Laura Enright's Blog, page 2

Today I'd like to introduce you to a fellow author whom I met at The Printers Row Literary Fest this past June. Her name is Laura Quinn and among her many talents she is the author of the novel Punk Charming.
Tell us a little about Punk Charming. What’s the plot?
Punk Charming is a combination love story, travel story and trove of pop culture. Kate is an American on her way to study in Oxford in 1986. Along the way, the eighteen-year-old travels through France and Spain and meets a British punk on the train from Paris to Calais. They instantly bond and spend the next few days exploring London. Miscues and sabotage by a fellow Oxford student keep the love-struck pair apart, but they remain in each other’s hearts and thoughts. Time and an ocean prove formidable barriers, testing the constancy of true love. Will they find each other again?


Your bio states the sparks for the story hit you in 1986. What was the inspiration?
Like my character, I traveled to Oxford in 1986. While studying at Oriel College, I managed to squeeze in plenty of trips to local pubs and dance clubs and met so many amazing people. Later, I wondered how you would ever find someone again, if you didn’t write down that person’s 411. Of course, this was all well before we had cell phones, the Internet, etc. That thought was the spark of this novel…but it took quite a bit of time before I actually got around to writing it.
Did it take that long to write the novel or was it a series of stops and starts?
My fingers could barely keep up with the speed that the story revealed itself to me. Still, it did take a good long while to put it all together. Then, there were the dreaded rounds of edits and rewrites. Plus, I did a lot of research. Although I lived through the 80s, I wanted to ensure that the details were accurate. Technology in particular changed at such a rapid pace. It seems like we went from our glowing neon slimline phones to pagers to the brick phone in the blink of an eye.

How’s the reception for the novel been?
In a word, awesome! I’ve received such kind responses from readers that range in age from 13 to 90 years, with as many (if not more) men as women enjoying the story. Recently, my publisher surprised me by telling me Punk Charming is being translated into Spanish. It’s now a race to see if I can revive my fluency in time, so I can actually read my own book!
Okay, the novel is set in the 1980s so let’s talk the 1980s: What do you feel is the most overrated song of the 80s?
This is a tough one! So many terrible songs were so popular. I just heard “Nothing’s Gonna Stop Us Now” by Starship, which sticks in my head for all the wrong reasons. They were also responsible for “We Built this City”, which so many renamed “We Bilked this City”. In thinking about your question, I remembered an epic battle with my manager at the time, deciding which 45 to put in the store’s jukebox. I had “Under the Milky Way” by The Church and he had “Sweet Child O’ Mine” by Guns N Roses. He ultimately pulled rank and put in the latter. When he quit a few months later, I immediately made the switch. In fact, a fellow New Waver joined me in the storeroom to reenact the record smashing incident at Comiskey Park, so that particular 45 never returned.


How about the most underrated song of the 80s?
Another tough one! The radio never (or very rarely) played the songs I loved, so I had to always travel with a collection of cassettes. My Renault was famous for eating tapes, so I also kept long tweezers to delicately extract the spools of OMD, Spandau Ballet, Duran Duran, etc. Back to your question – I don’t think I can answer it. There were so many hidden gems! Even the bands that became uber successful had incredible songs from earlier albums that were heard by very few.

What band consistently satisfied you with their music? 

That’s an easy one – Duran Duran! In fact, I just went to both of their concerts at Ravinia last month. They are as amazing as ever (I’m a die-hard Duranie, what can I say?).


How often did you go to Cabaret Metro?
Ah, fond memories there! I was there more times than I can remember – how’s that for accuracy? I was also a frequent visitor to Medusa’s. Not long ago, I found (then lost again) a ticket from the 1987 New Year’s Eve concert there – I think the Revolting Cocks played that show.

How about Wax Trax?
Surprisingly, only a few times. I spent a lot of time at other record stores – especially stores that specialized in imports. The Turntable in Schaumburg was a constant threat to my credit card limit.
What’s your favorite TV show of the 80s?
A three-way tie between "The Young Ones," "Murder She Wrote" and "Alf." I wonder what a psychologist would make of that combination?


What’s your favorite 80s movie?
"Back to the Future" is my immediate answer. If pressed, I would have to choose BTTF 2, but it’s really a three-way tie with that trilogy. The 80s was filled with some epic films (and epic failures!), and my list of favorites is a long one. Still, the experience of watching the BTTF movies is unlike any other, even today. For the 30th anniversary, I saw the trilogy at a local cinema. Even though we have much more advanced effects today, those scenes are still amazing. Despite having seen these movies hundreds of times, I still stress over whether or not Marty will make it in time for the lightning strike. The legend continues to new generations of fans, as I witnessed at ComicCon last week. A very, very long line wrapped through the hotel for a panel discussion with Michael J. Fox, Lea Thompson and Christopher Lloyd. Fans of all ages patiently waited for hours, with most sporting the multi-colored Marty cap, Doc’s hair, and other iconic BTTF fashions.


What was your favorite wine cooler?
Seagram’s. I don’t remember the flavor other than it was citrusy. I’m not sure we had many flavor choices back in the day.

Doc Martens or red gym shoes?
Docs! I still have all my pairs, including my red plaid (my faves!), green velvet and oxblood tall boots. The plaid Docs make frequent appearances to book signings and events.
What color was your hair?
It was my natural color of auburn, augmented by streaks of color (courtesy of the colorful mascara choices we had – blue, pink, etc). During the summer, I tried my luck with Sun-In spray and lemon juice for highlights. My hair was also spiked with a heavy shellac of AquaNet Extra Super Hold. My entire record collection is forever preserved by the same shellac, courtesy of styling my hair while hanging upside down off my bed, record player blasting.

That was fun, but let’s gets back to your book. The cover is very eye catching. Who designed the cover?
Isn’t it amazing? Dawné Dominique is the talented artist. I was so lucky that Punk Charming was assigned to her. She just got the whole essence of the book and created that cover on her first try.
Did you have any input on it?
I had given the cover much thought, but really had no idea exactly what I wanted—though I knew it had to incorporate the UK flag. When I saw Dawné’s design, I knew that was it.

In terms of the romance genre, what book do you consider over rated and what book do you think should have more popularity?
There are more than a few best-sellers that fall under the first category, but I’m not going to name names. In the past few months, I’ve met so many talented authors who put out amazing books that don’t get the attention they deserve. I know I sort of dodged your question here, so how about naming Shakespeare as my favorite? The Bard set the bar for writing timeless scenes of passion.
Did any book in particular inspire this novel of yours in anyway?
I can’t say that there is. We writers are such voracious readers, though, that I’m sure many works inspire subconsciously. Going into the writing process, I had no preconceived ideas. I really had no idea where the story would go.

Who are some of your favorite authors?
I’ve been privileged to read so many beautiful books, I’m spoilt for choice. I gravitate towards character-driven stories, especially those that stand the test of time so brilliantly. Edgar Allen Poe, William Shakespeare, Agatha Christie and George Orwell are some of the authors whose works I can read again and again, and discover some new little jewel every time.
When/how did the writing bug bite you?
My first “published” book was authored in grade school. Our local library had a great program where kids would write a story, have it “bound” with a laminated cover and placed on the library shelves. I think they even assigned a number and check-out card (remember those days?) to them. Sure, only our parents ever actually checked them out, but the experience was a tremendous confidence builder for young writers to pursue their passion.
Anyone else in your family interested in writing? 
Some love to write and some hate to write. They all love to read, though, so we writers have plenty of beta readers to review our work. Luckily for our craft (though not for our egos), they have no hesitation in saying something is terrible.
What are some of your current favorites in books, movies and TV?

TV – I’m a British mystery junkie, desperately awaiting the next season of "Sherlock."
Movies – I haven’t had too much time to see many current films lately. I’m a "Mission Impossible" fan and am waiting to see the most recent "Star Trek" installment. The last film I rented was "Man Up", which was a great quirky romance.


Books – Some of the more recent books I’ve enjoyed are: The Secret History by Donna Tartt, The Twelve (now titled Ghosts of Belfast) by Stuart Neville, and Restless by William Boyd.
Do you have any sort of routine for when you write: Favorite music you listen to, a particular time you prefer to write?
I have a favorite spot where I like to write and I partake of special foods and drinks reserved for writing (Fortnum and Mason Jubilee tea, Thorntons or Charbonnel Et Walker chocolates, and occasionally Mumm Napa Cuvee M sparkling wine). Music is usually involved - the type depends on what I’m writing. I find music has a tremendous impact on creating and sustaining mood and pace in a story.
Do you have any hobbies?
I love to travel! If the winning lottery numbers would just cooperate, I would love to travel the globe and write. I’m also a culture junkie, so I fill the void by reading, going to galleries and museums, attending plays and concerts. Lately, I’ve found a new hobby of creating graphic art. I suppose it’s the frustrated artist in me, loving art but not being able to draw a straight line.

Have you ever written anything that afterward surprised you? Perhaps after a reading it you recognized a hidden subtext that you didn’t realize was there?
I’m a big believer in stream of consciousness writing exercises. I first learned it from one of my favorite writing teachers in college. When he first introduced the idea, I thought it was absolute nonsense. How wrong I was! Whether I’m facing writer’s block or just trying out new ideas, these techniques always produce surprising results. When I write my stories, I usually let them tell themselves, which often take unexpected turns. In Punk Charming, the character that my readers so love to hate actually started off in my mind as a good guy. He definitely drifted to the dark side!
Would you ever be interested in trying to write something in a different genre?
In fact, I’m working on two mystery series now. Like Punk Charming, they’ll be character-driven and feature strong female characters. It’s different in that I do have to do a bit of outlining, to keep track of clues and red herrings.

What do you like best and like least about the marketing process?
Meeting and talking with people has been the best part of the marketing process. I love sharing stories from the 80s, travel dreams and nightmares, and writing in general. I’ve been able to connect with fans over social media platforms too, which is fantastic. The downside is the time required to do all the marketing.
What would be the best advice you could give a new author?
Talk with other authors. If possible, take a workshop or join a writing group. Writing can be a long, lonely road. I think it helps to have a road map of what’s ahead, to prepare for the stressful bits and get excited about the journey.

Who would you like to see play the characters in a movie?
So many readers have asked me this! I’m certainly open to any actors who would like to pick up this project. I got to see the last season of "Smallville", and when I saw Oliver Queen (Justin Hartley), I said, “That’s James!” One of my readers suggested Max Irons for James. I think Jennifer Lawrence would make a great Kate! Simon Pegg (love him!) would be perfect for Ian. Suggestions welcome!

What song would sum up the energy of the novel?It probably won’t surprise you at this point when I tell you it would be a Duran Duran song. When I heard their latest album, Paper Gods, I instantly thought "What Are the Chances" would be the ideal theme song. Others have told me the same. The song is stunning, with tailor-made lyrics, soaring vocals and haunting melody. When I heard it live at Ravinia, I got chills…and could just picture the film credits rolling on the screen. Simon Le Bon, if you’re reading this, have your people call my people.


The story has different moods and paces, so I’ll have to cheat and add a second one. I’ll go retro on this pick and choose "West End Girls" by the Pet Shop Boys. They’ll be playing a concert in Chicago in November, so I’m available for a meeting with them as well.
Any future projects you can tell us about?
I’m working on a sequel to Punk Charming, which will turn into a series. The new books will be set in current times, but you can bet there will be plenty of 80s references. International travel will be a central theme.
I’m also working on a new mystery series that will be set in Chicago’s North Shore. I can’t tell you what it’s about yet, but I can tell you the stories will include a cause close to my heart, dog rescues.
Where can people find more information on you or your projects?
I have two websites: PunkCharming.net(for the Punk Charming series) and LauraQuinnBooks.com (for all series). I also have an author page on GoodReads and Amazon. My social media platforms are included below.


https://twitter.com/PunkCharming80s
https://facebook.com/punkcharmingbook
https://instagram.com/punkcharming/
https://www.pinterest.com/80sfun/https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-0Y2GU0pMfGvd6et0ve_wQ

Once a year on his birthday, thousands of fans of the Indian actor Shah Rukh Khan converge outside his mansion in Mumbai to wish him happy birthday. And every year he stands out on his roof top to greet them and thank them for their wishes. His appearance brings about an eruption of screams as the crowd rushes closer to get a better look at him (and in a way, possibly hoping to be seen themselves). 


