That’s a big twinkie.
It’s funny to think that once upon a time, Saturday Night
Live and it’s alumni were big enough to create such classic extravaganzas as
Blues Brothers, Animal House, and a certain little scifi-horror-comedy that
premiered thirty-five years ago in 1984. Dan Aykroyd, having had so much fun with
literal cinematic pile-ups in the former film, teamed up with Harold Ramis and
Ivan Reitman to go even nuttier with alternate dimensions, proton packs, and
marshmellow people. It was one of a kind, it was out there, it was a huge hit,
it was Ghostbusters.
The first question is—does it hold up? I can say, for the
majority of the time, oh yes it does. And there’s no childhood nostalgia
talking here—I didn’t really grow up with the original film; perhaps I saw
chunks of it here and there, but it certainly wasn’t part of my formative
years. I did see Ghostbusters 2 one time as a young ‘un, and was freaked out by
it, but we’ll get to that one. No, I sat down to watch the original in full
about a decade ago, and was impressed that, hairstyles and some composite
effects aside, it’s still an amusing, fun little flick.
It really was a case of all the right people being there at
the right time. Our favorite Conehead, Aykroyd, is, erm, a bit of an eccentric (even by Canadian standards,
don’t you know), and actually believes in all the gobbledegook about ectoplasm
and psycho-kinetic energy, and whatever terminology oddballs mashed together from old
episodes of Star Trek. This was balanced out by the dry wittiness of Ramis, the
improv talents of Bill Murray, and some genuinely funky effects work that the
studio took some real gambles on. There was heart, there were brains, and there
was some dude from Caddyshack.
 |
| It's an...interesting thing to work alongside this one fellow from Ontario. |
To the film itself—there’s not much new to say, but for
myself, it’s all the little things that make it stand out. The tone is very
deadpan—just the way I like it, and there’s so many memorable asides people can
and have made entire T-shirt industries from them. It remembers to make room
for some genuine character moments, like Aykroyd and Ernie Hudson talking over
the religious implications of everything happening in a fairly serious scene.
And then there’s the most underrated actor in the whole thing—the loveable Dark
Helmet himself, Rick Moranis. It’s hard to describe, but he always stood out
the most for me—the absurd details of the bizarre parties his character Loius
throws always cracked me up, and that’s before he gets possessed as the
dorkiest demonic entity ever.
 |
| After doing lots of meth and watching conspiracy talk radio, you too can look like this. |
People love to praise Murray, and he’s definitely on point
here, but his Venkman wasn’t really my favorite character—Ramis’ own Egon always
felt just a little more memorable. Some of Venkman’s character traits are also
fairly eighties-rooted in his lecherousness, which is an aspect that’s aged a
little, but next to other comedy protagonists of the era (like say, the nerds
of Revenge of the Nerds), he’s positively saintly by refusing to take advantage
of a possessed Sigourney Weaver.
That’s the film itself, and why it still holds up—but we
also have to talk about its legacy, and the followup, turning thirty this year.
Deluges of dollars followed in its spectral wake, leading to an onslaught of
merchandise, extremely shoddy videogames, a fondly remembered animated series
that lead to its own tsunami of toys, and everything else the coke-fuelled
marketing mayhem of the Reagan years could offer. Columbia Pictures inevitably wanted
another film, and had to press the trio that birthed the first one somewhat.
Already, some of the energy and spark from the first had been sapped, so in
1989, the reception was…mixed at best.
Like I said, Ghosbusters 2 was the one I watched, probably
on VHS, when I was young, and I have to admit, a fair amount of it stuck with
me. There’s a bizarre but somewhat creepy scene where the secondary bad guy,
Janosz (played by Peter MacNicol) steals a baby while somehow turned into a
ghostly maid, of all things. And then there’s an effect where the main villain
himself, Vigo, slowly protrudes his face out of the painting that holds him, which
also doesn’t really serve much purpose, but it certainly spooked me. In terms
of effects, Ghostbusters 2 is definitely memorable, and the finale, which
involves the Statue of Liberty being animated, is also a triumph of this—and,
I’ll admit, kinda awesome.
