Ghostbusters (2016)

Ghostbusters (2016)

This movie mildly met my expectations. As a package it was fun to watch and in many ways nostalgic. Anyone who saw the iconic 1984 version would be naturally curious. Some performances were weak while others acceptable, but none were wickedly funny. The problem with a “reboot” is it wants to hang on to its linage but at the same time has the challenge to be fresh. The director and writers played this movie safe. Cast chemistry was very good. No one character dominated.

Melissa McCarthy has two basic personas, Tammy (wild woman) and Maggie from Saint Vincent.  Here Maggie as the lead scientist appeared. McCarthy was too low keyed and mostly unfunny. Her signature physical antics were absent. A subdued Melissa McCarthy is like watching strippers dance with their clothes on.

Kristin Wiig was the other scientist. Aside from some horny physical attraction to Hemsworth she was relegated as a mumbling worry worth. She is a very witty actress and could have contributed more to her role.

Kate McKinnon was the ordnance maven. She fabricated all sorts of ghostbusting weaponry (reminiscent of the 1984 movie). She sported a frozen a mad scientist look. Even with a limited guise she was funny in several spots even with little dialogue.

Leslie Jones has been described as a force of nature (I describe her as the last person you want to be stuck in an elevator with). Her performance in SNL is aggressive and wild. Here she was relegated to being a mere human. She was essential to the film but restraining here character was a mistake

At first I was not enthusiastic with Chris Hemsworth. The beefcake blond bird brain stereotype was obvious and unimaginative.  But his role grows on you and he has some funny skits. If the writers had more nerve they would have exploited sexual angle with Wiig. A three some with a ghost would have been edgy; calling Patrick Swayze. 

The movie was more effective when it was physical. Being slimed is still fun and fighting specters is what ghostbueters do. There are some end of the world battles. Chaos was done well.

Interestingly the special effects were not much different from the 1984 original. After thirty-two years you would expect some significant innovations. May be the director wanted to connect with the past.  Sadly, the Marshmallow Man did not appear.

There were some wonderful  nostalgic cameos from the 1984 movie.  The big names all seemed to have a good time and boosted the movie. Missing was the “Key Master”, Rick Moranis. He was asked but declined to appear.

This movie has its weak points, but there is enough to make it watchable. For those over sixty this s a nostalgic walk. Hey, for the rest of you can do worse. Until the “Suicide Squad “opens.

p.s. Theme music is the same as the original-why mess with perfect.

Tarzan

Tarzan

As a boy I was a Tarzan fan. My Tarzan was Johnny Weissmuller. He was German American and a five-time Olympic gold medal winner in swimming. He was not great actor, but the shows were action packed. Swinging from vines, riding elephants using his famous jungle call (which he patented). The focus of the films was action sprinkled with accidental acting.

This action flick this film was slow to get going. There was plot set up, convincing Tarzan to return to Africa, flash backs explaining the back story (done well). It dragged on a bit, but the pace quickened later on with human and non-human battles.

The 2016 Tarzan is a blond Swedish actor named is Alexander Skarsgard (before acting he was a model-dah). He is an obvious departure from traditional Tarzans but it does not detract from the action. His acting a bit stiff, but what he lacks in nuance he makes up in physicality. It took an hour and sixteen minutes before he took his shirt off. The guy is ripped. I stopped counting abs at twelve. He fights apes (not too well), natives and evil white men. He looks great on the vines.

 Margot Robbie is Jane. She is bubbly. Even in dire situation she remains rosy.  Whatever happens she knows Tarzan will come for her. This is a theme of the film, Tarzan’s devotion to Jane. There are geopolitical crises afoot and Jane is used as the bait.

Christoph Waltz is the villain who is in the service of King Leopold of Belgium. The plot is to enslave the Congolese natives and plunger their diamonds. Waltz is an admired actor but when he plays the bad guy with Natizi characteristics, you just want to punch him in the nose. He gives a solid performance absent repartee. This made his performance dower. Some levity would have been most welcomed.

Samuel L Jackson is an American named George Washington Williams who accompanies Tarzan back to Africa. Jackson does not even try to use of 19^th century speech cadence. He is still talks like the man on the plane with does M….F…. snakes. His performance grows on you as he tries to keep up with Tarzan. In part It becomes a buddy movie.

Poor Dijmon Hounsou, someone had to go native and he pulled the short straw. He plays the chief of fierce tribe and is Tarzan’s mortal enemy. His fierceness is compromised by wearing a little leopard skin skull cap and mittens with claws. He is intimidating any disguise, but the mittens kill it.

A problem of the movie is actors seem to be on different planes. Skarsgard is too serious, Robbie is too bubbly, Jackson seems to be playing in another movie and Waltz is graven. For movie to coalesce there needs to be some acting consistency.

For $180m production cost I think more action was expected. With some of the disappointing cinematic fair out there this is not the worst movie you can see. Just calibrate your expectations

Spoiler Alert- No loincloths are worn. Anyway who wants to see Samuel L Jackson in a loincloth.