*NEW* GHOSTBUSTERS 3D REVIEW *NEW*

ghostbusters_ver6

Who you gonna call? Someone else.

Well that was what I thought I was going to say.

Following a ghost invasion of Manhattan, paranormal enthusiasts Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) and Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy), nuclear engineer Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon), and subway worker Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones) band together to stop the otherworldly threat.

When I heard that Paul Feig was taken on the iconic spookfest, I had mixed feelings. Female ghostbusters left me unconvinced. NOT because of the women in question or the fact that the movie was being rebooted with women. I just wasn’t sure that Feig’s style would suit.

The original Ghostbusters delivered surreal humour that was almost deadpan. Despite watching our heroes fight a 50 foot marshmallow man. Wiig and McCarthy have always been in your face and OTT. Funny BUT different. Not always a bad thing BUT was it Ghostbusters?

I loved The Heat and Spy. Hell, I even enjoyed Bridesmaids after being badgered to watch it numerous times. All high grossing comedies of the last decade. BUT with a 12A rating and a stab at taking on a classic; without the shouty OTT and crude humour, could the film deliver?

In a nutshell, meh. The creepy opening was certainly promising. It may not give the little ‘uns nightmares like the New York librarian. Shussshh – BUT it was still pretty freaky. The visual effects were quite good and I could finally say for once that the 3D was worth checking out.

It was silly fun having the plasma rays shoot out of the screen and the ghosts screaming and flying at you. BUT great effects does not a good movie make.

Kristen Wiig was an engaging lead and played the uptight physics professor Erin well. BUT we had to listen to some humdrum spiel about her tenure and an old spat with McCarthy’s Abby before the gang united.

McCarthy channelled her inner Ackroyd and played a much more subdued role. A change BUT one that didn’t quite deliver on the laughs as much as I hoped. The rapport between her and Wiig was hit and miss. Funny in one exchange, drawn out the next.

I couldn’t believe the Twitter bashing Leslie Jones got. She was hilarious and probably the most memorable out of the gang for me; “That’s a room full of nightmares . . . Yep, I ain’t going in there”. McKinnon didn’t a bad job as the eccentric Jillian BUT she got on my nerves by the frantic finale.

Chris Hemsworth (Thor) stole the show as the dim-witted no glass glasses wearing receptionist. He came out with some random one liners and played an absolute pillock. It was even funny watching him evade Wiig’s advances.

BUT for every good scene or joke, there were a dozen duds. *POTENTIAL SPOILER* It was great having the old faces thrown into the mix. It was just a shame that Bill Murray and Dan Ackroyd had terrible and highly unfunny cameos.

BUT it was nice to see Hudson, Potts, Weaver and Slimer. Even if the green blob annoyed the hell out of me in the several minutes he featured. There was a nice nod to the late Harold Ramis.

The supporting cast were wasted. Andy Garcia (Oh how the mighty have fallen) was terrible as the Mayor. He may have had fun playing the role BUT I didn’t watching him.

Michael Kenneth (Omar from The Wire) Williams and Charles (Game of Thrones) Dance had such generic roles. Anyone could have played them. Cecily Strong was probably the only other supporting character that didn’t get on my nerves as the bitchy two faced Mayor’s aid.

Neil Casey (Saturday Night Live) was a terrible villain. The bullied polter-nerd was too weak and the silly plot about vortexes and bringing apocalypse to NYC just felt like a retread of the original with even sillier and weaker results. It irritated me even more knowing that Twyin Lannister was playing a school dean.

The plot was dull and the predictability of it all killed a good bit of the energy and when the flat lines didn’t deliver, the film went through the motions. Let’s be honest Ghostbusters 2 was no prized trophy. I mean, come on. We had a toaster dancing to Jackie Wilson and the Statue of Liberty . . . Yikes!

BUT it was always going to be a tough act to follow the original. The main cast were good and had a great dynamic. I just wish they had a better script. The pace may have dragged BUT for all my nitpicking, I had a lot more fun than I expected. I wasn’t bored and there were laughs to be had.

The frantic finale may have delivered a special effects shoot em up with the gang busting out some cool gadgets BUT it felt rushed and abrupt after all the build up. Shame.

All in all, a mixed bag. Take it for what it is. Great effects, silly gags, a talented gang did enough to keep things watchable. BUT if there is going to be another, I just hope they can get a better script and we’ll be in for a real treat.