The writing is…a step down. It’s watchable, it has its
moments and chuckles—Murray is the master of deadpan delivery as always—but the
dialogue isn’t nearly as memorable as the first. There’s some slightly boring
parts with Sigourney’s baby, which feels more like some sort of marketing move,
and there’s recycled elements like the snooty government official wanting to
shut the Ghostbusters down for poorly explained reasons. Nevertheless, I won’t
say there aren’t highlights—Moranis, once again, proves a favorite of mine, and
the climax, while really silly even by the standards of this sort of film,
still gives me a smile.
All in all, Ghostbusters 2, despite essentially being a
cash-in, isn’t as bad as some make it out to be, although it’s certainly
nothing great. Not a classic, but fine enough to watch on a rainy day. I can
think of plenty worse and dumber eighties sequels—do you remember Grease 2? Do
you want to remember Star Trek 5,
also in 1989, which I’ll get to? No, you don’t.
Ghostbusters mania declined into the nineties, although I
certainly remember the merch still being present around them. There was another
animated series, which while decently received by fans, didn’t really make much
splash in the public mind. Beyond that, things remained dormant, as Aykroyd
tried to get a third movie going over the years, with Murray, apparently fed up
with it all, steadfastly refusing.
Nevertheless, we did get a big-budget videogame in 2009 for
the franchise’s 25th, reuniting all of the old cast. The storyline was
mostly a ‘best hits’ nostalgia-fest, but had some standout elements of its own,
like far more emphasis on weird alternate dimensions. Considering Ramis’ tragic
and untimely death five years later, many consider this the only true third
part we’ll get.
Sony Pictures, not long after, decided they wanted to do a
reboot. Yes, I guess there’s no point dancing around, we have to touch on the
2016 film, with a brand-new female cast. I wasn’t against the concept when I
heard it announced; it wasn’t what I was expecting, but in many cases, that’s
fine by me. Then the first trailer hit. At best,
it looked like another dumb contemporary comedy that happened to be
Ghostbusters-themed. I had seen some of the casts’ SNL work, like Melissa
McCarthy, and didn’t dislike them there, but having got a good look at the
film…sorry, it didn’t work for me.
I got some awkward chuckles from things like an awful remix
of the classic theme and some of the utterly bizarre moments the film throws at
us (like a riff on Saturday Night Fever, for…reasons?), but none of those
subtle deadpan moments from the first were there, and the climax was yet
another nonsensical CGI-fest. The dialogue was mostly improv as modern US
comedy flicks tend to be, which isn’t often to my taste, and it didn’t gel with
the high-concept feel of it all. In fairness, I didn’t mind Kate McKinnon’s
character, and while Chris Hemsworth was basically playing the male equivalent
to a dumb bimbo for most of it, I admit seeing his possessed self smarm it up was
amusing. Otherwise, the film mostly felt either too on the nose or too awkward
in my tastes.
All that being said, however, none of that justified some of
the crap the actresses got online when talk around the film inevitably got
sour, and that’s all I’ll say about that. Otherwise, I feel that in retrospect,
one way to do an all-female reboot while connecting it to the originals would
be to focus on Sigourney’s character creating her own team—she almost joined
the main one in Ghostbusters 2. It’s Ripley as a Ghostbuster, who’d not rush out to see that?
 |
| "I say we take off and bust the whole site from orbit." |
And now, a little over thirty years from the second film, we
are indeed getting a third instalment, old cast back and everything. My feeling
to that? Ehhhhhhhhh. With Ramis gone, it won’t be the same, and I feel he was
the one balancing out Aykroyd’s octopus brain crazy tendencies. I’ll give it a
chance, but even if it’s a decent film on it’s own, it simply won’t recapture
the spark of the original. As I said, it was a case of the right people, at the
right time, and no nostalgia-chasing executive can bring that back.
Overall, despite the ups and downs everything since has taken,
the original Ghostbusters remains a classic and deservedly so. The second…less
so, but you can do worse things than check it out. Some of the ancillary
material is actually work checking out, like the 2009 game, or the more recent
comics that do their medium credit by taking things in ever crazier directions.
Grab a twinkie, and if you haven’t watched the first one lately, well, you know who to call.
Comments
Post a Comment