To each person in the crowd, their view is that of one man. To the man on the roof, his is a sea of people, almost an entity unto itself. One can’t help but wonder if perhaps Shah Rukh Khan is overwhelmed not only by joy that his efforts have touched so many people, but also a bit of trepidation when that entity comes rushing forward.

It’s what makes his performance “in and as” “FAN” that much more interesting. I had hoped to do a review of this movie when it came out in April, but while I saw “FAN” the day it opened, I didn’t get the chance to do the review. Having recently watched the movie again on blu-ray, I feel the need to post my thoughts on it because it’s one of my favorite movies. Though there are cheerful moments, it isn’t a cheerful movie. There’s a lot going on psychologically. It’s possible that’s why it didn’t do as well as Shah Rukh Khan’s films normally do in India.



Bollywood is a very specific style. You can have drama, pathos, violence, but you must balance it with feel-goods like romance or friendship. And of course dance numbers. The audience likes to leave the cinema humming the songs from the four or five dance numbers. You can have dark themes, but the audience wants redemption or reconciliation at the end. They want to feel good and the fact is that “FAN” is not a feel good movie. Nor did it have any dance numbers despite a dance number being released prior to the movie’s release (which I think might have thrown off people’s perceptions of what to expect from the film).


It is, none the less, a great film that asks a number of questions, some by virtue of the star’s real life. The film starts with the voice over recollections of twenty-five year old Guarav Chandna (played by Shah Rukh Khan), who proudly admits that for the majority of his life he has worshipped the Bollywood star Arayan Khanna (also played by Shah Rukh Khan). We’re treated to the joy of a young Guarav watching his idol Arayan on the big screen. And he calls himself “Aryan Junior” (he calls the star “Senior”) because he bears a resemblance to the star, fueling the fan’s fantasy further that they are somehow connected.

And from a technical standpoint, it is amazing when we first see the grown up Guarav. VFX and practical make up come into play here to transform the 51 year old, muscularly toned Khan into the 25 year old, slighter Guarav. Even Khan’s substantial nose had to be shaved a bit to make Guarav’s a little sleeker. A great deal of thought went into how to pull this off. But none of it would have worked without an incredible performance by Khan himself. 

Khan is portraying a young fan, slightly over-indulged by his parents, who is obsessed by an older celebrity whose rise to fame was not an easy one (and who is finding retaining that fame to be proving difficult as well). And his performance is so good that you forget you’re watching Khan and not another actor. This will come into play later too when the two main characters come face to face and seem like two different actors.



The writer, director and Khan did something very smart. Guarav is portrayed as a likable character. He is not a loser. He runs his own internet café and can be incredibly sociable. He has a slightly flirtatious relationship with a woman who could be his girlfriend. He is spoiled by his parents, but he none the less has a close relationship with them. He could be successful in his own right. Except that his obsession for Khanna has gone just a bit over the range of healthy and that keeps him from full involvement in his own life. He wins money at a talent contest in which he impersonates Aryan Khanna, doing scenes from the star’s movies. Having won a number of times in the past, he’s gained a certain amount of celebrity himself. But it’s a borrowed celebrity using recycled material that brought his idol Aryan Khanna full blown celebrity. Guarav is creative, but his creativity is used only in the service of his obsession. 

And he has decided that this year, he will use his money to travel from Delhi to Mumbai to wish his idol happy birthday and to show him the trophy he won. He truly believes he will be able to gain an audience with the star. He travels “WT—Without Ticket” (essentially a stow away) even though he has plenty of money for a ticket because that’s how his idol traveled to Mumbai from Delhi before he made it big. It’s here that we get a glimpse at just how deeply Gaurav’s obsession runs when the conductors of the train he’s on try to corral him to make him get off at the next stop and he threatens to jump from the train if they don’t promise to allow him to travel the way his idol traveled. We’ve already seen how willing he is to fight for his objective. Hours before the talent contest that won him the money for the trip, when bullies tried to force him to keep the internet café open (and risk him being late for his performance) Gaurav was willing to fight them (and be beaten to a pulp) rather than acquiesce or call for help. These incidents set up clearly how far he’s willing to take something to obtain his objective. 

Clearly he is troubled, but if he could dial it down just a notch, he would have a good life of his own. Unfortunately the actions taken in his life are ruled by the fantasy that one day he will meet Senior who will smile down and validate him as a human being. 

This urge, this need is felt by people all around the globe, directed not only at celebrities, but at teachers, love-interests, spouses, parents, children. We all want the pat on the back from those we love or admire. Some just need it more desperately than others. 

Unable to get the attention he seeks, Guarav takes it a step further by threatening a rival actor of Aryan’s whose involved in a lawsuit with Khanna. He no doubt tells himself that he’s doing it purely for Aryan, but the fact is that he’s doing it to seek attention from Aryan. When he at last gets the attention he seeks, it’s not what he bargained for. 

Their meeting in the jail to which Aryan had Guarav sent after discovering the fan’s attack attack on the rival is an example of the many facets to this movie. There are those who feel bad for Guarav during this scene (the notion that our idols somehow always manage to let us down when we meet them coms into play). Aryan has come to try to help him understand how wrong his actions were, but Guarav fails to see that. Instead he insists that it was done all for Aryan and Aryan should somehow be grateful. Aryan’s curt response to what is a disturbing attitude is to question who Guarav is to feel the right to do anything like that for him. Then he tells the young man that he was the one behind his arrest. Aryan’s response wounds Guarav deeply and it shows plainly on his face. 

That’s why people feel sorry for Guarav, perhaps sympathizing with him as fans themselves. And indeed, there is some truth to Guarav’s response, “Without Guarav, there is no Aryan.” Yet, I can’t help but think that Aryan’s response is anything but cruel. 

He’s been placed into a difficult situation by this fan. The disturbing act was posted by Guarav to the internet all for the sake of Aryan, but it’s an act that threatens Aryan’s reputation. Aryan comes to the jail in an obvious attempt to help the young man see some sense, but what he’s faced with is just one person of the millions making up the crowds that follow him. These people are capable of great love and apparently many are capable of great violence. How many are? All in the name of Aryan Khanna. What must that be like to know that you can instill those sorts of emotions in people simply by performing a job you like? And for that matter, how much does a star owe his fans?


Success is a double edged sword and no one knows that better than Shah Rukh Khan whose fame has been stratospheric. As strong as his adulation has been equally so are those who criticize him. And in many respects this is where the movie gets really interesting when we consider how closely Aryan Khanna’s life resembles that of the star playing him. Even down to the talk about his reign as the King of Bollywood coming to an end as younger actors vie for the title. Now of course this talk has gone on for decades and Khan’s reign has yet to be toppled, but both Khan and Khanna know it is a reality that might one day have to be faced (and in the film, Aryan seems to be carrying that burden). 

Beyond that the movie addresses the fickleness of celebrity worship and the dancing that a celebrity often has to do to stay in the limelight. The need to please everyone when there’s no possible way everyone can be pleased. Khan’s most recent movies have been criticized for lack luster performances at the box office and yet the past several years have seen him making some fascinating choices in roles and doing some of his best work. Sometimes the roles play with the image he’s built as a Lothario. Sometimes they break it all together while incorporating new ideas for acting and film making into the typical Bollywood film (this movie is a prime example of Khan’s willingness to experiment not only with VFX but with his own performance). They’re good movies and his performances are great…but they’re not the right kind of movies to please those fans unwilling to look beyond the image they built around him for decades. They are his fans. Should he not continue to make the kind of movies they want? Should he not try to stretch as an actor? 
And yet these are his fans as well. They helped him achieve his success. 

In some respects a celebrity is treated as a thing to be idolized, adored, respected as well as hated, insulted and scorned. There’s a scene in the film in which Khanna is hired to perform at the wedding of a rich Indian living in Dubrovnik, Croatia. Khan is well known for performing at people’s weddings early in his career and he may still do it. (Raised in poverty, he has spent his career perfectly willing to do whatever it takes in the mercurial industry to secure the financial futures of him and his family). When the issue of Guarav has caused distress in Khanna’s life in England, he arrives in Croatia almost for the performance and the man who hired him does not mince words about how irresponsible he is. Khanna has known this family for years. He has performed at other functions for them. At the moment he is going through a trauma few can imagine and yet the man addresses that trauma only in as far as the inconvenience it has caused him. Khanna is little more than a show dog in the eyes of this man who is unconcerned with any dilemma the star is currently embroiled in. After all, Khanna probably brought it on himself and besides, he’s paying him well isn’t he?

In the course of the exchange, you can see Khanna, stressed to the breaking point by the events of the past few days, wanting to snap back. In some respects his ego is as tender as the ego of Guarav and in a different situation perhaps Khanna would go after a bully. But instead he bites back the response knowing any negativity on his end will only make matters worse. Instead he swallows his pride and assures the man that he will deliver a great show. 

There is little doubt that this is an interaction Khan himself must have had in his life from time to time, his own distress or upset viewed as unimportant because he is, after all, merely a celebrity. And of course nothing he has to say can be worth much either. It’s said that the box office numbers for his 2015 film “Dilwale” were affected by a boycott of it because he spoke about intolerance in India. 

And in 1966 John Lennon claimed that the Beatles were better than Jesus only he didn’t really say that. He said they were bigger than Jesus at the moment, and he was commenting on the relevance of Christianity as an institution, not on Jesus or his particular teachings. But that’s how it translated in the heads of the many small-minded who were too busy being affronted to consider and comprehend what the show monkey was actually saying. 
That’s how fame works. Anything the show monkey says can be misconstrued and if people put more effort into believing what they think he meant, as opposed to finding out what he actually meant, it can be tough on a person’s career.

So essentially what we have in these two characters is a fan angered over the rebuke by an idol and a star horrified at what his stardom has inspired a fan to do.

After their talk in the jail, heartbroken by his experience, Guarav returns home to recoup. He takes down the photos and posters of Aryan which cover the walls and ceiling of his room. All the mementos he’s collected over the years are taken up to the roof and burned. His obsession, still burns just as brightly only now, it’s become an obsession for recognition (which, perhaps there has been a little of that need all along). His obsession now is to get the star to acknowledge the betrayal and apologize. And here again is addressed the dichotomy that is Guarav as his energy which could be so productive at bringing joy to his life is instead spent on the scheme to get a star to apologize to him.

In an interview recently, Khan mentioned that perhaps they should have made Guarav’s intentions more deadly. I disagree. Guarav’s actions inevitably turn deadly but by making his mission more benign, it makes all his actions in achieving his objectives more interesting. Guarav’s illness is a lot more complex and thus that makes the movie much more complex than if they simply had an insane fan try to kill a star. The chance to pull him back from the edge remains throughout the remainder of the film and you find yourself hoping that that will be the case. You ask, “Guarav, why can’t you use that creativity to make your own life better as opposed to pull down the life of another?”

I was struck by this in a scene after Guarav has made his decision to get that apology. He sells the internet café and uses the money to travel to Croatia where Khanna will be doing that dance for an ungrateful patron. Guarav is seen walking down some steps, surrounded by history, listening to a Croation language class on his iPod. He’s smiling, enjoying the lesson, fascinated by the surroundings and the experience, but his inspiration for all this isn’t to learn a language, enjoy a vacation, or use the money from his café to see the world and figure out his place in it. Rather, it’s all part of a plan to torment Aryan Khanna and get him to apologize. Again, Guarav, a young man, intelligent, business savvy, with a level of charisma that enables him to socialize with people cannot set aside his anger or obsession to focus on using those tools to better his life. Rather, he spends his energy to upset the life of another (He’s already traveled to London and caused a stir so serious that Khanna was arrested in the belief that it was he who committed the act).

And again, Khan’s performance is so good in this that he’s able to create a character so distinct from Khanna that you forget that in real life, as the actor is walking through that Croatian town, he has prosthetic makeup and dots on his face to show the computer VFX crew where his face needs to be altered into that of Guarav’s during post production.

Equally so is his understanding of Khanna’s motivations. Getting back to Khanna suffering in silence the arrogance of the rich man; once he discovers that all this is being done for the sake of an apology, all it would take to end this is for Khanna to apologize to Guarav. He could even give a false apology and lure Guarav to the authorities. But even for that, Khanna cannot bring himself to apologize to this young man who has turned his life upside down. How much more must he give to this fan?

