Ghostbusters online movie review - The real issue with the feminism of this film
The issue with this movie is not so much that it is trying to push some kind of political agenda (all though that is still problematic in and of itself.
Ghostbusters isn't about pushing anyone's politics. Go make your own feminist franchise if you care so much), but that there's NOTHING else going on with film except the feminist dogma. This movie is basically the feminist equivalent to Christian rock, or some piece of crap like God's Not Dead (for the record, there are great Christian films out there, such as anything by Bresson or Andrei Tarkovsky. I'm just mentioning those Christian products that have no value whatsoever besides the fact they are Christian). Can you social justice lunatics even comprehend why that is a problem? The only merit of the film is that it promotes the right agenda and ideology. That's it. Nobody in the production of this film cared one iota about the concept behind the setting or story. You could have had Adam Sandler make this pile of trash and it wouldn't have made any difference because this is a move meant for a religious cult, not anyone who actually enjoys films and cares about the art form.
Can feminism be done well in a movie? Can you push a political agenda into a film without necessarily interfering with the quality of the movie in question? Possibly, but that isn't the case here. If feminism truly had a profound meaning for you, you would abhor such a film as much as a true Christian would abhor some poorly written, sentimental garbage that yammers about Jesus and doesn't convey any of the deeper aspects of the religion. Instead, you want to stamp your feet down and defend the indefensible at all cost, because all that matters to you is unconditional subservience to the dogma. You don't want to convince others to your cause with solid arguments, extolling the merits of your ideology. You just want blind obedience. You want us to sing hollow praises to your Jesus and ignore the needs of our intelligence and our very souls.
To that i say: go screw yourselves, and take what's coming to you, because the more you push this crap, the more you are going to lose.
BTW, The irony is that the original wasn't exactly flattering to men, which actually wasn't atypical for 80s comedies.
Indeed, all of the main male characters in this film are basically losers. Venkman was a scammer and a con artist who could only attract women dumb enough to fall for his cheap tricks and phony flattery (and it is dubious whether he really scored all that much in the first place). Stantz was just some nerd with an obsession for the paranormal who probably didn't get laid a whole lot, if at all. Spengler was a completely dour brainiac who most likely had no conception or understanding of what a normal social life might have been like. As for Winston, he was just some dude who needed a job, and was down on his luck to the point he would have done anything to earn a steady paycheck.
And then of course we have Louis, starring Rick Moranis, the actor who played the butt of the joke in almost every film he's been in.
And who was the most flattering character in the movie? Dana, a beautiful woman who was a world class classical musician who lived in an expensive New York apartment and hanged around prestigious characters.
So why did we like any of those people? Because despite everything they were portrayed as normal human beings, who had many faults but also many good qualities. Even Venkman, the most unlikable of them all, showed us he wasn't such a bad person after all (I.E., when he refuses to take advantage of Dana), and you know that for the most part his attitude was just an act and that in truth he was just as vulnerable as the others. And that is precisely why you wanted to root for those characters. Because at heart they were good people who's quirks and oddities made them social outcasts but who ended up becoming unlikely heroes when the city came under a threat only they were equipped to deal with.
And so we come to this new version, which was made purely to satisfy feminist chauvinism and narcissism. There is no reason to feel any sympathy for any of those new characters, especially in the way they were presented in the trailer (when this sh*t storm started). Those women are cool, independent, strong, everything the original characters were not. Hell, in the original, Spengler's scientific brilliance was seen as an actual detriment to the character (big brainy nerd, what a loser). Here, we see Kristen Wiig flicking the guns and acting all cool in front of a board covered with equations. Why? Because she's a woman who can do quantum physics, isn't that COOL? Then, we have Kate McKinnon double wielding two proton guns (note: the original proton packs weren't guns, they were trapping devices), licking one like she's some kind of cool cowboy. Why? Because woman who can fight like a man, AWESOME (also, did i mention she's an incredible engineer?). Leslie Jones? Sassy black woman with tons of street smarts who probably needs no man ho hell no. And on and on like this.
And of course, all the male characters are either idiots or bastards. But here's the kicker, because the most likable character in the film happens to be... Chris Hemsworth. Why? Because he is actually the underdog you want to sympathize with. By making Kevin so dumb, they actually forced us to feel for him, undermining the misandrist motivation behind the character (lol men can be dumb secretaries too TAKE THAT). I just have no words.