2.5/5

THE GAMBLER REVIEW

The-Gambler-2014

The odds on me telling you to watch this pretentious yawnfest are virtually zilch.

Harsh? Maybe. But I have never been so bored and disappointed with a film in some time.

Mark Wahlberg and Rupert Wyatt take on the remake of the cult Caan crime caper and, to be honest, by the end I couldn’t help wondering why?

So what’s it all about? Lit professor and gambler Jim Bennett’s (Wahlberg) debt causes him to borrow money from his mother (Jessica Lange) and a loan shark (Michael Kenneth Williams).

Further complicating his situation is his relationship with one of his students (Brie Larson). Will Bennett risk his life for a second chance?

Now I will be honest. I haven’t seen the original. But I certainly want to now. Surely if the purpose of a remake is to be a re-imagining or an improvement on the original, than it must be terrible, right? Hmmm . . .

The opening 15-20 minutes was slow-burning but seemed to set everything in motion. The moments in which Wahlberg’s Bennett gambles is tense and utterly bonkers.

Showing how easy it is to fall into an addiction. The adrenaline rush. The complete disregard. Clocking up debts left, right and centre.

However these are only moments. In between these tense tidbits, we are left with uninteresting characters, a lot of mindless exposition and barely any action or suspense that the film seemed to promise.

Wahlberg certainly did his best but his character was such a deluded self-deprecating simpleton that there was only ever going to be two outcomes.

Two outcomes that were predictable and made the whole thing a waste of time.

Larson (21 Jump Street) and Wahlberg managed to convey a little chemistry but Bennett was such an egotistical and unlikeable character that you felt Larson’s Amy was getting what she deserved for being such a silly little girl.

Jessica Lange (American Horror Story) was good as Bennett’s mother but there wasn’t enough of her. Her fiery interactions with her son made things a little bit more interesting but were either skipped over so quickly or left open that it made it all rather flat.

It would have been nice to have had a little more insight into their fractious relationship. Not little arguments, pointless flashbacks and a strange opening scene with a cathartic cameo from George Kennedy.

What infuriated me was how many opportunities Bennett had to get out of his mess but continued to cause hassle, borrow money and gamble it away. I was thinking, “You’re getting what you deserve, mate”.

Wyatt certainly captures the gruelling stakes of gambling with a man so frustrated with life that he is on this nihilistic path BUT it could have been done a lot better and a good portion shorter.

The classroom scenes felt one big rant at life. Philosophical meanderings that I’m sure were supposed to come of clever and thought provoking just came off pretentious, overlong and pointless.

If it was supposed to show the yearning desire between Larson and Marky Mark, it didn’t. If it was supposed to reveal more of Bennett’s character, it did a little.

Only that he is a plonker.

A waste of a talented supporting cast. You had a menacing (but incredibly fat and bald) John Goodman and Michael Kenneth (Omar from The Wire/Chalky White from Boardwalk Empire) at the helm of two very angry looking gangs.

All that supposedly cryptic, suspenseful and threatening dialogue leading to . . .

More talking and more pointless meetings.

Don’t get me wrong, Williams and Goodman do their utmost to make as memorable a mark as they can with the material. Goodman was particularly impressive in the small part he had.

The last 20 minutes finally got things going. Wahlberg’s moronic wheeling and dealing with the loan sharks all building up to one final roll of the dice. It was tense and I thought, “Finally! Here we go!”

BUT alas, it was done all too quickly, predictably and the final moments were unbelievably corny.

To be honest, one revelation certainly made one of Wahlberg’s rants not complete jibberish.

Greig Fraser’s cinematography certainly made this droll affair look stylish. BUT I was disappointed by Wyatt after he successfully managed to rework a franchise that I didn’t want rebooting (Rise of The Planet of the Apes).

I wanted a broody, stylish cryptic crime caper with one man battling his addiction.

To an extent, you do. But it certainly isn’t what you want or hope for. I’d gamble my chip on something else.

I would recommend to people who are still interested; just watch the trailer. Two minutes tells you everything and it will save you two hours of pretentious, feeble waffle that amounts to nothing.

Unfortunately, Marky Mark I didn’t pick up any good vibrations this time around.

2 (just)/5