You have here two men standing on principles that neither can bring themselves to compromise. Both in some respect becoming their own worst enemy. And it leads them down roads that neither would have guessed they’d travel. 

It’s a fascinating study in human nature as well as in some respects Khan’s nature as he must dig deep into the psyche of the fan and the star to portray them both. The technical elements are amazing, especially when the two come into contact with each other, from the face to face in the jail, to chases on rooftops, to the end chase along the streets of Guarav’s hometown. It comes off as practically seamless. And so much thought was put into Khan’s performance of both characters that during the first scene in which you see Aryan chasing Guarav, both characters are running completely differently: Aryan’s a much more assured and athletic gait, Guarav’s a bit looser, his feet splayed out slightly. Aryan has had to train for many of the roles he’s taken on, while all Guarav has had to do was to sit and watch them. 

When I saw the trailer for the first time before its release, I was extremely excited to see the movie. I was not disappointed once I did. And I recommend it to anyone whether they’re fans of Bollywood (which I guess this movie still technically is despite some of the elements missing from it) or they’ve never seen a Bollywood movie before. It is an interesting study of both what it means to be a fan, and what it means to be a celebrity and its star, Shah Rukh Khan has experience with both. 

I normally don't post reviews that are negative. I don't feel it's necessary since my opinion may not be everyone's. But I felt the urge to review this movie for a couple of reasons, some of it to counter what I find to be a disingenuous attitude by certain people involved with the project. In this review I want to address the concept of misogyny (which is a term many of the defenders of the film resort to to brush away any criticism aimed at the film) and how it seems to me as if the backers of the film are kind of using it as a crutch to insist that a sub standard film is better than it is. And it's irritating because as a woman who loves to see more Girl Power in films, it annoys me that a film isn't being allowed to stand on its own merit. 

As someone whose been hoping for more Girl Power in films and TV since the folks behind "Xena: Warrior Princess" showed us how it could be done, I walked away from this movie thinking, "This is not what I want to represent female strength" basically because I didn't find the characters to be very strong.


When the cast of the "Ghostbusters" remake was announced, indeed, many cave-men out there expressed outrage over the fact that the Ghostbusters would all be women. These were truly pathetic people whose posts on social media instantly told you where they stood on women in general, not just the Ghostbuster gals (for example, if you use the terms "bitches" or "ho's" in making your argument...it's fairly obvious where your head is at regarding females).

Unfortunately, the misogyny that was out there suddenly became a great marketing tool by the people behind the project and anyone deciding that the project struck a blow for "Girl Power." Consequently anyone who criticized the project or the cast no matter how valid their reasons they presented, were instantly thrown in with the misogynists. 

When I heard about the all girl "Ghostbusters" it simply smacked of a gimmick to me. It didn't seem a sincere attempt to make a good movie in the series and as I explained in the first part of this review, that's all most fans wanted: A well-made continuation of the series. 



And there seemed to be some hope even with the gimmicky casting when talk of making a passing of the torch movie started up. The women could be the daughters or female relatives of the original four and would pick up the proton packs to carry on the tradition. It was simple, it honored the old movie while opening up possibilities for the new cast. Best of all it wouldn't be a remake which no one wanted.

It's possible that the 2014 death of Harold Ramis (Egon Spengler co-star and co-writer of the original) derailed the idea of a passing of the torch. Ivan Reitman, director of the original, was set to be more involved in this project but Ramis' death led him to back off more from the project (though there has been some suggestion that Sony was behind a little of that as well).


When it was announced that Paul Feig was chosen to direct, I had no opinion having not seen any of his movies at that point. Having seen three of his films I think I would have been even more concerned with him taking the wheel of this project.

"The Heat" was okay. "Spy" was very good (though a lot of that had to do with Jason Statham sending up his "brand"). But "Bridesmaids"...the film everyone talks about to indicate Feig's comic genius, in my opinion was absolute garbage. I laughed twice, then midway through the film gave up and turned the movie off. That was exactly the humor and tone that the original "Ghostbusters" wasn't. Unfortunately it's the sort of humor the 2016 remake would be full of.


Now I know there are people out there who found "Bridesmaids" incredibly funny, and while the concept of this scene has some humor to it, 10 minutes of it goes a long way. It's also not the sort of scene that can work well in a movie such as Ghostbusters which along with comedy is dependent on special effects. 

Oh...that doesn't mean they didn't try.

Add to that the names that were ultimately chose for the cast. I wrote a blog piece regarding who was chosen to star in the movie and with a slight softening of my opinion after seeing the movie, I still insist that better actors could have been found for the roles. 

Add to that Paul Feig's (almost arrogant) insistence that the new movie would be a total reboot with completely fresh ideas and no ties to the original. 

Well let's just say I wasn't overly impressed with the direction of this project.

So yes, I was a Debbie Downer about the project from that point on. When the trailers were released, they only confirmed my suspicion based on the cast this was not going to be a good movie.


This is the third trailer released and it still looks bad. Th material just isn't there to work with to create an interesting trailer.

The release of the trailers really set off a back lash against anyone who thought they were bad. It didn't matter that the editing stank, the jokes weren't funny, the FX seemed over the top and cartoony. If you thought those trailers were bad it was all because the cast was female. (And yet one could argue that people were defending the trailers and the movie because the cast was female which I'll bring up later).



It was a pathetic controversy (which I discussed in another post) ginned up I believe Sony marketing who seemed ready to take advantage of the chance to gain sympathy for this project. They took on the demeanor that they were fighting the good fight for more female representation in movies (though give a movie a weak box office and Sony'll change that demeanor really quickly). Paul Feig went after anyone who criticized what they were seeing of the project using the "Girl Power" shield to insult anyone who might not be a fan of what he was doing. In a New York Daily News interview Feig is quoted as saying, "Geek culture is home to some of the biggest a-holes I’ve ever met in my life, especially after being attacked by them for months because of this Ghostbusters project."

Now he's right about the geek-culture thing. It can be home to a lot of a-holes far too passionate about their passions to present their opinions rationally.


But in that one quote he seems to boil all negative opinions about the execution of this movie down to unreasonable discontent in attempt to negate the fact that there are a lot of people who had valid reasons not to be impressed with how he was handling the brand. A good portion of people hitting the "dislike" button were fans who didn't like what had been done to a beloved franchise (and as I stated in another blog piece about the controversy, if someone talked about a love for the original, the next marketing strategy became defenders of the 2016 film sticking out their tongues and saying, "The original wasn't even that good. Nya! Nya!")

No it wasn't misogyny that led to the dismay, it was the people behind the remake that dropped the ball. Simple as that. And cramming a message into a movie rarely works. It has to be done with subtlety, more organically. 

So all the, "poor us, the fanboys are picking on cause we're women" started seeming very disingenuous. In fact, it came off to me as if this new movie had been given a pass because of the supposed extent of the misogyny directed toward.


Now, as I stated in the previous review in which I focused on the remake aspect, I was actually pleasantly surprised by how much I liked the movie and the potential I saw for the cast. Bear in mind, I forked over the cost of the ticket with very low expectations so they didn't have a high bar to climb. But it wasn't the complete train wreck that the trailers led so many people to believe it would be (and I do find it interesting that many of the scenes in those trailers were not in the finished product including a dance scene that isn't in the main movie but is shown over the credits which actually might have been kind of funny for a few moments). 

In the previous review I mentioned that the remake feel of the movie ended up being a detriment to the film. You can't help comparing the two movies when they have so many elements from the original (down to the way the villain allows them to "choose your destructor") in this film. Again, a big deal was made by Paul Feig who didn't want to do a passing of the torch. He wanted to do a complete reboot with entirely fresh ideas. Yet when the time came he created a film that milks the original for all its worth. I think that was a marketing ploy by the studio who hoped to bring in more of the fan base waiting to see another "Ghostbusters" movie. "Okay, it's with a new team, but see, we have cameos by the former cast, we use symbols and characters that appear in the original (Mr Stay Puft, the Ghostbusters' logo, the firehouse, even Slimer, etc.). So we're not totally washing over the original."



But you are. And you're doing it in a way that makes no sense. The trailers spoke of four scientists saving the world 30 years ago...but in the universe presented in the 2016 remake, that event never occurred. So why confuse the issue?

Gimmicks abounded with this project. 

And as I stated, there is so much borrowed from the original that there's way too much baggage for the new team to carry. The writer, the director and the cast just simply don't have the skills to pull off a movie as funny, yet subtle as the original was. A perfect blend of comedy, horror, and paranormal becomes, in the hands of the people behind the 2016 movie, a cartoon. Which is fine, but don't jump on people who would have preferred to see a better retelling of the tale.

Speaking of cartoons, getting back to the point of this post, while the people behind the production shouted out "Girl Power" and all the reporters and hopeful bloggers followed suit, bashing anyone who hated what they were seeing as misogynist, the folks behind the movie managed to take Girl Power and make it as cartoonish as everything else in the movie. 

This is why I wanted to write this second review addressing that. If this is Feig's idea of "Girl Power", please don't do me any favors. These are not women I want representing my notion of "Girl Power".


Annie Potts as JanineSo far, outside of the ridiculous, "The original wasn't even that good" statement, I've not heard too many people claim that the original was some sexist movie. And I'm glad. Because it wasn't. Quite the contrary. The women in that movie are actually very strong.

The reason the Ghostbusters were men was because a bunch of guys who worked together before got together again and created a movie. They weren't worried about gender ratios, or ethnic ratios or whatever. They were simply interested in making a movie together. 

But let's consider the characters in the new movie that are supposed to represent "Girl Power".


Kristin Wiig plays Dr. Erin Gilbert, a particle physicist. One reason I wasn't impressed with her in this was because she gives this character the same demeanor she seems to give most of her characters, carrying herself in the movie as if she's desperate to lie in the corner curled up in the fetal position. She seems constantly on the verge of an apology, as actually McCarthy's character does as well. After the prologue, we introduced to Erin as she stands in front of a white board with a hell of a lot of impressive math figures on it (I've heard most of it was gibberish but I don't know cause I ain't a particle physicist). She's cool, she's confident. The camera pans over to the audience and there's no one there. Back to Erin and she's doing some kooky sort of wiggle to get some courage up for the discussion to come later. 

Okay, there are even brilliant people who have a problem speaking in front of the public. But I think this scene was supposed to be funny, especially with Wiig's body movements and it just fell flat. So you've already established the character as supremely lacking in confidence, which I suppose one could argue she builds up during the course of this movie...I don't know, but her lack of confidence isn't even endearingly funny.

Now some have compared her to the Venkman character, but I believe she's more Ray...the heart of the Ghostbusters. She has tried to distance herself from her previous paranormal research for the sake of her career, but that doesn't mean she isn't still a believer (Venkman, of course never seemed to be a believer until the encounter with the library ghost). 

But here's part of the problem: Several years ago she wrote a book with her friend Dr. Abby Yates on the paranormal. It's a book that should in  no way jeopardize her current career. And yet the moment it springs up again (Abby tries to sell it on Amazon), Erin does everything she can to hide from her boss at the University (played by Charles Dance). She even goes to Abby, the woman she had a falling out with years before and hasn't spoken to since, to get her to take it down. (The supposed years of resentment between them seem to be as weak as the script). 

The inevitable (for the sake of the plot) happens and Erin's previous paranormal work is discovered. She's shown with a box of her belongings walking out of the University after she's been fired.  And as she walks, she insists to everyone that she hasn't been fired, she just cleaning her office (or something along those lines). Again, Wiig doing her typical schtick that really isn't all that funny. The comedy of constant apology.

Her firing was completely unfair, yet she's going out as if she herself has something to hide. How about giving us a character that gives the middle finger to injustice? Many women have been in that situation and who have gone out blazing. 

Yes, one could argue that her character will go through a story arc that will have her connecting with her self esteem through her experience with the team, but it doesn't really get that much better. The team go to the mansion to meet the ghost who a particularly unfunny scene barfs a ton of slime on her (that's why Charles Dance's character ultimately fired her, because the video of it was posted on YouTube).

She carries herself through the film like scared rabbit waiting for the next bit of slime to be puked upon her. Not someone I would consider a great role model for "Girl Power".


