Ghostbusters

John Chard

They came, they saw, they briefly conquered the 80s. A trio of misfit parapsychologists set up business as Ghostbusters. Ideal really because although slow at first, their business starts to boom as New York comes under threat from a supernatural force. Dan Aykroyd had this idea about space Ghostbusters in the future and the plan was to have himself and fellow Blues Brother, John Belushi, star in it. Pitching it to producer and director Ivan Reitman saw the basic concept retained but eventually it became what we now know as Ghostbusters. Co-written with Harold Ramis (also a co-star), Aykroyd's genesis turned not only into a "monster" smash hit at the box office, but also into a pop-cultural "phenomenon". In fact it actually is nice to re-visit the film these days without the public euphoria that swamped the movie for what seemed like a decade. T-shirts with the Ghostbusters logo on were everywhere, a telephone number if you rang it would have the Busters on answer phone, whilst the title song from Ray Parker Jr could be heard on the hour every hour on the radio. Even the catch phrase of "who ya gonna call?" was being used by the young, the old and the restless. Marketing genius or cynical tactics covering a sub-standard film? Well ultimately the film is really rather ace, it has some problems for sure (the effects were bad back then, never mind now and Ernie Hudson is a token addition to the team) but it's razor sharp with its wit and has a mass appeal to people of all ages. It's a basic odd ball's to the rescue plot, but the differing characterisations and comedy lift it considerably higher than similarly themed films that had come prior to it. That it boasts a bigger budget and Bill Murray of course helps the cause. Murray was brought in after Belushi had left the mortal coil, and promptly owns the film. His Dr. Venkman is a fusion of sarcasm, biting one liners and sees science as a way of getting girls. All of which blends mirthfully with the polar opposites that are Aykroyd's Stanz and Ramis' Spengler. Sigourney Weaver lights up the screen as the soon to be possessed, and chased by Venkmen, Dana Barrett and Rick Moranis does meek goof-ball supreme as Louis Tully. There's also value to be found in the script courtesy of some political nudging as the mayor is aware of vote power, while the human element badness and cynicism comes from William Atherton's (suitably weasel like) stiff suit Walter Peck. Given its success (it made a worldwide profit of almost $262 million) a sequel was inevitable. Amiable enough as it was, it was a pale shadow of the first film and even recycled the ending. So stick with this bad boy then, a fun film for all that serves as a reminder of when the world went Ghostbusters barmy. 8/10

It was luck that I had this film and the sequel on my NowTV. I watched this in the afternoon and it brings me back fond memories. Not too scary but suitable for the spooky month. Who ya gonna call?!

GenerationofSwine

Like my review of Footloose, this is a classic, everyone has seen it, everyone loves it. It's one of those movies that came from your childhood and lasts well into the adult manboy years. So, we're going to do a comparison with the remake. For starters..the Ghostbusters plays it straight. The comedy is presented like a drama and that is usually the absolute best way to do comedy...straight. And conversely the remake is just sort of over the top. And when comedies try that hard to be comedies, they stop being funny. Another part would be scene length. And again, playing it straight, the opening of 1984 is short and honestly kind of scary... ...when the remake drags on and deals with characters that honestly have nothing else to do with the film but introduce it. You lose interest sort of fast. And this can be seen again with the humor. The introduction of the car in the remake is prime example. Pulls up with a hearse, someone makes a joke about checking to see if there is a body in there.... ...the scene SHOULD stop when they look at the hearse and cut away to a different scene. But the remake drags on and the joke loses momentum and falls flat when it COULD have been an easy laugh. Conversely in 1984 you have jokes like the Twinkie that ends with "tell him about the Twinkie" and it is funny because it doesn't drag on in an effort to be funny. The same can be said about testing the proton packs, the joke ends fast enough for it to actually be funny. And then there is the script and direction, the 1984 version stuck to it and made sure everything was tight, even when it was improvised, it wasn't allowed to get out of control. But the remake the actors took control and the improvisation went on too long, even with scenes being cut. So what you have is a tight and fast film that is a comedy played straight like it should be...and one that everyone knows and loves because of it.

Probably since my childhood days I was fond of this movie, but now it is not impressive anymore. However, the music and sound clips were impressive