Why You Don't Have To Be Sexist To Dislike The Ghostbusters Reboot

Whatever you do, don't say that the new Ghostbusters films isn't anything but excellent in public. You'll be castigated, aligned with the particularly heinous mob of idiots seeking to squash the film without giving it due consideration (either because it's full of yucky girls or it sexually assaults their childhoods or something) and dismissed as a sexist. Because, unfortunately, we're now living in a world run by Twitter extremists where criticism of anything with a perceived political/cultural significance is forbidden.

But that horribly misses the point that critics and fans shouldn't be going into a movie en masse to see how important it is. It's just not how the mainstream appreciation of movies - and in particular blockbusters - works. They're there for the entertainment factor: to laugh, to feel, to be delighted by spectacle and circumstance. Sure, importance has a value too - particularly when it's going to impact positively on the next generation of young girls - but it should never become a coat of armour for a mediocre product.

If that were the case, Sony Pictures would be far better putting out a PSA challenging gender politics, rather than bothering with the expense of making an actual movie.

Ghostbusters is not a good film. It has its moments - the start is great, the characters are fundamentally well drawn in a broad way and the performances far exceed the material for the most part - but the general execution is sloppy, imbalanced and unsatisfying. It looks like Eddie Murphy's Haunted Mansion, a lot of the jokes in act 2 and 3 are painfully unsuccessful and for a film seeking difference from the originals, it is weighed down by fan-service that is distracting and does disservice.

There's no problem with the fact that the cast are female, nor that the only leading male character is based on an inversion of typical portrayals of a certain type of female character archetype (if you have issues with the film solely based on those points you WILL be called sexist, and it won't be wrong). The problem is more with the script and the direction, and the fact that most of the characters are given painfully little to actually do beyond their strong introductions.

It would be great if Kate McKinnon's kooky, mad scientist type was given more to do than mug to the camera and try exceptionally hard to be odd. At no point are her actions actually allowed to speak, instead she's limited to a series of reaction shots and to adding weird colour to the supernatural set pieces. And yet she has an interesting story - she's gay, as Paul Feig has said since release - and it seems entirely ridiculous that he couldn't find space to explore that (or even mention it) in a film that includes her having a dance off with Kristen Wiig for literally no reason at one point.

Leslie Jones' Patty too is hamstrung by some questionable decisions and she has to work hard to make sure her performance transcends the limits of the material. That she is able to reclaim any of the character from the murky racially charged waters she has to wade through is a bloody marvel.

And though both Wiig and McCarthy are as entirely watchable as they were in Ghostbusters, they too are missing the depth afforded by good material to work with and the most interesting part of Wiig's performance ends up being her awkward flirtation with Chris Hemsworth. Is that really a progression?

Elsewhere the effects are ropey, there are glaring missed opportunities and there are plot holes the size of ghostly parade balloons that can SOMEHOW be busted using a pin rather than the hugely expensive scientific equipment that every other ghost requires. None of it is entirely fatal - aside from the one-note joke of Hemsworth's idiot that is taken so far he would look out of place as Mr Bean's idiot younger brother - but it contributes to a film that is disappointing.

That it's worthy is not up for debate. The fact that it will inspire young girls to imagine stories they can be the headline act in, rather than the secretary is incredible. That it gives female actors a franchise to lead is equally valuable, but it would be far, far better in the long-run if such politically important films were also actually better than mediocre. And no amount of accusing everyone who naysays as a foaming sexist fanboy will change that fact.

The value of those progressive steps don't trump the typical pillars of criticism - from fans or critics - and it is dangerous to ignore them if we want Hollywood to make better films as a whole. So keep saying you didn't enjoy it, if you didn't. Keep picking apart the issues and suggesting where it went wrong and where the sequel - which is happening, and which is entirely welcome IF it improves on the first - can get better.