Let's consider Abby Yates, another person who seems always on the verge of an apology but she does it with a cutesy smile and just the slightest bit of fire in her voice. Amy, while very enthusiastic about the cause, also seems every bit as capable a salesperson as Venkman was. She even convinces Erin to come back into the fold (after ruining her chances at the college) despite the bad blood between them. The problem is that while Bill Murray’s Venkman was incredibly funny, McCarthy’s cutsy bit just doesn’t have the gas to pull that off. (Even her character’s name, Abby Yates, is sickeningly cute). That doesn’t mean she doesn’t have her moments. But the slight chuckle is not the same full on laugh that so many of Bill Murray’s often improvised remarks produced (all the original cast improvised throughout the shoot. Rick Moranis improvised the whole one shot party scene in which he introduced “Ted and Annette Fleming who own a dry cleaning business in receivership.”). If McCarthy could have turned up the bite in her portrayal a bit, she might have been able to pull it off. She didn't. 

And let's consider how well she wears the "Girl Power" mantle. A running gag in the film is that Amy is constantly short changed when it comes to the won tons in her won ton soup that she orders from the Chinese restaurant (that they actually end up opening the business above). She's even developed a hate/annoyance relationship with Benny the delivery boy who she constantly insists that he tell the preparers of the order about the won ton issue. 

I've had a few bad experiences with take out restaurants and you know what I did? I stopped going to them. Because there are about 100 others I could go to that would give me better service. In the whole of New York is this the only Chinese restaurant that Yates can order from? Of course not, but rather than choose a different restaurant, she settles. Now I know that this is for the comedy and the gag (which sort of gets old after a while), but if you're claiming your movie has a positive "Girl" Power message, then maybe you need to rethnk the gag. Because really, even taking out the gender issue, I just thought Abby was a complete idiot for continuing to order from a restaurant that consistently disappointed her. 


Now two characters did impress me. I had a feeling I was going to like Kate McKinnon as Dr. Jillian Holtzmann, who is obviously the Egon Spengler character: The on the cusp-mad scientist slightly out of touch with societal norms (and how cool would it have been if she were Egon's niece or something!). But where Egon, outside perhaps of Ray and Peter (and later Winston), had no problem projecting his slightly superior, anti-social attitude on others (for hobbies, he collects spores, mold and fungus), Holtzmann seems to try masking  her social awkwardness using attention grabbing ticks and reactions.

From what I can gather in reactions to the movie, you either love Holtzmann or you hate her. I’m in the love camp. I really enjoyed the character. Yes, she chewed the scenery a bit (but really, they all chewed it here and there. Subtlety was not really practiced in this version). She delivered what was written of the character. And I found it kind of fun. Her's is a character that does exuded "Girl Power".


The character that actually surprised me was Patty Tolan, as played by Leslie Jones who is done a complete disservice in the trailers. I expected her to be screaming for most of the movie (and unfortunately they did keep one of the worst scenes in the trailers) but she actually turns in a much better performance than the trailers would lead us believe. Patty is the Winston Zeddemore of the group. The every-person. The stand-in for the audience. He knows very little about the paranormal, he’s simply in it for a steady paycheck. Unlike Winston, however, Patty gave up her steady paycheck to “join the club” after witnessing frightening paranormal phenomena on the tracks of the subway where she works. Yes…the questions are valid: Why couldn’t she have been a scientist? Why wouldn’t the other members of the team have a working knowledge of New York geography having lived there for as long as they had? It is a lame selling point for her to give to join the team (as is her borrowing a hearse from her uncle's funeral business). That’s the sort of thing that Feig and his crew could have easily tweaked. But the character was actually more fun than one would initially suspect. She has the confidence that a movie touting "Girl Power" seems to promise of its characters. She takes the sort of the chances that the original "Ghostbusters" took. 

As for "Girl Power", here are some of the fantastic examples of it that the movie offers: If we remember the first movie, these guys had no idea what they were doing with this business and it was going to cost a lot of money just to get them started. But they charged forward and bought that unique fixer upper of a firehouse (after Ray Stantz took out the third mortgage on the home his parents left him) not even sure if they’re going to be able to make it work. They got up equipment, devised a storage facility, and waited for the calls...which didn't exactly light up the switchboard right off the bat. 

What do the Ghostbusters in the new movie do? They settle. First they swipe most of their equipment from the questionable "institute" that Abby and Jillian have been working out of for years (the dean of which fired them the moment he found out their department was still there). Unable to afford the firehouse which would be much better suited to their needs, they instead take an office over a Chinese restaurant (that has a convenient enclosed garage next to it where they can park the “Ecto-1” once that makes its entrance in the movie). Coincidentally enough, it's the very same restaurant that consistently screws up Abby's order, and can't even deliver the food within an hour when the delivery address is one floor above.

And yet she continues to order from them. 

And of course, as in the original, they need a secretary. As played by Annie Potts, Janine the secretary in the original movie could be surly (frustrated in the beginning by lack of work) and fancied herself a bit psychic, but she could also be warm-hearted and was surprisingly dedicated to the team. And she was a match for Bill Murray's Peter Venkman who insulted her once with, "And stop staring at me, you have the bug eyes" then immediately apologized for the rude remark indicating his own frustration at the situation the business was in. That's real dialogue between two humans, regardless of gender.



As female characters go, I don’t think the “Girl Power” brigade have anything to grouse about with the original movie's secretary.


In the new movie, Feig decides upon a male secretary. A gorgeous male secretary. An insanely stupid, vapid, gorgeous male secretary. As played by Chris Hemsworth, the character of Kevin starts out kind of funny. But the bit gets tiresome really fast…or should I say the one note character gets tiresome really fast. Unlike Janine in the old movie, Kevin in the new movie is a cartoon. Full on. And he does things that make you wonder, “How the hell has he made it to this age without walking into an open manhole or something?” 

Remember the blonde secretary in "The Producers"? That's Kevin, except that movie was made in the '60s and this is 2016.

Many people have detected a bit of hypocrisy on the part of the filmmakers who insist that they've created a movie featuring "Girl Power" yet to do so, apparently feel the need to reverse a stereotype at one time used against women. I don't know, maybe, maybe not. All I know is that there is a chance that this character could have been fleshed out, and Hemsworth does have the comedic chops to do more with it, but again, laziness seemed to win out and waste the comic potential of the character. 


And it does beg the question: The team hires this idiot because the moment he walks in, they all lust after him, especially Erin Gilbert who practically dissolves into jelly every time he’s near her. And that's cute. But four supposedly intelligent women looking for someone to help with the growth of their business decide to hire a man so stupid that he won’t answer a working telephone on the desk because he thinks the ringing is coming from the telephone in the fish tank (and who the hell knows why there’s a phone in the fish tank). All because their hormones are swelling. How is that "Girl Power"? How is that showing any individual characters, male or female, at their best? 

When love entered the domain of the original movie, it was between Peter Venkman and the wildly attractive and incredibly independent Dana Barrett played by Sigourney Weaver (You know Sigourney: Ripley in the "Alien" movies. You want "Girl Power", there you go) who was every bit Venkman’s equal if not his better. She was attracted to him. She enjoyed the flirtation. But she never pooled herself with desire the moment he entered the room (although he was totally in idiot-love-land when he saw her).



There is a particularly funny line in regards to how the girls in the new movie feel about Kevin when he’s possessed by the evil entity Rowan. “Let’s go get Kevin, we’re not going to find a secretary that pretty again.” I enjoyed that. Sure he may be an idiot, but he's our idiot. 

But while women weren’t featured heavily in the original movie they were none the less were very strong characters without having to carry a banner of any sort. Don’t give me the “Girl Power” chant when you have the strong women in your movie going gaga over the idiot secretary (actually, acting not that much differently than the guys in “The Producers” acted around their gorgeous blonde). 

Eventually, the Ghostbusters get their first call. A ghost at a rock concert (that's the scene with the oh so hilarious, "Let's go!" uttered by both McCarthy and Wiig who then agree to decide that the other one can say it next time. Yes, that's the level of humor). And again, in this scene, Leslie Jones actually shines in it (aside from the idiotic joke, "I don't know if it's a race thing or a lady thing...").

But they successfully trap the ghost and become overnight sensations. Unlike the original which followed up the first trapping scene with a montage of them going around the city catching ghosts, this seems to be the only ghost the team catches. And in the remake they can't even hold on to the one they caught. 

In one of the weirder cameos (though somehow perfect for the star) Bill Murray plays a skeptic who goes on TV attacking the Ghostbusters. For some reason he makes his way to their office and begins a discussion with Erin in which he manages to goad her into releasing the ghost. I'm not sure what his character's credentials are. I do know that of Dr. Erin Gilbert, according to Abby Yates, "No one's better at quantum physics than you." And yet this genius, who has witnessed a number of examples of the paranormal, who knows she has a ghost in the trap (that was trapped at concert featuring hundreds of eye witnesses) let's this guy goad her into releasing a dangerous ghost. 

I know they needed a device to advance the plot and I know they needed to shove a Bill Murray cameo in there. And there is potential in the Murray character and the scene. 

As I stated before, when it was announced that the new "Ghostbusters" would all be female, so many people cheered it as a shot across the bow for the representation of strong women in the movies. It was presented (beaten into the ground actually) as if Feig and his crew had to right some massive wrong that had been perpetrated by the makers of the original "Ghostbusters" or most certainly right the wrongs of an industry that has had a bias against women in these sorts of roles.

Yet these are the sort of characters he presents as powerful women?

Interesting that Erin was facing off with a character played by the man who starred as Peter Venkman in the original. What a different approach each took to the situation. Peter made Walter Peck (William Atherton) of the EPA back down once when he tried to get in to see the grid.



When he came back with writs and police, Venkman stood his ground as long as he could. After the grid was off, the ghosts were released, and the Ghostbusters were face to face with the mayor, he still came out fighting issuing some of the funniest lines in any movie. 

That's what I want from my Ghostbusters, male or female. Someone with the courage of their convictions who can debate toe-to-toe with anyone. Not some wishy washy character who is goaded into releasing an entity.

Consider the difference in tone when both casts met the mayors in their respective movies. All hell was literally breaking loose in the original. "The walls in the tenth precinct are bleeding," as one of the police characters states. The mayor isn't sure what to do when he's faced with people claiming that ghosts are behind it all. Venkman is canny enough to zero in on the one thing that will sway the mayor's mind.



In the new movie, things are a bit different. The mayor knows there are paranormal occurrences out there, but the mayor doesn't want the citizens to know so they don't have, "Mass hysteria." The women sit there sedately, knowing that something is up, knowing that they can do something about it, but being told they won't have the backing of the mayor or homeland security if they do. As a scene, like so much in the movie, it falls flat. Though of course it sets up the conceit that unlike the original, the new Ghostbusters is being pegged as a secret organization to battle the emerging paranormal threat.

Just don't tease Erin about whether or not she has a ghost in a trap.

Of course during the big battle their weapon technology has increased to the point where they can actually kill ghosts...if one can kill something that isn't already alive (again, no explanation of that concept). One more concept that didn't really make sense, but at that point the girls are kind of kicking ass and there's so much crap going on anyway, that you don't really care. As an over the top action movie at this point it finally found its footing. 



But it was at this point that I grew truly frustrated. The characters, flawed as I found them, I had finally warmed up to and I saw just how well the actors (if given better material) could have truly made this their own. If they could have had a passing of the torch movie that followed their own characters, or if this was a true reboot that didn't rely so heavily on the original for concepts and scenes and such, I think the whole movie could have been a good movie. 

But whether it was Sony's decision, Feig's decision, or a bit of both, they decided to mine the original for every thing they could to put in this movie, including the end face off with the evil entity (Rowan, now inhabiting Kevin's body) which is a direct rip-off of the concept behind the face off in the original. (and this is where fans of the original start to lose patience with Feig and his attitude).

In the original, a god-like entity arrives (in the form of a woman, no less) from the other side. She allows the Ghostbusters to choose their form of destruction. They clear their minds but of course the hapless Ray messes it up.


In the 2016 version, Rowan, tiring of using Kevin's body, allows the Ghostbusters to choose their form of destruction. The tense scene that follows in the original is no where to be seen here but Patty does ask, "Well why couldn't it be something cute like a cute little ghost or something?" And thus, Rowan decides to become a giant version of the Ghostbusters logo (though with a bow tie, for some odd reason).

The scene in the original that leads up to the reveal (and the reveal itself) of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man is a classic. There's actually a surprising amount of tension as the footsteps leave you wondering what is coming down the street. Even Egon's absurd response to one of Venkman's questions manages to add to that tension. And then the tension is released with hilarious laughs when you see in it's full glory the adorable face of the giant Stay Puft Marshmallow Man here to destroy the world.



