. For me, it is mission accomplished, and I look forward to seeing new worlds and new civilizations in Star Trek 14.
Ranking - Approximate order from worst to best:
Star Trek: Into Darkness
Nemesis
Insurrection
The Final Frontier
The Motion Picture
Generations
Star Trek Beyond
Star Trek (2009)
The Search For Spock
The Undiscovered Country
The Voyage Home
The Wrath of Khan
First Contact
.png)
