In 'Ghostbusters,' character comedy is trampled by effects

( PG-13 ) ( Monitor Movie Guide )

'Ghostbusters' stars Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Leslie Jones, and Kate McKinnon. It's directed by Paul Feig of 'Bridesmaids' and 'Spy.'

Hopper Stone/Sony Pictures/AP
'Ghostbusters' stars (from l.) Leslie Jones, Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig and Kate McKinnon.

Much has already been written in advance of the opening of “Ghostbusters” about how the film will serve as a referendum on the future success or failure of female-centric Hollywood movies. All I can say is, I certainly hope this dreary, bleary comedy doesn’t end up serving as a referendum on anything. That would be a disservice to women, not to mention movies.

It seemed like a good idea – reboot the “Ghostbusters” franchise with a female cast. The cast was promising, too – Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones. But, as is so often the case with special-effects-heavy movies, the character comedy quickly gets trampled by the effects (in this case, not special).

The film’s ineptitude, courtesy of director Paul Feig, extends to the actresses themselves, most of whom have been far funnier. Or not. McCarthy’s welcome wore out for me some time ago; the slapstick raunch and the hollering have become tiresome schtick. Wiig, like so many "Saturday Night Live" performers (most conspicuously Tina Fey), doesn’t retain on the big screen the sass and wigginess (pun intended) she exhibited on the small screen.

Leslie Jones, of "SNL," is stuck playing the soul sister part, but she has a few funny freestyle moments, as does McKinnon. Chris Hemsworth, playing the women’s assistant, plays a hunky airhead and seems to be in the movie only to provide some counterprogramming. He’s the male bimbo – a sex role-reversal joke that never takes off. The whole movie never takes off. Grade: D (Rated PG-13 for supernatural action and some crude humor.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.