The lead up to giant ghost scene in the remake...meh! Rowan pretty much just takes Patty's suggestion and grows into a monster that tears apart everything. If it wasn't a "Ghostbusters" movie (and the joke hadn't been done better before) it might be a cool scene, but again, much too similar to the original not to compare. So it was completely unsatisfactory.

As was the way the ladies were able to take the big guy down. As I mentioned earlier, many people have pointed to examples of hypocrisy in regarding to gender treatment in this movie. Specifically, men are given the same treatment the folks behind the movie claimed women have been getting for so long. I'm not sure about that. Yes, Kevin is an obvious stereotype (to go along with Paul Feig's obvious style of humor). Rowan might have been inspired by the "fanboy" culture that Feig seems to dislike so much (I'm not sure. I actually think if Feig hadn't been so lazy and actually fleshed out Rowan's character, he might have been a serviceable villain).

But the way they were able to bring down Rowan in his giant logo form does smack a bit of slamming it to the men. The ladies all aim their the guns of their proton packs (apparently now able to kill ghosts) at Rowan's crotch which burns up dramatically.

Who knew a ghost had any junk to be affected in such a way?

Here's my problem with this scene aside from it being more of the desperate sort of humor that seems to be Feig's stock and trade. If that was a statement from a crew that seemed intent on making statements from the moment this film was announced, then yeah, it's pretty hypocritical. And I can't help but wonder how many women would be yowling if, in the original version, the guys took down the female form of Gozer (who actually manages to get the better of them) by aiming for her tits. Or heck, maybe drilling those rays into her vagina; you know women hurt when they're injured down there too.



But for some weird reason, people think it's the height of hilarity when a guy is kicked in the nuts. Or shot in the nuts. Kneed in the nuts. Breaks his fall with his nuts. Hell, when Lorena Bobbitt cut off her cheating husbands penis, it was the fodder for late night jokes for years. Imagine if a husband cut the breasts from his cheating wife's body. How much hilarity would ensue then?

So there is some weird thing people have about guys getting kicked in the nuts. My problem with the joke is that, first of all it's not all that funny, it's lazy physical comedy, and secondly it has been so amazingly overused the past few decades. Cartoons, TV shows, movies, what have you. Do you want an easy joke? Just put a guy's junk in peril. Personally, I don't think I found it all that funny the first time, I don't think it's funny after 5000 viewings of similar things in various forms of media. 

I wish I could remember the original review, but film critic Roger Ebert had a wonderful commentary on this type of joke and I have to agree with him. It's too easy. Cheap. And doesn't really pay off all that much for the effort.

Perhaps that's why Feig decided he would use it. He might have run out of ideas at that point.

That's possibly why ultimately, a movie I wouldn't have cared about, has led me to write two reviews on it scrutinizing two different aspects of it. For all Feig and Company's clamor about the misogynistic fanboys, what they have offered us is writing not that much better than what you would find amateurs doing on YouTube and other social media platforms. 

For this movie he needed to step above the level of humor he used for "Bridesmaids". Even the level of humor he used for "Spy." He needed to present us with something funny, and interesting, and if he wanted to include a message fine but there was no reason to beat us over the head with it. He needed to give scenes a lot better than those containing endless riffing of characters who sometimes sound more like children on a playground than doctors of anything. The original cast improvised, but there was an intelligence behind it added immeasurably to the comedy (and the other elements of the film). This movie resorts to the lowest form of humor for most of it and as I said before, it gets old real fast. 

And to try to deflect from this inadequacy by couching any criticism of it in terms of misogyny is doing a disservice to the very people you claim you're trying to support. If the material is strong, the performances strong, then you shouldn't have to silence every critic with accusations that can neither be proven or disproven (how does one prove a negative? How does one prove their criticism isn't misogyny?)

There was most definitely potential to this project. It is worth a viewing even if on DVD. I saw potential for a tale of true "Girl Power." In my opinion, it's just a shame that the writer/director couldn't rise to the occasion. He was too busy offering us the same sort of characters he's offered us before in his previous movies: Girls who rather than roar, squeak. Or if they roar, they follow it up immediately with an apology for causing a scene. My hope is, if Sony does continue with plans for a franchise, they find better writers and a director who truly understands how to do the movie right. 

So that next time Dr. Erin Gilbert faces down a skeptic, she'll come out swinging like the Ghostbuster she is.

Well the movie has been out for a week. I’ve been hoping to get this review up but it’s taken a while to figure out what I want to do with it because there are a couple of points that I’d like to make and as I was writing the review, it was becoming as big a monster as the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. 


But I really want to do the review because the original Ghostbusters happens to be one of my favorite films. My friends and I were huge fans of the film when it was released in 1984 and saw it repeatedly during the time it was out. I was not overly happy with the way the production team was treating any fan who expressed worry that they wouldn’t be able to handle it and as it turns out, I don’t think they were able to handle it. While it’s not as bad a movie as I thought it would be based on the trailers Sony itself released, I can honestly say that I think I laughed four times during the movie. The jokes are weak and often fall flat and the paranormal part of it isn’t overly scary. Especially considering the cartoon colors they use for the ghosts.

And I can’t help but think so many of the people calling it hilarious are sort of giving it a pass they wouldn’t have given if the controversy (some of it I believe ginned up by Sony) wouldn’t have happened. It’s noble to want to defend the cast who have indeed been hit by some incredible examples of walking (or blogging) misogyny, but if the movie was stronger, they wouldn’t need to be defended. They wouldn’t need a “handicap”.  They’d have quality material to put into the trailers released in an effort to entice people to see the movie. 



They wouldn’t need people who hadn’t even seen the movie yet claiming it was going to be awesome (at the same time slamming the original which is something I discussed in a previous blog entry which you can access here). Let the movie, the cast, the writers and director rise or fall on their own merits. And what I saw had little merit. 

So I’ve decided to do two reviews, each focused on a point of contention I have about the project and the controversy in general. This entry will focus on the idea of a remake/reboot. The next entry will focus on the misogyny angle. And there will be some spoilers though I'm guessing anyone interested in going to see it has seen it by now.

The other day, to my comment that the producers had borrowed way too much from the original for the 2016 version to be a reboot (I insist it’s a remake), someone insisted it was a reboot and that the producers had barely borrowed anything. 

I’m not quite sure if she saw the same movie I did, or if she saw the original, but the fact is, there was a lot swiped from the original for this movie. And I think it’s to the current film’s detriment because it forces a comparison to the original which simply had better material.

When deciding on an approach for the project, a passing of the torch movie would have probably been the best choice. It would have acknowledged the original and allowed for new blood (if done correctly as it was in “Star Wars the Force Awakens”, it can be exciting). A passing of the torch movie had been discussed with perhaps the daughters of the original Ghostbusters taking over the work, but that apparently was kiboshed. Personally, I think such a movie could have been a lot of fun. And it would have pleased a lot of the “Ghostbusters” fans who’ve been hoping for another installment in the series for years.

Like it or not, the original “Ghostbusters” is an iconic movie for adults who saw it when it first came out as I did and people who were kids when they saw it later. There's a reason for this: Partly because it was such a unique movie at the time (comedy with big budget special effects), but mainly because it was really good. An exceptional and organic blending of humor, horror and the paranormal. 



But when the new project was announced, Paul Feig insisted that he was going to do something completely original. Starting with making all the Ghostbusters female (I’ll discuss that in the second review). And as I watched “Ghostbusters” 2016 I started thinking, since they hadn't made a passing of the torch movie, that a reboot would have been the next best thing. It would have given both the production team and the audience the chance to enjoy a brand new take on the concept.

Despite his insistence, what Paul Feig and co-writer Katie Dippold ultimately created was a remake, and that's where part of the problem stemmed from. Hardcore fans (the ones he would later insult because they didn’t jump for joy over his casting choices) didn't want a remake. They've been anxious for a third “Ghostbusters” movie in the series (though many are making do with the video game as the third movie). Sure “Ghostbusters II” was off kilter, I believe partly due to the fact that at that point, Columbia Pictures was so concerned about merchandising and marketing to kids since the original had proven such a hit with the kids. But it wasn't a terrible movie. There were some really good aspects to it. Fans wanted a carrying on of the series without writing out the original Ghostbusters.



Making a remake as if the original never happened was bad enough, but then to swipe so many key elements of the original to prop up this remake just adds salt to the wound. And it only added excess baggage to the film by using elements that the “creative minds” behind the film just weren’t able to handle. 

Let’s consider some of the elements, down to the beats of the original that were used in this movie. The very beginning (a curator in a historical mansion comes upon paranormal happenings that frighten him) harks back to the original (in which a librarian at New York Library comes upon paranormal happenings that frighten her) in tone, pacing, even in the way the original Ghostbusters theme started up over the action toward the end of the scene and led us to the next scene. The only difference was the wretched excess that was used in the scene (a problem throughout the movie). 

Through a series of events, Dr. Erin Gilbert (Kristin Wiig) reunites with her old friend Dr. Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) who she’s had a falling out with years before. Abby is doing paranormal investigations with Dr. Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon). Erin mentions being contacted by a man who told her of a ghost appearing in a mansion (the ghostly haunting that opens the film) and the three rush over to the mansion the way the three originals rushed over to the New York Library to investigate the ghostly haunting that opened that film. (This, by the way, is when the wonderful “messing of the pants” joke is driven into the ground which unfortunately seems to be the highest level of humor the remake can achieve).

So…in the library of the mansion, the three paranormal investigators confront the ghostly woman. Just like in the original. And as in the original, the woman seems relatively normal…outside of the whole ghost thing. And as in the original, these three women have no plan on how to communicate with the ghostly woman. And as in the original, when one makes a try for it, the woman turns into a hideous creature and scares them out of the building.


The library ghost in the 1984 Ghostbusters
I don’t think we’re even a quarter of the way into the film and already it’s borrowed a number of major elements from the original. But in this case, it goes one better (or I suppose I should say, worse). It takes an element that occurs later in the original and crams it into the mansion scene. In the original, slime is used quite sparingly. It appears on the card catalogs in the library and Bill Murray has a fun scene dealing with it. But the only other time it’s used a lot for the sake of a joke is when the Ghostbusters go to the hotel to catch the ghost that will be later known as Slimer. When he goes through walls, he leaves a little slime behind. 

While investigating one of the hallways, Murray’s character Venkman has a run in with Slimer which is actually kind of a tense scene. Cut to Stantz (Dan Aykroyd’s character) running down the hallways to help his friend only to find Venkman rolling around on his back on the floor like a turtle (because of the proton pack) and covered in slime. He then utters the immortal line, “He slimed me.”

Now in her rather pathetic piece appearing on Time.com, "Sorry but the Original Ghostbusters Isn't Even that Good", Stephanie Zacharek claims that this is the sort of line that sounds "...like a parody of dumb comedy writing, the sort usually accompanied by an aggressively fake laugh track." Which is her prerogative to think. But it’s ironic that the line is not only considered one of the most quotable lines in the movie, the crew of the 2016 version (the version she said in the piece that she liked) thought so much of the concept of sliming that it takes the concept to such idiotic heights. When the mansion ghost turns into the monstrous entity, she opens her maw and vomits about 80 gallons of slime on Erin in what I’m guessing the writers thought would be one of the funniest scenes ever filmed. It wasn’t. It was stupid and over-done like so much in the movie. But it’s also a direct rip-off of a funnier scene in the original (and probably also a rip-off of countless scenes in countless Nickelodeon shows). Perhaps Stephanie Zacharek is easily amused.


The mansion ghost from Ghostbusters 2016 spewing wild
And the similarities with the original continue. As in the original, this experience convinces the women that they can actually do something with this paranormal investigating.

The three paranormal investigators, in an effort to get a grant to get better gear, visit the dean of the “institute” (a loose description since the institute seems fairly shady) where Abby and Jillian were conducting their research. The dean’s name is Yeager and once he realizes that the department was even still functioning, he promptly throws them out of the institute. A name and move straight out of the first movie in which the grant of the three soon-to-be Ghostbusters at Columbia University has been terminated and a Dean Yeager is only too happy to inform them that they’re out of the University. In the original movie it’s used basically as a narrative device to propel the Ghostbusters into their new life. And in the new one, it’s also used as such but goes on much longer. Now the scene in the new movie is actually kind of funny, but don’t tell me that you’re making something fresh and original when you pull a move like that. There could have been any number of reasons invented to make these women go out on their own as Ghostbusters. Feig and crew chose to recreate (remake) a scene from the original movie to accomplish the same goal and even used the name of the main character instigating that change.



Another unnecessary scene swipe comes later in the film as Erin tries to get the mayor’s attention as he and his aide are eating in a fancy restaurant. She’s pounding on one window, then the other, then another, shouting at him. The diners aren’t paying attention and even the mayor and his aide, who do see her, are pretending to not notice her (because in this universe the mayor has decided not to acknowledge the ghost threat publicly to avoid… “mass hysteria.” Yes, another classic line from the original used to weak effect here). As I watched the scene all I could think about was how similar the scene was to the scene in the original where a panicked Louis Tully (played by Rick Moranis who didn't make a cameo in the new film), chased by a demon dog intent on possessing him, runs to Tavern on the Green and pounds on windows, unable in his fright to figure out where the door is. He screams for help but the restaurant patrons don’t even look up until the very last minute when the demon finally gets him. The patrons look up, wait a beat, then return back to their eating as Tully slides down the window. It’s a funny scene, but sort of a sad scene too as you can’t help but feel bad for poor Louis and that’s thanks in large part to Moranis’ sympathetic portrayal.



The scene in the new one just alternates between shrill and bland and all I could think about while watching it was how good the scene was in the original. And that’s why I say all the remaking and re-purposing was to the new film’s detriment.

But it goes on:

In looking for a base of operations, the ladies visit the firehouse that was featured in the original (but it’s too expensive for them so they have to choose the office over the Chinese restaurant). Why even feature the firehouse (which they do find their way back to by the end of the movie) at all? The team achieves fame after its first ghost catch (though unlike the original which shows a montage of the team going out and catching ghosts which is why they need to hire help and hire on Winston, this team seems to have caught only one ghost and they don’t seem to have an idea what to do with it). The team meets with the mayor (in a scene much more sedate than in the original). The gear is similar, the traps are similar, the car is similar (and is even called the Ecto 1).



The threat is similar (something is breaking down the barriers between this world and the next and the ghosts are breaking through), they use possession to advance the plot (in the original it was the client Dana played by Sigourney Weaver) and Louis Tully; in this one it’s the team’s secretary, Kevin played by Chris Hemsworth), there’s a face off at the end with an entity that apparently has god-like powers and the end battle involves a giant figure of a cute character who comes to destroy everyone. This is perhaps the most egregious swiping as Rowan, the evil entity in the remake allows them to choose the form of their destructor. That’s straight out of the original movie.  

The difference, of course, is that while it was handled hilariously in the original, it was handled ridiculously in the 2016 version. The reveal of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man (who also makes an appearance in this film as a parade balloon) is probably one of the funniest scenes in a movie. It’s a perfect build up to the absurd humor of it all. 



In the 2016 film, the “turning” of the Ghostbusters logo into the giant destructor is ham-fisted and really not very funny. Again, it goes back to the wretched excess and an inability to know when to stop because at that point there's so much being thrown at you that you don't really care.

Which was what all those "whining fanboys" out there were worried about when some pinhead at Sony said, “Hey, I know, let’s remake ‘Ghostbusters’!” Fans of the original were worried that the source material would be used by people who had no idea how to use it right. 

And let’s be honest, all this plot, character, scene borrowing and allusions to the original is Sony hedging its bets. The first trailer they released tells us that 30 years ago four scientists got together to save the world as a soft piano rendition of the "Ghostbusters" theme plays. Then the first scene you see is the original Ghostbusters logo on the wall of a subway. The problem is those four scientists in the universe of this remake, never existed. So why bring them up unless you want to spark interest for the new film in the fans of the original? Why was it so important to have cameos of the original actors (albeit playing different characters) in this movie if you’re simply erasing all thoughts of the original with what you term a reboot? Heck even Slimer has a cameo which makes no sense since he wasn't a part of the new Ghostbusters busting scene. 



There’s talk that Sony had to strong arm some of the actors, especially Murray, to appear in the film. That could be why Murray gives the performance of a man who would really rather not be there at all. But with those cameos Sony can say, “See, we have nothing but respect for the original film. We even included the original cast.”

Outside of the late Harold Ramis’ “cameo” (a bust of him is seen in the hall outside of Erin’s office) and Ernie Hudson (who plays Patty’s uncle from which she borrows the hearse for the Ecto-1) the cameos are fairly forgettable and actually sort of gum up the pacing of the film when they occur. Hudson’s, which is okay, is at the end and actually made me think of how easily this movie could have been a fun passing of the torch movie with a bit of tweaking. Aykroyd (who has a piece of the film) plays a cabbie who claims, “I ain’t afraid of no ghosts”, Annie Potts (the wonderful secretary Janine from the original) plays a hotel manager, Sigourney Weaver plays a mentor of Jillian’s (which might have been great but too little time is given to the scene as it runs during the credits).

But Bill Murray’s…what can be said about the weird little scene they concocted for Bill Murray? 

He plays a skeptic who goads Erin into releasing the one ghost they managed to catch (I’ll address this more in the second part of the review because it certainly didn’t scream, “Girl Power”). He sits through most of the scene and when the ghost does fly out of the trap, it takes hold of Murray’s character and tosses him out the window. 

Yes…there is a notable death in the movie. Now that’s something they didn’t steal from the original because no one was killed during that movie. At least, no one was shown being thrown to his death by a ghost. And after, when the girls…well I’d say "rush" downstairs but it seems like they take a leisurely stroll to get downstairs considering how the police and Homeland Security are on the scene by the time they got on the street, they're taken to see the mayor by Homeland Security. No one seems overly upset over the fact that a man was just tossed out the window and is lying broken on the ground below their office. No one asks the team to make statements. You’d think something like that might just tarnish the team’s reputation slightly. 

So you have a film with all these elements from the original film practically the same plot which the producers insist isn’t a remake, it’s a reboot. They’re rebooting the franchise. Please, don’t do me any favors.

And yet, toward the end of the film, as I finally started warming to the characters, I thought of all the potential wasted on this project. If they weren’t going to do a passing of the torch movie, then they should have went for a true reboot and made minimal if no use of the original source material. That’s what I meant about the baggage that was in this movie. How do you not compare the two movies when so much of the original is used for the remake and in that case, how can you not think, “Christ they did this better 30 years ago”?

I also left the movie with the firm belief that as a writer and a director, Paul Feig is creatively lazy. Not only with the humor, which when it's there goes for the easy laughs but because there are so many things in this movie that he doesn’t even try to make sense on. Yes, I know it’s a comedy about the paranormal, but even in the original, they at least tried to give some context to what was happening. 

Take Rowan, for example, the villain of the story. He might have been a good villain if a little more effort had been spent on developing the character. But Feig seems to go with the Stephen Moffat philosophy of character/plot development which is, “I don't want to make the effort explaining it. Just go with me on this.”

Rowan North (Neil Casey), a busboy at the hotel where the big showdown at the end takes place, is apparently also an occultist trying to usher in the ends times. He builds a big device to break down the barriers between the worlds, then plants smaller devices on ley lines around the city (that’s when he’s discovered by the Ghostbusters) to break down the barriers. Why? I mean obviously he’s nuts (and brilliant) but what made a brilliant man go nuts? Why is he simply a busboy in a hotel (or is that part of his plot since the hotel has such a strong paranormal force to it—it’s really hard to tell)? How long has he been working on this scheme. Where did he get the funding for all this? How has no one discovered the doorway to hell that he’s built in the basement of a major hotel? 

Eventually we discover that he wants the apocalypse because…he was bullied. Now I’m not saying that bullying hasn’t pushed people over the edge. But this is probably one of the lamest reasons a movie has used for their villain trying to destroy the world. And who bullied him? Has he been nursing this hate since childhood? Was he bullied at college? Is he doing it because his fellow scientists laughed at him and his experiments?

If you’re going to present me with a villain who is interested in ushering in the apocalypse, then you’d better give me a better reason than he was simply bullied. Or if that’s what you’re going with, you’d better explain properly.

Rowan forces his own death (oh, that’s death #2 in the remake) so that he can cross over to the other side and apparently become King of the Ghosts. He’s able to possess people as he does with Amy and eventually Kevin, and later does with the military and police forces sent out to battle him. And he’s able to do all these other fabulous and magical things including ordering other ghosts to battle the Ghostbusters, which is interesting considering how, evil as he may be, he’s fairly new to the paranormal realm. Where did this new ghostling get this power? The power to control entities that have been on the other side for centuries?


The end of the movie is over accessorized with product placementAm I nitpicking? Perhaps. But it would certainly make a more well-rounded movie to have at least some of these details. The original "Ghostbusters" faced off with a god from another realm. That’s how they explained the entity being able to create something like the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. 
What do we have in this movie? A guy who was bullied and achieved his power through suicide.

A similar questions comes in to play when Kevin suddenly decides he wants to be a Ghostbuster. The decision (that conveniently leads to his being possessed) seems to come out of nowhere. In fact, it's hard to imagine this character would desire much of anything he's so vapid and cartoonish. But suddenly he wants to be a Ghostbuster "and no one is going to stop" him. Except for the spirit of Rowan who after possessing Abby in a particularly unfunny and unsuspenseful scene, flies in to possess Kevin.

Explaining a character's decision really does help add to the experience of a movie. But Feig doesn't seem to think it's all that necessary. 

So in the end, this movie was more an excersie in frustration than anything else because of the wasted opportunities. I didn't despise it as I thought I would. I laughed a few times. But when I think of the joy that the original brought me years ago and still does, this movie doesn't even come close.

My hope is that Feig will not be at the helm for a sequel and perhaps they can actually really do something creative with the concept or the characters. Though, judging by the end of the movie, which is a set up for a sequel, there will still be some milking of the old movie. As the women listen to the Electronic Voice Phenomena (played on a tape player that I think went out of style in the 1970s), Patty hears the name Zuul.

Let the games begin again. 

On to Part II of my review.

Anyone who knows me knows I am a huge "Ghostbusters" fan. It’s in my Top 5 of all time favorite movies. I saw it in 1984 (as an adult—I’ve heard so many people opine that the new "GB" is “ruining their childhoods” that I feel compelled to remind people that the original was not geared to children even if children ended up liking it) and fell in love with it. To me it is the perfect blend of comedy, horror and the paranormal. I wrote a piece about it when it turned 30 a few years ago that you can read here.
Well, the remake opened on July 15 and I made an effort to go to see it even though the project never appealed to me. But I thought to be fair I needed to see it. So I’ve decided to review it for the blog. 

First, though, I’d like to address some of the rancor that has surrounded the project since its inception. There were people who really wanted another chapter in the "GB" series and there were people who weren't happy about it. I believe the big problem arose when it was decided rather than a continuation movie, they would totally remake it (it's been called a reboot, but there's far too much borrowed from the original for it not to be remake). And I have to put myself in that camp. It doesn't need to be remade. I think they did a really good job with the first one. This universe is so rich that I think a continuation movie could have been made very easily.

And studios need to understand something: You're putting out product that you're hoping touches the hearts of the audience (so said audience will continue to go see the movies). So yeah, you're going to have some fans invested in the movie. And they may not be happy with your decision to try to wipe the slate clean by completely remaking the movie that the fell in love with. Especially when remakes can fail so often. You don't have to listen to them, but they're not assholes for feeling that way.

Whether it be movies, books, music, motorcycles, whatever, we all have that one thing that we'd really appreciate nobody screwing with. It won't end the world of something is redone, but it does stick a little none the less.
This one still hurts. And I'm not
too fond of the 2014 version either.
Add to the problem Hollywood's current need to remake, reboot, redo EVERYTHING! Rather than have an original thought, they decide to just grab something that was popular years ago and redo it knowing that there is a built in audience for the material (which again, is why it's wise to show a little more respect to fans of the originals). While some remakes have been very well done, if people are gun shy it's because so often they fail miserably. 

So fans of the original "Ghostbusters" weren't overly happy when they found out that there would be a remake of a movie that got it right the first time. 

Then came the announcement of the cast and there was a contingent of people who just rejoiced that the leads were all female. And of course you had some who weren't happy that the leads were all female. And some who simply weren't happy about the particular actors who were chosen (I would fall into that category). But no matter what the reason was for the discontent, those unhappy with the project were all thrown into the "misogynist" camp by its defenders. Yes, the only reason these "manboys" didn't like it was because the leads were all female, or so the narrative held. Anything else was invalid. 

Over the course of time from the announcement of the project to the release, there seems to have been three main stages of argument (a bit like the four stages of grief) used by defenders of the project to invalidate the opinions of anyone that might have differed from theirs. And bear in mind, and prior to release, neither side had seen the work, yet the defenders of the project were as vociferous in their praise for it as they accused the detractors to be in their condemnation.

But watching the stages occur over time has been fascinating. They range from the childish to the unfair to the down right hypocritical.

Let's start with the childish (and most pathetic) which seems to be the most recent (third) stage people are using to insist that the aversion others have for this project is just plain wrong. 

Stephanie Zacharek, in her piece that appeared July 14 on Time.com, uses a sort of playground argument to defend the "Ghostbusters" remake by titling her op ed, “Sorry, But the Original Ghostbusters Isn’t Even that Good.” This is something I've heard a lot of people say lately, most of whom haven't even seen the new movie, when discussing it. Sort of like children saying, “Oh sure you can do a somersault, but it’s not even that good of one!” Zacharek's piece is a desperate little diatribe against a movie 30 years old that for a good majority of people still holds up but for her…well she’s decided that it was never that good. So that must be right. 
Here’s a little taste of her clever assessment of the original film: “But the movie’s pacing isn’t nearly as brisk as it could be, and the lines of dialogue Ghostbusters heads love and quote most—‘He slimed me’—sound like a parody of dumb comedy writing, the sort usually accompanied by an aggressively fake laugh track. By the end, the picture’s spirit is gloomy and ill-humored, as if it had tried hard to be a dark comedy and simply failed, leaving a vaguely sour taste in its wake.”

No, you're right, this scene isn't nearly as funny as a scene where a ghost vomits a couple of gallons of slime on the protagonist.  
Well…part of the reason the picture’s spirit may have seemed gloomy toward the end was because it wasn’t just a comedy and the climax featured them fighting a god to keep the end of the world from happening. But maybe that fact slipped past her because the color palette wasn’t Nickelodeon-bright.


Here’s a quote from the review film critic Roger Ebert (I miss him) gave it at the time: “They're funny, but they're not afraid to reveal that they're also quick-witted and intelligent; their dialogue puts nice little spins on American clichés, and it uses understatement, irony, in-jokes, vast cynicism, and cheerful goofiness. Rarely has a movie this expensive provided so many quotable lines.”
Sorry Steph, but I think I’m going with Ebert on this one. Here’s a clue, the movie’s pacing isn’t supposed to be brisk. There’s more going on in it then one-liners. But again, perhaps you were confused by the understatement and subtlety. For example, in "Ghostbusters" 2016, a great deal of time…really far too much time…seriously a sickeningly long amount of time is spent describing the contents of a man’s pants after he messed them upon seeing a ghost. Oh...my sides still burn from laughter on that gem. 

Now to be fair, in the original, Bill Murray as Peter Venkman did ask the librarian whether or not she was menstruating when investigating paranormal activity at the library. But it was a one off joke to illustrate just how out of his element he was in the whole paranormal investigating thing. He didn’t go on for five minutes discussing color, flow and viscosity.
That’s the difference between the original and the new movie. The creators of the first movie knew when to stop. 
I mean honestly, how weak is the horse that you’re backing when to praise it you have to denigrate a 30 year old classic film?
I understand that the original "Ghostbusters" isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. And I’m not always sold on the notion that ticket sales translates into a work of art. I mean, "Transformer" movies are still being made.
But the original "Ghostbusters" was a blockbuster when it was released. It was re-released very successfully a few years ago on its 30th anniversary (which probably helped Sony at last green-light a new stab at the project that had been floating around for decades). And it remains one of the most widely quoted movies ever made. There had to be some sort of quality backing all that. 
I will admit that I wasn’t dancing for joy when I originally heard about the new reboot/remake/redo whatever they were claiming it would be (it’s changed over the years of production). Quite honestly, because of the cast. And no, not because they’re women. 
See, that’s the other thing you have to do if you question the cast chosen for "GB"2016. It couldn’t possibly be that you just don’t find those actors funny. No, you have to assure everyone that you aren’t being misogynistic because that’s the narrative so many of the project’s defenders have been trying to drive home from the moment the names were announced (and even as a woman, I’ve been called misogynistic for not liking this cast). This is first stage defenders went to the moment the leads were announced. It's unfair. How do you prove a negative? "No, I don't hate the project because the cast is female. No really, I don't." Not to say that there weren’t jerks out there who did rant at the thought of an all-female cast. Get social media involved and you get all sort of creepiness posted on YouTube.
But there were many people such as myself who just weren’t impressed by the actors they chose for the roles. I could think of other women I would have preferred in the roles. In fact, I wrote a blog piece on that when the cast was announced stating that, unlike Lindy West who wrote a piece for GQ on the casting, I did not find it “The most indomitable fucking comic dream team of all kind.”


                          Yeah, sorry these names just didn't instill confidence in the project.
You can read the blog entry here but the bottom line is that I found the group chosen for the "Ghostbusters" remake anything but “The most indomitable fucking comic dream team of all kind.” And Lindy was beating the misogyny drum loudly in the heavy-handed piece starting it out with, “As you may have heard, a few delicate internet man-flowers are terribly, terribly, terribly upset at the news that the beloved 1984 classic "Ghostbusters" is being remade with a stunning ensemble cast of some of 2015’s most hilarious and sought-after comedians.”

My thought at the time was, if that was who 2015 had to offer, could we hold out till 2016 and hopefully find some funnier women?
But no, to Lindy, any nay-saying of the cast was only based on the fact that they were women, not that they might not be that funny. And interestingly, Lindy hadn’t even seen the movie but she decided it was going to be the best movie EVER because women were chosen for the roles. She decided that the all-male original cast was a gender imbalance. I wonder why she was so hating on the men. 
Then came…the trailers. And suddenly, the internet blew up! These were bad trailers. I mean really bad trailers. I mean the sort of trailers where you stare, mouth agape, in stunned silence despite the fact that you’re supposed to be laughing since, you know, comedy and all. Now usually trailers are intended to entice people to see the movie. Your A-scenes are chosen to really whet the prospective viewer’s appetite. Unfortunately it doesn’t always work out. You can have a bad trailer for a really good movie and vice versa. The problem with "GB"2016 was that it didn’t seem to have a lot of A-material from which to create a trailer.  


So if you were already skeptical about the project based on the quality of the actors or director chosen, these trailers did not help. And when people expressed their aversion for the trailers, the old “misogyny” chestnut cropped up again. If you didn’t find the project appealing, it was because all the leads were women not because what they offered in the trailers was really terrible.
How many people who aren’t interested in seeing a Jackie Chan movie are accused of being racists? How many women who weren’t interested in seeing "The Expendables" were accused of hating men?
When the misogyny logic ran its course (or was milked long enough), we entered the second, or hypocritical stage which featured the question: “So…you haven’t seen it but you’ve decided it’s bad? How can you make that claim if you haven’t seen it?” 
Every day people use certain factors to judge whether or not to invest time and money in viewing/reading/listening to a product. That’s why they make trailers and book blurbs and have reviewers, etc. If someone isn’t into the horror genre, they’re not going to read Clive Barker. Very rarely does anyone grill them with, “Oh, but how can you judge whether or not you like it if you don’t read it? Maybe this is the novel that will change your mind.” If someone doesn't appreciate a particular actors work, they don't go see the movie.
When the movie "Pixels” was released, for example, I heard a lot of people say they weren’t going to see it cause they disliked Adam Sandler or they just thought that it looked stupid (both opinions I completely agree with) but I didn’t hear anyone defend that movie as vigorously with the, “But how can you know? You haven’t seen it yet” argument as I did with this latest "Ghostbusters". State that nothing about the new "Ghostbusters" movie seems appealing to you and you’re accused of being a hater and raked over the coals. It smacks of hypocrisy because how many of these people standing up for the new "Ghostbusters" stood up just as self righteously for a film like "Pixels"? (and for that matter, how many women who didn't want to see the movie were accused of disliking it only because there were four leads in the roles?) 

So this whole "Ghostbusters" controversy actually says more about the defenders of the project and the people who toss around the misogyny accusation far too easily than it says about the people they call haters. 
What’s even more fascinating about Stephanie Zacharek’s piss-fest on the original movie (getting back to stage three) is that it was written prior to the release of the movie, which leads me to wonder how she could write, “Thank heavens the Ghostbusters remake came together, against their will and their wishes” when she hadn't even seen if the finished product?

Poor Richard Roeper, reviewer for the Chicago Tribune, did actually see the movie and had the temerity to express intense dislike for the finished product in his review (despite being a huge fan of the ladies in the cast). He paid for that on various social media platforms with the usual slams aimed at anyone who wasn't blown over by "Ghostbusters" 2016. 

 
And interestingly enough, having seen the new "Ghostbusters" movie (I will post a review after this), I can tell you they borrowed a heck of a lot from the original. In my opinion, to the new film’s detriment (which I’ll explain in the review). So…I’m guessing some people connected with the new production must have had a bit more affection for the original than Zacharek might think. In other words, the original "Ghostbusters" must have done something right. 

I will post my review of "Ghostbusters" 2016 on the next post. 

In the meantime:

Today I'd like to introduce you to Grace Comerford, author of Power of Purple: Jackie's Purple Ninja Story. Book 1 in the Purple Ninja Series. Grace is 10 years old and lives in Florida. She has won prizes for citizenship and respect and her novel is an adventure/fantasy work that encourages people to solve problems without violence.

You must still be excited from the Barnes and Noble book fair on March 3 in Clearwater, Fla. Was that the first event of the kind that you participated in?

Yes. There were lots of kids, younger than me there, and they were all fascinated by my book. They loved the cover. One fourth-grader asked me how to write a book like mine because she wanted to write a book of her own.

You'd be around the same age I was when I first really fell in love with the idea of writing. When did it happen for you? Was there something that inspired you?

I love that question! I started to love writing at the ages of 8-9 years old. Writing in class and in my journal at home.


Who are some of your favorite authors?

Oh! Chris Colfer is an amazing author! He wrote "The Land of Stories" series. And Marissa Meyer, who wrote "The Lunar Chronicles" series." Ridley Pearson and Dave Barry who wrote Bridge to Never Land. I like other books too but those kept me asking, "What's going to happen next?"


Tell me about the The Power of Purple. What's the plot? Will there be follow up novels in the series?

The plot is about a girl named Jackie, she's a normal girl until she spins around three times and turns into...Purple Ninja! She makes friendships, problem solves and jumps out of the way of danger at the last second. She wins without violence.

The book starts at Jackie's birth and how she got her powers. She lives in the woods. She battles villains and fights for good. Asmerelda is one of the main villains, she can shoot lighting from out of her hands. The other villains have super powers too.

The rest you'll have to find out.

What was the inspiration for the book?

One day I looked out the window and wondered what to think about and I made up a ninja character out in the woods. She sometimes was dancing to music I was listening to. Sometimes she was fighting off villains. I was only getting to know Jackie at that time. Then I started loving her. Later on, my Dad suggested we put the story into a book. And I WAS SO PUMPED ABOUT IT! I didn't know how the story would go until I started writing it and I didn't know the ending until I wrote it.

What would you say was the hardest thing about writing this book and getting it published?

In fact, the storytelling was the easiest part of the whole book. It was the editing and finding Vippu Kukreja in New Delhi, India to draw the cover was hard. I made her redo it until it was just right.

For the editing, we sent it to my dad's cousin, Mary-Margaret Green who is a (former Washington D.C. newspaper) copy editor. But Dad and I helped edit it too.


Dad's a writer. Is having a father who's a writer intimidating sometimes?

No, because he was a journalist but never wrote an actual novel. And I want everyone to know, having a father who is a journalist doesn't really help you at all. You can do it yourself. Self publishing is a breeze once you read the instructions. You might need the help of your parents but it doesn't matter if they are writers.


Do you think you'll ever team up with him on a book?

Of course. He helped with this one. The story is still mine but I had a lot of help from him. Especially, with the self-publishing.

Does mom like to write?

No.

How about your siblings or friends?

I have no siblings but I do have a cousin about my age and he's inspired to write a book of his own. So many of my friends are so excited that I wrote a book. One friend said she has a book idea too but she doubts she can publish it.

Do you have a particular ritual you follow when you write to help you get into the mood? Do you like to listen to music? If so, what kind?

I love music so much. But I just hop into the library room with my dad, sometimes for three hours at a time and pour my ideas out on the spot.


What sort of hobbies do you have?

I love to read. And write, of course. But read a lot. I like to play basketball. Bicycling. I love to do crafts. I love playing the guitar. I love going to nature parks with my dad. (Power of Purple is set in a forest that my dad and I go to, called Brooker Creek Preserve, it's called Bugger Creek in the book. P.S.: My dad changed the name. Oh, dad!).

When you get older would you like a career in writing?

Possibly, but I really like marine animals such as dolphins, turtles, sharks and coral. Almost all ocean animals. I'm thinking of becoming a marine mammologist, that is the study of animals that live in the sea but breath air like whales, dolphins and turtles.

Your book is fiction. Would you ever try writing nonfiction whether small pieces or a full book? Would you ever try anything like screen play writing?

When I was writing Power of Purple, I was thinking my next book might be nonfiction but now I'm thinking of sticking to fiction. A series. One time my teacher told me my writing reads like a movie because it has so much dialogue.

Do you know the next project you'd like to work on?

Power of Purple is going to be a series. But what I'm going to do after that, I don't know. What's my next book about? I like cliffhangers. You'll see!

Thanks Grace. We'll keep an eye out for your next work.

Power of Purple: Jackie's Purple Ninja Story is available on Amazon. 

For more information you can visit Grace's Facebook page.

Recently I had the pleasure of discussing the art and business of writing with Gerald Dean Rice, a prolific writer from Michigan who has a number of novels and anthologies available on Amazon. 

When did you get interested in writing? 

Sometime when I was a child. I wrote a story when I was in second grade about two witches and I think I tried to write a "Ghostbusters" story back in eighth grade. I didn’t really start writing until high school when I penned a bunch of really one-dimensional horror stories that were more weird than anything else.

Was anyone else in your family interested in writing?

I’d like to think my mother was a writer, though if she ever wrote anything she never shared it with anyone.

I notice that among your books you write about vampires and zombies. What is your favorite subject between the two? Which do you find easier to write?

Zombies. Definitely. I want to write more about vampires and I have an idea I think is pretty cool, but I have several zombie stories ahead of it.

You seem to publish primarily on Kindle. Which format (Kindle or paperback) do you prefer and why?

I don’t have a preference, per se, but Kindle is a lot more convenient. I can write a story, get a cover made and upload the whole she-bang in a week.


You're very prolific. Your Amazon page shows a lot of books, primarily horror, but with a lot of variety in plot. Have you ever had a problem with writer's block and if so, what have you done to clear it up? 



I’ve had writer’s block exactly once. About ten years ago I was let go from my job and the stress was so intense that I couldn’t write a word. I fell asleep every day at about 7 o’clock.

Have you ever run across that one project that you just can't finish for whatever reason? Or perhaps you had to really force yourself to finish because one thing wasn't working but you liked the concept in general?

I have a novelette I started two years ago, finished last year, but for some reason it just isn’t ready to be published. I don’t know what’s keeping me from pulling the trigger on it, but I just can’t.

Do you need inspiration to write or can you simply sit down and begin to write?

Both. I can push myself into an idea, but most times something just hits my fancy the right way and I note it.


You actually wrote a book about self publishing. What sort of feedback have you gotten from authors following your advice?

I actually have done workshops on self-publishing. Authors have been pretty receptive. Quite a few didn’t know about Smashwords or the free promotions Amazon offers for exclusivity. I ran into a woman who came to one of my workshops and she was asking when I would be doing another. 

The business end of writing and what it takes to market a book (and ones self) can be quite an eye opener for those starting out. What do you feel is the most important thing for people to keep in mind when starting out?

Don’t be discouraged and don’t expect to sell books (right away).

Would you ever work on a project outside of the genres you feel comfortable with?

Actually, I’m looking forward to doing that. I have a couple sci-fi ideas I’m kicking around in my head.


Which of your books would you most like to see made into a movie?

Hmm. Probably Vamp-Hire. My heroes aren’t typically ‘hero-ey’ so they wouldn’t all have that big-screen appeal. Nick is a loser’s loser at the beginning of the story and has a huge upswing by the end.

You have a few short story anthologies out. Which are you more comfortable writing, short stories or full novels?

I’m comfortable with either, really. Short stories are a pleasure because they’re easier to write. Fewer working parts and the pay-off is a lot more immediate and can sometimes be more powerful because the best ones stick to the reader.


I'm sure you love all your books, but which gave you the most satisfaction after completion?

The Ghost Toucher. I had never learned to plot and whenever I tried to work on a novel I’d write myself into a corner and quit. I just picked up a notebook one day and took about two weeks to write a plot—probably not in any proper manner, but in a way I understood—and used that as the skeleton to write the book.

On a second or third read, did you ever come across a subtext that you hadn't realized was there before?

I have a bad memory. I probably have and just don’t recall. I have thought of new directions for a continuing story to go on second and third reads.


What authors have inspired you early in your career and now?

Easy. F. Paul Wilson and Stephen King. I learned the basis for my writing style from Wilson and King is King. I saw "Creepshow" when I was in kindergarten and the first adult book I read was Eyes of the Dragon back when I was in seventh grade.

You seem to write primarily in the horror genre. What is it about that genre that attracts you?

Early exposure. Sure, I might have watched a lot through my fingers, but I was watching horror. Regular life is boring; I absolutely couldn’t write that and have nothing but respect for those who do.

When you come up with a plot is it born from your own fears or from a simple attempt to figure out what might give people the chills?

Both. I want people to freak out reading my stories but it’s also cathartic to put something that bothers me on paper and give it to the world.

The debate of which being more important, character or plot, comes up occasionally. I find that clichéd characters can ruin even the best story, but strong, interesting characters can often save a poor story. Where do you stand on the issue of which is more important (provided you think the importance of one outweighs that of the other)?

I think a plot, no matter how strong, is dead on the table without strong, supporting characters. Take The Ruins, for example. I thought the idea was awesome (saw the movie, not the book). I hated the characters, though and couldn’t care less when each of them died. I was actually rooting for the locals to kill them.

What's up next for you?

I’m about to start redrafting a zombie story with Santa Claus. Well, not Santa Claus, but a Santa. Then I’m either going to write a revenge ghost story or a novel describing the daily lives of Jason Voorhees/Freddy Krueger type mass killers. If that goes as well as I’d like it should be a series.

Where can people find out more about your work?

You can always find me on Twitter @Geraldrice, my websites www.razorlinepress.com and www.geralddeanrice.com, or my Facebook fan page. You can also visit my Amazon page www.amazon.com/Gerald-Dean-Rice/e/B0043GCYOM/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0

I've recorded myself reading the prologue to Ujaali. Hope you like it. 


Ujaali is available on Amazon in paperback and Kindle formats.

To Touch the Sun is also available on Amazon in both formats.

Well the new book trailer is here for Ujaali, the second book in the Chicago Vampire Series and I think it turned out pretty cool. Take a look.




The photos of Chicago are from a talented photographer named Matt Tuteur who has a great eye for this gorgeous city.

You can check out more of his work at his blog Matt Tuteur Street Photography.

Here's an interview with my friend Simon Oneill, author of the Phantom Bigfoot Series, a paranormal fantasy series. Simon hales from Wales, the birth place of Dylan Thomas, Ken Follett and Gwyneth Lewis among many others.

When did the writing bug bite you? 

About 2000 my wife and I started writing screenplays. From there a film company asked us to create a paranormal TV show. Nothing happened but we were stuck with 22 paranormal episodes. So we are now converting them to novels. 

When did you take the step to serious publishing?

 2013 was when Phantom Bigfoot was born and from then joined Author's Social Media Support Group (#ASMSG) those guys are so awesome and they taught me how to self-publish. Haven’t looked back since.

Where did the title Phantom Bigfoot come from?

Where dreams are made, I guess. Just seemed the right phrase for a teenager altered by aliens to protect Bigfoot from hunters.


What is the plot of the book?

The Phantom Bigfoot Series follows teen superhero Duane as he strives to make a tribe of Bigfoot invisible to hunters and searchers and along the way he has crazy adventures and solves mysteries in the most ludicrous way possible. 

What was the inspiration for the plot?

My own skewed sense of humor and films like "Harry and the Hendersons".

When I was growing up in the 70s, I loved reading about creatures like Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, etc. Does Wales have any Bigfoot-like legends?

They do now, Phantom Bigfoot was spotted shopping in a local supermarket, but it was only me, LOL. There have been news clips of wild men living on Brecon Beacons, a vast wilderness where SAS train. 


The famous still of a "Bigfoot"Any special research into Bigfoot or similar legends?

I watched the usual news feeds on the Internet which never revealed more than a blurry image. The rest I invented as I went along.

What is your writing process like? Do you have a set pattern or ritual or do you write when the inspiration hits you? Any music that puts you in the mood?

I write when I can, not easy though as my time is gobbled up by looking after sick parents. The song that inspires Phantom Bigfoot is "These Bigfoot are made for Walking" by Nancy Sinatra. She follows me as she is an avid animal rights activist too. Thirty percent of all sales of Bigfoot books go to Cats Protection.

What do you do to market your books?

Muddle through Facebook, Twitter, join groups and event takeovers, make fans, but it isn’t easy getting my name out there.


Any public appearances?

I have had a few book signings, but it is so expensive to organize.

Do you enjoy the marketing process?

Not much, I’d rather be writing. If marketing actually worked then I would put more effort into it.

What do you like about writing and what do you dislike about it?

I love entering a special world of my own creation and for Phantom Bigfoot that’s the wild forest full of beautiful creatures who depend in him. Editing can be frustrating but is a necessary step to releasing a good book.



Who are some of your favorite authors? What is it about their writing that grabs you? Has any influenced your style of writing?

Stephen King and Graham Masterton are the two authors who have strongly influenced me. I often have a chat with Graham, wish I could say the same for Stephen. I live in the hope he might friend me one day, LOL. King has a way of drawing the reader into his terrifying world and loving every second of it. Masterton does the opposite, he makes the reader squirm and suffer every gory page. Love it!


How about television shows or movies? Do you have any particular favorites? 

Well, for TV I like "Dexter," "Walking Dead," "Poldark," "True Blood," "Star Trek," "DS9," "Star Gate: SG1." Among my favorite movies are "Some Like It Hot," "Butch and Sundance," "The Wild Bunch," "Jaws," "The Big Lebowski."

Are your books self published and if so, what are your thoughts on self publishing?

All selfies and self-publishing is so liberating as you can release your novel whenever not like with traditional publishers who might take at least two years to get your book out and by then it will not resemble your novel anyway.

Have you ever written anything that you might not have picked up during writing but after reading through it kind of surprised you? Perhaps a context that you didn’t expect?

I often reread during my wife’s editing process and say, “Did I actually write that? I can’t remember?”

Does anyone else in your family enjoy writing? 

My wife writes with me and edits all my work.

What advice would you give someone just starting out about the business of writing?

Don’t wait to get an agent or trad publishing, if the novel has been edited then get it out there and make sure you have a good following on Twitter and Facebook first.


Can you imagine your books being turned into a movie or perhaps a TV show?

No need to, my novel Flip Side about a gangster haunted by his father is in the hands of Hollywood and Magic Is Murder my horror comedy about witches and ghosts will be filmed next year. And it has an awesome link to TV series "Dexter."


Would you ever write outside the fantasy/horror genre? Perhaps even do nonfiction? 

Can’t see me doing that, but stranger things have happened.

What’s next on the horizon for you?

Hot In Bigelow; Sizzling will be released Nov. 7 and is my alien erotica version of Start Trek meets Some Like It Hot with an overload of Viagra.

What do you think you’d do if you ever actually came across a Bigfoot, phantom or otherwise?

Have a few beers with him.

Where can we find your work and more information about you?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/-/e/B00SN9TNAI 

http://twitter.com/simoneillauthor

http://facebook.com/simononeillauthor


Thanks for stopping by, Simon. Say hello to the big guy for us.